F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2020-2021) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 10 December 2020

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 December 2020,

regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player A

COMPOSITION:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Angela Collins (Australia), member

Abu Nayeem Shohag (Bangladesh), member

CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT 1:

A

Represented by Mr.

RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:

B

Represented by Mr.

COUNTER-RESPONDENT 2:

C

I. FACTS OF THE CASE

1. On 19 February 2019, the Country A player, A (hereinafter: the player) and the Country B club, B (hereinafter: the club) signed an employment contract, valid as from 1 February 2019 until 31 December 2021 (hereinafter: the contract). On the same date, the parties also signed a supplementary agreement (hereinafter: supplementary agreement).

2. Clause 3.3 of the contract stated as follows:

“[The club] shall have the right to adjust [the player’s] work position between the first team and the reserve team according to its need and [the player’s] ability, performance and status. If [the player] is adjusted to the reserve team, the salary will be switched to the standard of the reserve team”.

3. According to the contract, the player was entitled to the following monthly remuneration:

a. From February to December 2019: xxx 82,100 “pre-tax”, described under the contract as “approximately equal to” USD 9,090;

b. From February to December 2020: xxx 123,000 “pre-tax”, described under the contract as “approximately equal to” USD 12,500 USD;

c. From February to December 2021: xxx 175,000 “pre-tax”, described under the contract as “approximately equal to” USD 16,606 USD.

4. According to the contract, the player was also entitled to the following bonuses:

a. xxx 20,400 “pre-tax” per win;

b. xxx 5,440 “pre-tax” per draw.

5. According to the supplementary agreement, the player was entitled to a “housing subsidy” of USD 37,500 “after tax” for the year 2019 and USD 50,000 “from 2020 to 2021”.

6. The contract further established the following (quoted verbatim):

“In case that [the club] cancels the [contract] as [the club’s] breach of the contract or agrees an invalid contract with [the player] due to [the club’s] mistake, [the club] shall compensate [the player] for economic loss incurred to [the player], based on damage (…)” (…)

“In case that [the player] cancels the [contract] without justified reason, according to relate rules and regulations of FIFA, [the club] shall compensate [the player] for damage incurred to [the club]. The compensation to damage is calculated as the amount of EURO 5,000,000 (five million EURO). The club engaging [the club] shall also be liable for compensation. [The club] has right to request for additional punishment given by FA of Country B or FIFA Disciplinary Committee due to [the player’s] breach of the [contract]”.

7. On 23 September 2019, the player put the club in default, regarding the payment of USD 23,800 for overdue salaries of July 2019, August 2019 and overdue bonuses, setting a deadline of 15 days for the Club to comply with its financial obligations, to no avail.

8. On 10 October 2019, the player terminated the contract and requested the overdue salaries indicated in his default letter plus his salary for September 2019, in a total of USD 31,070, and a compensation for breach of contract (i.e. USD 352,270) to be paid by 26 October 2019.

9. On 15 October 2019, the parties tried to reach an amicable solution, to no avail.

10. On 21 October 2019, the player received a notice from the club, according to which he “has not participated in training according to the team’s training plan since September 10, 2019, and he actively requested to give up participation in the visiting team competition on September 21, which has seriously violated the club’s management regulations.”

11. On 24 October 2019, the player acknowledged the payment of USD 4,250 “without specifying the purpose”.

12. On 1 February 2020 the player and the Country C club, C (hereinafter: C), signed an employment contract valid as from the same date until 31 December 2021, with an extension option for an additional year. Under such employment agreement the player is entitled to a salary of USD 7,500 net per month.

13. On 21 February 2020, the FA of Country C asked for the player’s ITC, which was then rejected by the FA of Country B.

14. On 5 March 2020, the Single Judge of the players’ Status Committee authorized the player’s provisional registration with C.

15. On 1 September 2020, C and the player signed a termination agreement, thereby terminating their contract.

16. On 9 October 2020, the player and the Country D club, D, signed an employment agreement valid as from the same date until 30 June 2022.

17. According to the contract with D, the player is inter alia entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 7,000 net.

