F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 11 June 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Santiago Nebot (Spain), member Zola Majavu (South Africa), member Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, country B, as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D, as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) - controversie di lavoro – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 11 June 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Santiago Nebot (Spain), member Zola Majavu (South Africa), member Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, country B, as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D, as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 18 July 2013, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from 1 June 2013 until 31 May 2015. 2. According to the “football player’s contract schedule”, the Respondent undertook to provide the Claimant, inter alia, with: - EUR 2,400,000 for the first season, payable as follows: i. EUR 480,000 in July 2013; ii. EUR 480,000 in January 2014; iii. EUR 1,440,000 as salary, payable in 12 equal monthly instalments of EUR 120,000, as from 1 June 2013 to 31 May 2014; - EUR 1,400,000 for the second season, payable as follows: i. EUR 300,000 in September 2014; ii. EUR 300,000 in January 2015; iii. EUR 320,000 in May 2015; iv. EUR 480,000 as salary, payable in 12 equal monthly instalments of EUR 40,000, as from 1 June 2014 to 31 May 2015; - a house; - a car; - 2 business class air tickets per season (country B-country D-country B), for the Claimant, his wife and 2 children. 3. In addition, art. 10.2 of the contract stipulates that “Club X [the Respondent] and the player shall be entitled to terminate this contract, before its expiring term, by fifteen (15) days’ notice in writing for just cause according with the FIFA Regulations governing this matter as well as the Law of the State of country D”. 4. Furthermore, art. 10.3 of the contact establishes that “When the termination of the contract is not due to a just cause or a mutual agreement between the parties concerned, the Club X or the player shall be entitled to receive from the other party in breach of the contract a compensation for a net amount of: - To the Club X: Club C the total amount of the contract; - To the player: Player A, remaining salaries of the same season”. 5. On 19 June 2014, the Claimant put the Respondent in default for the non-payment of his remuneration due until 31 May 2014, in the total amount of EUR 1,820,000, corresponding to: a) EUR 260,000 as part of the instalment of July 2013, b) EUR 1,080,000 as monthly salaries due from 1 September 2013 until 31 May 2014 (9 months x EUR 120,000) and c) EUR 480,000 as the instalment due in January 2014. In his default notice, the Claimant requested the Respondent to pay the aforementioned outstanding amounts before 28 June 2014: “If on that date the whole of the remaining amount owed is not paid, I would have no choice but to duly note of this situation, constituent of a breach of my contact. […] Consequently, the contract between us will be broken unilaterally under your own fact. […]”. 6. Having allegedly received no answer or payment from the Respondent, the Claimant considered the contract as terminated with just cause on 3 July 2014, based on art. 10.2 of the contract. 7. On 14 July 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent requesting the payment of the total amount of EUR 3,285,000, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 19 June 2014, broken down as follows: - EUR 1,883,870.98 as outstanding remuneration for the period of “1 October 2013” until 3 June 2014, corresponding to: i. EUR 260,000 as part of the instalment of July 2013; ii. EUR 480,000 as the instalment of January 2014; iii. EUR 1,080,000 as outstanding salaries from 1 September 2013 until 31 May 2014 (9 x EUR 120,000); iv. EUR 40,000 as outstanding salary of June 2014; v. EUR 3,870.98 as pro rata outstanding salary for the period of 1 to 3 July 2014 (i.e. EUR 40,000 / 31 days x 3 days); vi. EUR 20,000 as 4 business class flight tickets each for 2 persons; - EUR 1,376,129.02 as compensation for breach of contract, based on art. 10.3 of the contract (cf. point I.4. above), corresponding to the Claimant’s remuneration from 4 July 2014 until 31 May 2015 (i.e. EUR 36,129.02 as pro rata salary for July 2014 + EUR 400,000 as salaries from August 2014 to May 2015 + EUR 300,000 as the instalment of September 2014 + EUR 300,000 as the instalment of January 2015 + EUR 320,000 as the instalment of May 2015 + EUR 20,000 as air tickets); - EUR 20,000 as compensation for moral and professional damage; - EUR 5,000 as attorney costs incurred by the Claimant. 8. In his claim, the Claimant explains that he only received from the Respondent part of his instalment for July 2013 and the salaries of June to August 2013, in the total amount of EUR 580,000. In spite of the Claimant’s reminder of 19 June 2014, no amounts were paid by the Respondent and he considered the contract terminated on 3 July 2014 (cf. points I.5. and I.6. above). 9. In its reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent admits having delayed on several occasions the payment of the Claimant’s remuneration, but claims that the postponement of such payments was constantly discussed and agreed with him. Even though no written documentation in this regard is available, the Respondent claims that an indication of the Claimant’s acceptance of these delays is that he only put the Respondent in default on 19 June 2014 (cf. point I.5. above). 