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA

18. On 5 November 2019, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.

a. The claim of the player

19. The player maintained that the club “failed to honor his contractual obligations starting from summer 2019”. Firstly, by paying only half of the performance bonuses for two matches in May and as from July 2019 by not paying the monthly salaries. Moreover, the player stated that he was excluded from the first team and “about in the middle of August 2019” the new team manager informed him that “the President of the club insisted on the player training only with the reserve team or on his own in the gym.” According to the player, he also played a match for the reserve team on 1 September 2019.

20. The player explained that on 12 September 2019, he suffered an injury, however, despite its obligation, “the club did not provide him with medical assistance.” After his recovery, the player claimed he was continuously not being admitted to training.

21. The player is seeking his outstanding remuneration as well as compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interest, as he deems he had just cause to terminate the contract in accordance with art. 14bis and 14 (2) of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: RSTP). In this respect, the player highlighted that by the time he terminated the contract three salaries as well as “two half bonuses” were outstanding, and that he correctly put the club in default.

22. The player moreover and on a subsidiary basis argued that “the termination is also based on Art. 14.2 FIFA RSTP and clause 9.4 (1) according to which the player may also terminate the contract for just cause if the training and the competition conditions are not provided a stipulated in the contract”. The player explained that “Not allowing a player to the first team´s training (which he has always been a part of!) and later on not even to any team training at all – guided by the non-payment of his salaries – is a case that clearly and typically falls under the scope of Art. 14.2 FIFA RSTP, on which the termination for just cause is subsidiary based”.

23. The amounts sought by the player are as follows:

a. Outstanding remuneration: “Salaries for July, August and September 2019 of USD 9.090,- each = USD 27.270,- plus half of the winning bonus for the matches on May 18 and May 25, 2019 of USD 3.000,- = USD 30.270,-, less USD 4.250,- received on October 25, 2019 = USD 26.020,-. Default interest of this amount is due – at the latest – after expiry of the deadline given in the termination letter dated October 10, 2019”.

b. Compensation for breach of contract: “the remaining salary in the year 2019 (to be accumulated for the months October, November and December) was 3 x USD 9.090,- i. e. USD 27.270,-. According to clause 5.2, the salary from January 1, 2020 until December 31, 2020 was USD 150.000,-, the salary from January 1, 2021 until December 31, 2021 was USD 200.000,-, with the effect, that the total – basic – salary due to the player until December 31, 2021 (and left apart the option laid down for the club in clause 2.2) amounts to USD 377.270,-. This amount has to be raised by the – monetarized – benefit in kind according to the supplementary Agreement (Exhibit 3), whose value was explicitly fixed at USD 50.000,- each for the years 2020 and 2021. Accordingly, the total compensation due to the player is USD 477.270,- (plus the overdue salaries of USD 26.020,-)”.

24. The requests of relief of the player were as follows:

“1. B is ordered to pay overdue salaries of USD 26.020,- net plus 5% interest thereof as of October 27, 2019.

2. B is ordered to pay a termination compensation of USD 483.340,- net to the player.

3. A transfer ban for two consecutive transfer periods is imposed on B in accordance with Art. 17.4 RSTP.

4. The decision shall be executed in accordance with Art. 24 bis FIFA RSTP and shall already include a decision about the consequences of the clubs failure to pay the amounts according to request for relief no. 1 and 2.”

b. Reply and counterclaim of the club

25. In reply to the claim of the player, the club lodged a counterclaim. The club argued that the player terminated the contract without just cause. Moreover, the club held that due to the taxation system in Country B which “is levied at a progressive rate”, “for 2019 season the net payment that the player should receive each month would be USD 6,977.55”. The club did not file any evidence in support of this allegation.

26. According to the club, at the date of termination the salary of September 2019 was not due since salaries should be paid on the 15th of the following month.

27. The club further held that as to the bonuses, the player did not participate to the entirety of the two matches and as such should only received part of the bonus.

28. The club considered that salaries and bonus combined, the player should have received USD 54,727.73 but that he received more in the amount of USD 62,917.71 as the player had requested advance payments and that following the termination it paid xxx 30,000 to the player. In this regard, the club provided multiple alleged bank account transcripts, as well as two alleged deposits and an acknowledgement of receipt allegedly signed by the player.

29. The club further alleged that the player performed illegal activities, by hiring a prostitute, impregnating her, and then being blackmailed by said prostitute, which allegedly disturbed his performance on the pitch. On this issue, the club provided a “letter of apology” allegedly signed by the player dated 8 June 2019.

30. The requests of relief of the club were as follows:

“1. The Player is to be found to unlawfully breach the sport employment contract with the Club;

2. The Player is ordered to pay not only a compensation to the Club in the amount of € 5.000.000,00 (five million euros) but also all the legal costs incurred with the lawyer expenses and fees as well as any cost related to the present procedure;

3. Sporting sanctions shall be imposed on the Player for the unlawful breach of contract within the protected period ( Art. 17 n.º3 of the FIFA Regulations);

4. Sporting sanctions and solidarity responsibility shall be imposed on any Club that hi res the Player following the unlawful breach of contract ( Art. 17 n.º4 of the FIFA RSTP);

5. The decision shall be executed in accordance with Art. 24 bis FIFA RSTP and shall already include a decision about the consequence of the Player failure to pay the amount according to the request of relief no 2.

6. The Club shall deemed to be not responsible for the breach and the decision shall settle on a final basis that the Club acted accordingly to the contract and complied with all its duties towards the Player during its term, and therefore, all the accusations made by the

c. Reply to the counterclaim by the player

31. In reply to the counterclaim of the club, the player held that the contract was largely in favour of the club as it allowed the club to send the player to the reserve team and to switch his salary to the one of the reserve team. The player stressed that the provisions on the contract are unilateral and to the favour of the club only.

32. The player then turned to the issue of payments made and argued that the club’s argumentation cannot be upheld on account of the fact that except for an advance payment on March 2019, when the player did not have a bank account open in Country B, he never requested not received any other advance payments.

33. The player further stated that “The payments that have been recognized by the player – that by the way have been admitted already in the claim where it was stated that the club only failed to pay the basic salaries starting from July 2019 – refer to the months of February until May 2019. In that regard, it is obviously impossible, if the club submits to have made monthly payments of USD 8.872,94, whereas the clubs states now that the monthly net amount due to the player was supposed to be only USD 6.977,55. Nobody believes that a club – even more for several months – makes overpayments without being obliged to pay the respective amounts!”.

34. The player also disputed the club’s interpretation that the housing allowance was payable in the end of the contract. Equally, the player disputed having signed the bank receipt provided by the club and dated 30 September 2019.

35. The player further elaborated on the amounts due to him as bonuses

36. As to the letter of apology, the player argued that said letter was forged and that it did not correspond to the facts that took place. The player denies its contents and presents a different version of the story referring to a Country B girlfriend that after a break-up started to threaten him. He further claimed that the club attempted to put him under a “bad light”.

The player moreover argued that the letter was drafted in perfect English which does not match the player’s mother tongue, Country A, as he cannot fully speak the former.

37. The player also argued that the amount of EUR 5,000,000 sought by the club as per the contract is disproportionate and excessive.

38. Lastly, the player summarized his position by stating as follows: “The player, after being replaced by another foreign striker, even though he was the best striker of the team so far, was sent to the B-team, did not receive medical care, nor transportation and had not been paid anymore. Only after the player used legal assistance and confirmed that he is not prepared to withdraw his – justified – termination, the club started turning around things and tries now to establish a counter position, unfortunately even by using fake evidences such as Exhibit 8 and 11”.

39. The player partially amended his requests for relief as follows: “B is order to pay overdue salaries of USD 57.846,26 net plus 5% interest Thereof as of October 27, 2019”.

d. Position of C

40. C started by recalling the player’s provisional registration, and argued that due to the contract’s termination the dispute only concerns the player and the club. It further highlighted that the latter failed to honour its main obligation as an employer. C requested that the counterclaim be dismissed and that it was not found responsible for the termination of the contract. Consequently, C sought that no sanctions were imposed on it.

e. Final comments by the club

41. The club argued that the player changed his narrative during the proceedings.

42. The club further and in any event outlined that under the contract the player was entitled to USD 6,977.55 net per month, conversely to the USD 9,090 the player “assumed” he was entitled to. The club went on to state that the player was overpaid, and that the in the player’s claim the latter accepts to have received “since 1st February until the date of breach no less than USD 45.450,00”.