10. The Respondent further states that, after receiving the Claimant’s reminder, it paid him his salaries of October and November 2013, in the total amount of EUR 240,000, on 26 June 2014, which the Claimant did not mention in his claim. In this respect, a transfer order issued by the Respondent to the National Bank of country D, dated 26 June 2014, in the amount of EUR 240,000 on behalf of the Claimant, as well as a bank statement of the Respondent, displaying the transfer of the amount of 1,203,096 to the Claimant, approx. EUR 242,871, as “salaries of Oct and Nov 2013”, on 26 June 2014, were provided by the Respondent. 11. The Respondent further points out that, in violation of art. 10.2 of the contract (cf. point I.3. above), the Claimant only gave it 9 days, instead of 15, to pay its arrears – the warning of 19 June 2014 stipulated 28 June 2014 as deadline for payment (cf. point I.5. above). Furthermore, the Respondent deems that, from the wording of the Claimant’s warning, the correct date of termination should be 28 June 2014 and not 3 July 2014, as he claims. 12. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Respondent claims that the amount of compensation due to the Claimant by the Respondent should be calculated in accordance with art. 10.3 of the contract (cf. point I.4. above). The Claimant, however, wrongly calculated such amount based on the first bullet point of such article, instead of the second. In this context, the Respondent deems that he would be entitled to receive his “remaining salaries of the same season”, which is the 2013/2014 season, in accordance with the documentation provided by the Respondent in this regard. The Respondent provided an extract of the Competition Regulations of the Stars League of country D defining “sports season” and a match calendar of the Stars League of country D, indicating that the season 2014/2015 only started on 21 August 2014. According to the Respondent, the residual value of the 2013/2014 season is therefore “zero”. 13. In addition, the Respondent claims that the amount due to the Claimant in outstanding remuneration is EUR 1,460,000 corresponding to his partial salary of July 2013 (EUR 260,000), the instalment of January 2014 (EUR 480,000), as well as his salaries for December 2013 to May 2014 (6 x EUR 120,000). Based on the foregoing, the Respondent requests that it should be ordered to pay the Claimant only the amount of EUR 1,460,000, in accordance with a reasonable payment plan, and that all other claims of the player be rejected. 14. On 10 December 2014, the Claimant provided his replica to the Respondent’s reply, in which he rejected having ever agreed to the late payment of his remuneration, pointing out that no evidence of such was provided by the Respondent. On the contrary, since November 2013 he claims to have contacted the Respondent constantly, claiming the payment of his late dues. The Claimant further contests having received from the Respondent the amount of EUR 240,000 on 26 June 2014 as well as the evidence provided by the Respondent (cf. point I.10. above). In this regard, he provided several bank statements, dated from 15 July 2013 until 30 September 2014, which do not show any credit in the amount of EUR 240,000 on or about 26 June 2014. 15. The Claimant, consequently, insists on the content of his claim, in particular, on the termination date of 3 July 2014, in accordance with art. 10.2 of the contract (cf. points I.3. and I.6. above). The Claimant also deems that the termination occurred in the beginning of the 2014/2015 season, which is described in the contract as running from 1 June 2014 to 31 May 2015 (cf. point I.2. above). 16. Finally, the Claimant maintained his original claims and, additionally, he requested the payment of an amount of EUR 1,630,000 (i.e. [EUR 1,883,870.98 + EUR 1,376,129.02] / 2), considering that he is currently domiciled in country B, where he should pay income tax at a rate of 45% of his earnings, to which he would not have been subject in country D, had the Respondent paid him in a timely manner. 17. In its duplica, the Respondent claims that it took note of the Claimant’s allegation that he had not received the amount of EUR 240,000 mentioned in point I.10. above. In this regard, it contacted the National Bank of country D and, only then, became aware of the fact that, in spite of its request and of the indication in the relevant bank statement, such transfer was not concluded by the bank, for undisclosed reasons. Therefore, the Respondent amends its calculation and states that the amount of EUR 1,740,000 is due to the Claimant as outstanding remuneration. 18. In this context, the Respondent also points out that the contract was signed between the parties on 18 July 2013 and that, therefore, the start date of 1 June 2013 indicated therein is incorrect. In fact, the Respondent claims that the Claimant only terminated his previous contractual relationship with the club from country D, Club E, on 18 July 2013. In this regard, it provided press articles related to the Claimant’s previous contract. Considering the foregoing, no salary was due by the Respondent to the Claimant for the month of June 2013. Thus, the 3 salaries paid by the Respondent, indicated by the Claimant in point I.8. above, correspond to the months of July to September 2013. 