43. In continuation, the club referred to the new contract executed between the player and C and argued that the player is not entitled to any compensation should the DRC find that the contractual termination took place with just cause by the player.

44. The club reiterated its request for relief.

III. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER

a. Competence and applicable legal framework

45. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 5 November 2019 and submitted for decision on 10 December 2020. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the June 2020 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.

46. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. a) and b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition October 2020), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Country A player, a Country B club, and a Country C club.

47. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (edition October 2020), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 5 November 2019, the October 2019 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

b. Burden of proof

48. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the DRC stressed the wording of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider evidence not filed by the parties.

49. In this respect, the Chamber also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in TMS.

c. Merits of the dispute

50. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the DRC started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However, the DRC emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

i. Main legal discussion and considerations

51. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute whether the player terminated the contract without just cause or not.

52. Consequently, in order to determine whether the player had just cause to terminate the contract, the DRC noted that it must first examine if the club had indeed paid the player as alleged, and giving consideration to documents filed by the club in this respect.

53. Before addressing such issue, the DRC found it important to highlight that the matter concerning the player’s intimate life has no implication on the dispute at hand, since the facts referring thereto allegedly took place before the period of salaries the player is requesting, i.e. June versus July onwards.

54. Accordingly, and turning to the documentation of file, the DRC concluded that the evidence presented by the club is not enough to discharge the club’s burden of proof and hence determine that it had paid the player’s salary, due to the reasons detailed in continuation.

55. Firstly, the DRC noted that the documentation provided comprising of a supposed banking list naming several players. Such list is not fully translated to one of the four official FIFA languages. Equally, the transactions therein listed are not detailed, nor carry any sort of explanation as to what they refer to.

56. Secondly, the document filed by the club under Exhibit 7 is also a list that bears incomplete dates, and is equally not fully translated to English, Spanish, German, or French.

57. Thirdly, part of the documentation filed is merely stamped, and one cannot properly identify by whom and why such documents were stamped. In this respect, aside from only three documents that carry the logo of the Country B bank –which are in any event only partially translated and have no further detail of what they represent – no other document filed by the club has a bank logo or any other indication that could denote it to be an official banking document.

58. Fourthly, as to the receipts filed by the club (both the original documents and their corresponding PDFs) allegedly signed by the player, the DRC found that the signature contained therein does not seem to match the player’s signature found in the contract and in the power of attorney provided with his statement of claim.

59. Fifthly, the additional documentation, in particular the document filed under Exhibit 16 by the club with its final comments, is also not fully translated to one of the official FIFA languages.

60. The DRC highlighted that the club was properly instructed in its invitation to provide FIFA with his comments on the player’s claim that the documentation should be filed together with a corresponding translation to English, Spanish, German, or French in accordance with the Procedural Rules.

61. Consequently, the DRC concluded on the grounds of art. 9 and 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules that the club failed to meet its burden of proof and thus could not establish that it had paid any amounts to the player. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the player terminated the contract with just cause on the grounds of art. 14bis of the Regulations. The club is therefore responsible for the consequences that follow.

ii. Consequences

62. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the club.

63. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination, coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to three months of remuneration under the contract and the supplementary agreement, i.e. July to September 2019.

64. At this point, the DRC deemed it important to underline that although the player’s remuneration was foreseen in the contract in Country B currency (xxx), such remuneration also had a reference in US Dollars (USD). Accordingly, the DRC decided to grant the amounts sought in the latter currency in accordance with the original wording of the contract and the supplementary agreement. The amounts shall be awarded gross for the salary and net for the housing allowance, as originally agreed in the respective contracts, since neither party has filed any evidence regarding the proper tax calculation.

65. The DRC observed that the player acknowledged receipt of USD 4,250 from the club. Accordingly, the player’s outstanding remuneration is the following:

a. USD 30,270 gross as salaries from July to September 2019, i.e. USD 9,090 each;

b. USD 5,295.43 net as housing allowances from July to September 2019, i.e. 3,181.81 each minus USD 4,250 paid by the club.

66. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay to the player the amounts which were outstanding under the contract and supplementary agreement at the moment of the termination, i.e. USD 30,270 gross and USD 5,295.43 net.

67. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s specific request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 27 October 2019 until the date of effective payment.

68. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.

69. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.

70. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.

71. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract and supplementary agreement until their term. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 109,545.43 net (i.e. housing allowances from October 2019 until the end of season 2021) plus USD 377,270 (i.e. salaries from October 2019 until the end of season 2021) serve as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.

72. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.

73. Indeed, the player found employment with C and D. In accordance with the pertinent employment contracts, the player was entitled to approximately USD 176,000. This amount corresponds to (a) 7 months (i.e. February to August 2020) of salaries with C à USD 7,500 each, arriving at USD 52,500, plus (b) 15 months of salaries (i.e. October 2020 to December 2021) at D à EUR 7,000 each, arriving at EUR 105,000, which is approximately USD 123,500. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the total amount of USD 176,000.

74. Subsequently, the Chamber turned its attention to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which a player is entitled to an additional compensation of three monthly salaries, subject to the early termination of the contract being due to overdue payables. In case of egregious circumstances, the additional compensation may be increased up to a maximum of six monthly salaries, whereby the overall compensation may never exceed the rest value of the prematurely terminated contract.

75. With the above in mind, the Chamber recalled that from content of the parties’ submissions, it stood undisputed that the player was put in strained conditions by the club in respect of his training schedule, and more in particular being excluded with practicing with his teammates. To this end, it seemed to the DRC that the put forward by the player remained uncontested.

76. In this context, the Chamber wished to recall that the club was given the opportunity to defend itself from the allegations of the player and that it would seem it just decided not do so.

77. In view of the foregoing, and on the basis of the information on file, the Chamber deemed that the threshold of egregious circumstances is met in the matter at hand and therefore decided to award the player additional compensation corresponding to four monthly salaries, i.e. USD 36,360 gross and USD 12,727.24 net, in accordance with the above-mentioned provision.

78. Consequently, in order to arrive at the final compensation due to the player, the Chamber proceeded to deduct from the net amounts of the residual value of the contract and additional compensation the mitigation described below. The DRC emphasized that this approach was necessary in the case at hand since neither of the parties filed evidence regarding tax implications.

79. Accordingly, the net residual value of the contract (i.e. USD 109,545.43) plus the net additional compensation (i.e. USD 12,727.24) totals USD 122,272.67. From this amount, the DRC deducted exactly USD 122,272.67 (of a total USD 176,000 corresponding to the mitigation), arriving at a total of 0 (nil) as net compensation for breach of contract.

80. The Chamber turned then to the gross residual value of the contract and gross additional compensation. The gross residual value of the contract (i.e. 377,270) plus the gross additional compensation (i.e. USD 36,360) totals USD 413,630. From this amount, the DRC deducted USD 53,727.33 (the remaining part of the mitigation of USD 176,000), arriving at a total of USD 359,902.67 as gross compensation for breach of contract.

81. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of USD 359,902.67 to the player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.

iii. Compliance with monetary decisions

82. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.

83. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.

84. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the club does not pay the amounts due to the player within 45 days as from the moment in which the player communicates the relevant bank details to the club, provided that the decision is final and binding, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the club in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

85. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned bans will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.

d. Costs

86. The Chamber referred to article 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “DRC proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in relation to the maintenance of contractual stability as well as international employment related disputes between a club and a player are free of charge”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed on the parties.

87. Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in these proceedings.

88. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any of the parties, and confirming that the player’s claim is partially accepted and the club’s counterclaim is rejected.

IV. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER

1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, A, is partially accepted.

2. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, B, is rejected.

3. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the CLAIMANT/Counter-Respondent 1 the following amounts:

- USD 30,270 gross as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27 October 2019 until the date of effective payment;

- USD 5,295 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27 October 2019 until the date of effective payment;

- USD 359,902 gross as compensation for breach of contract without just cause.

4. Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 are rejected.

5. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent/Counter-Claimant of the relevant bank account to which the latter must pay the due amount.

6. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with this decision to psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).

7. In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 of the relevant bank details to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the following consequences shall arise:

1.

The Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods. The aforementioned ban mentioned will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.

(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of players).

2.

In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.

8. The decision is rendered free of costs.

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer

NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:

According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.

NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:

FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 20 of the Procedural Rules).

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Fédération Internationale de Football Association

FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland

www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777