19. The Respondent also insists on the fact that the Claimant breached art. 10.2 of the contract, by giving it a notice period of only 9 days. In this regard, the Respondent points out that the wording of the Claimant’s reminder conveys the clear message that, in case of no full payment until 28 June 2014, the contract is to be considered as terminated “on that date” (cf. point I.5. above). “For this reason, the player is estopped from making use of the outstanding payments as a reason of termination allegedly committed by the club as early as on 28 June 2014”. 20. Moreover, the Respondent insists on the fact that no compensation is due to the Claimant, in accordance with the second bullet point of art. 10.3 of the contract (cf. point I.4. above). In the alternative that the DRC decides to award the Claimant compensation, the amounts earned with his new club, Club G (country F) – with which he signed a contract already for the season 2014/2015, following the prompt delivery of this ITC – should be deducted from it. 21. Finally, the Respondent deems that the Claimant’s additional request should be entirely rejected, since “FIFA is not a fiscal or administrative tribunal” and since the Claimant should bear the consequences of having transferred his domicile to country B, while being currently living and playing in the country F. 22. After the closure of investigation, the Claimant provided further unsolicited comments on the Respondent’s duplica, rejecting all the club’s allegations, maintaining his previous arguments as well as his amended claim. 23. On 7 August 2014, the Claimant concluded a new employment contract with the club from country F, Club G, valid as from 1 August 2014 until 30 June 2015, for the following remuneration: a) EUR 200,000 payable on 2 September 2014, b) EUR 400,000 as salaries, payable in 11 equal monthly instalments of EUR 36,363 and c) accommodation in the amount of 250,000. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 21 par. 1 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 14 July 2014. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the edition 2012 of the Procedural Rules was applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015; hereinafter: the Regulations), the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension, between a player from country B and a club from country D. 3. Furthermore, 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 par. 2 of the Regulations (editions 2012, 2014 and 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 14 July 2014, the 2012 edition of said regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Chamber 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. 5. In this respect, the members of the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that, on 18 July 2013, they signed an employment contract valid until 31 May 2015, as per which the Claimant was entitled to receive the remuneration and benefits detailed in point I.2. above. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that it was also undisputed by the parties that, on 19 June 2014, the Claimant had put the Respondent in default of payment of outstanding remuneration due until 31 May 2014, subsequent to which he considered the contract as terminated. 6. Subsequently, the Chamber took note of the argumentation put forward by the Claimant, according to which the Respondent had failed to pay him several instalments and salaries due from June 2013 to July 2014, in the total amount of EUR 1,883,870.98. Having allegedly not received any payment or response from the Respondent after his reminder of 19 June 2014, the Claimant considered the contract terminated on 3 July 2014, with just cause. Thus, he claims from the Respondent the payment of outstanding remuneration in the amount mentioned above, as well as compensation for breach of contract based on art. 10.3 of the contract, compensation for moral damages and attorney costs, in the amounts detailed in point I.7. above. 7. The Chamber further noted that the Respondent, while acknowledging the existence of outstanding remuneration due to the Claimant in the total amount of EUR 1,740,000 (cf. point I.17. above), deems that the player did not have a just cause to terminate the contract, as he allegedly failed to comply with the termination procedure provided for in art. 10.2 of the contract (cf. point I.3. above). In this respect, the Respondent claims that the Claimant terminated the contract on 28 June 2014, following the wording of his reminder of 19 June 2014, without, however, giving it a 15 day notice. Furthermore, in accordance with art. 10.3 of the contract, the Claimant, if at all, is only entitled to compensation in the residual amount of the contract until the end of the season in which the termination occurred, which, according to the Respondent, amounts to “zero”. 8. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in the present dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant and the allegations of the Respondent, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the Claimant. 9. In view of the above, the Chamber first deemed necessary to establish the exact date of termination of the contract, in view of the parties’ diverging statements in this regard and in the absence of a specific termination document. In this context, the DRC noted that, while the Claimant considers the contract as terminated as from 3 July 2014, the Respondent deems that the termination occurred on 28 June 2014, upon expiry of the deadline given by the Claimant to the Respondent in his reminder of 19 June 2014. In this regard, the DRC pointed out that the Claimant’s warning of 19 June 2014 is the only document on file, on the basis of which the date of termination can be inferred. Such reminder clearly states that the Respondent should pay the claimed outstanding salaries by no later than 28 June 2014, otherwise “the contract between us will be broken unilaterally under your own fact”. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that 28 June 2014 should be considered as the date of the termination of the contract by the Claimant. 10. Having established the foregoing, the Chamber subsequently went on to deliberate as to whether the reasons given by the Claimant for the unilateral termination on 28 June 2014, i.e. the alleged existence of outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 1,883,870.98, could be considered as a just cause for him to prematurely terminate his employment relationship with the Respondent. 11. At this point and for the sake of good order, the DRC deemed it appropriate to remind the parties of 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 from an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. 12. In this respect, the DRC first noted that the Respondent acknowledged the existence of outstanding remuneration towards the Claimant in the total amount of EUR 1,740,000, and basically only disputed the alleged non-payment of the Claimant’s salary for the month of September 2013. In this respect, the Respondent pointed out that the start date indicated in the contract, i.e. 1 June 2013, is incorrect, as the contract was only signed on 18 July 2013. Moreover, the Respondent alleges that the Claimant was still under contract with his previous club until 18 July 2013. Therefore, the Respondent deems that no remuneration for the month of June 2013 was due to the Claimant and the 3 salaries admittedly paid by the club to him for the 2013/2014 season correspond to the months of July, August and September 2013. 13. In view of the Respondent’s allegations concerning the start date of the contract and, consequently, of the club’s obligation to pay the Claimant’s salaries, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to analyse the exact wording of the contract, with respect to its start and end dates. In this regard, it took note of the fact that not only art. 9 of the contract clearly stipulates that “this contract begins on 01/06/2013 and terminates on 31/05/2014”, but it also establishes that the Claimant’s salaries for the 2013/2014 season shall be paid as from 1 June 2013. Such contract was duly signed by both the Claimant and the Respondent, without any reserves by any of the parties, which remains uncontested by both parties. Consequently, the DRC finds the financial terms of the contract clear, as the contract indicates in more than one provision that the Claimant was entitled to a payment in June 2013. The Respondent’s allegation of a material error in the start date of the contract, due to the fact that it was only signed on 18 July 2013 cannot be legally sustained, as contracts with a retroactive start date are not unusual or forbidden. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to provide any substantial evidence of its allegation that the Claimant was still under contract with his former club until 18 July 2013, as the only documentation provided consists of media articles, the legal value of which is considerably low, when its content is not supported by any other official documentation. 14. In view of the foregoing and bearing in mind the principle of burden of proof, the DRC concluded that not only the Respondent acknowledged having failed to pay the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 1,740,000, but it also failed to provide any evidence that his salary for September 2013, in the amount of EUR 120,000 was in fact paid. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent failed to pay the Claimant his remuneration for the period of July 2013 until 28 June 2014, amounting to EUR 1,860,000, consisting of EUR 260,000 as part of the instalment of July 2013, EUR 480,000 as the instalment of January 2014, EUR 1,080,000 as outstanding salaries from 1 September 2013 until 31 May 2014, and EUR 40,000 as outstanding salary of June 2014. 15. Subsequently, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to address the Respondent’s argument, according to which the Claimant – in spite of the existence of the outstanding amounts detailed above – did not have a just cause to terminate the contract, as he allegedly did not follow the termination proceedings stipulated in art. 10.2 of the contract. Namely, in his default notice of 19 June 2014, he only granted the Respondent a delay of 9 days – instead of 15, as art. 10.2 indicates – in order to pay its remuneration debts. In this context, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that, in good faith, the Claimant’s reduction of the contractual notice period in 6 days cannot possibly be opposed to the Respondent’s failure to pay his remuneration in the correct manner for one entire year. The Chamber equally took into account that the Respondent recognized having received the default notice of 19 June 2014, but that it did not reply to it. Thus, the members of the Chamber deemed that this allegation of the Respondent could not be sustained. 16. In view of all the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that, on 28 June 2014, 10 monthly salaries from September 2013 to June 2014, as well as a partial instalment due in July 2013 and a full instalment due in January 2014 were outstanding, and that even after the Claimant’s reminder of 19 June 2014, the Respondent had not proceeded with relevant payment nor had it replied to the notice. Therefore, the Chamber concluded, in accordance with its well-established and longstanding jurisprudence, that the Claimant had a just cause to terminate the contract on 28 June 2014. 17. Having established the above, the DRC proceeded with the calculation of the outstanding monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the employment contract until the date of termination, i.e. 28 June 2014. 18. In this regard, the DRC noted that, in his calculation of the amount that should have been paid to him as per the contract until the date of termination, the Claimant included his pro rata salary for the month of July 2014, which was however not yet outstanding by that time. As no other specific stipulation was made in the contract, the DRC considered that, according to common practice, all monthly salaries are payable by the end of the month. 19. Thus, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as the reasons previously exposed, the DRC concluded that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent must fulfil its obligations as per the employment contract concluded with the Claimant and, consequently, is to be held liable to pay the outstanding remuneration due to the latter in the total amount of EUR 1,860,000, as detailed in point II.14. above, plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment, as follows: 5% p.a. as of 19 June 2014 over the amount of EUR 1,820,000 and 5% p.a. as of 1 July 2014 over the amount of EUR 40,000. 20. The Chamber further established that, in accordance with the Claimant’s request, with the terms of the contract and with its well-established jurisprudence, the Claimant should also be entitled to receive from the Respondent the amount of EUR 9,500 corresponding to 4 business class return flight tickets for the player and his family, confirmed on the basis of the information provided by FIFA Travel (cf. point I.2. above). Furthermore, interest of 5% p.a. should apply on this amount as from 14 July 2014 until the date of effective payment. 21. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the question whether or not an amount of compensation for breach of contract is payable in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of 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 Claimant 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. 22. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains 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. 23. In this regard, the Chamber noted that art. 10.3 of the contact establishes that “When the termination of the contract is not due to a just cause or a mutual agreement between the parties concerned, the Club X or the player shall be entitled to receive from the other party in breach of the contract a compensation for a net amount of: - To the Club X: Club C the total amount of the contract; - To the player: Player A, remaining salaries of the same season”. 24. In this context, the Chamber considered that such a clause, establishing different financial consequences of a breach of contract without just cause for the Claimant and the Respondent, consists in fact of a disguised way for the club to terminate the contract at the end of each season, without any financial consequences, whereas the player does not have such possibility. In other words, such clause provides the Respondent with the unilateral option of reducing the term of the employment relationship with the Claimant at its own will. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the reciprocal obligations deriving from art. 10.3. are so unbalanced for the Claimant and the Respondent that they should be considered as null and void, and art. 10.3 shall not be applied for the calculation of the amount of compensation due by the Respondent to the Claimant. 25. On account of the above, the Chamber established that it had to assess the compensation due to the Claimant in accordance with the other criteria under art. 17 of the Regulations. 26. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the remuneration payable to the Claimant under the terms of the employment contract as from the date of termination, i.e. 28 June 2014, until 31 May 2015. The Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 1,360,000, corresponding to the global amount due for the 2014/2015 season, minus the salary of June 2014, granted to the Claimant as part of his outstanding remuneration, serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 27. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been able to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, 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. 28. In this regard, the Chamber noted that on 7 August 2014 the Claimant signed a new employment contract with the club from country F, Club G, valid as from 1 August 2014 until 30 June 2015, according to which he was entitled to a global salary of EUR 613,637 until 31 May 2015. 29. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 746,363 to the Claimant as compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 14 July 2014 until the date of effective payment, in accordance with the Claimant’s request and the Chamber’s well-established jurisprudence. 30. For all the above reasons, the DRC decided to partially accept the claim of the Claimant and holds the Respondent liable to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 1,860,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a., as well as the amount of EUR 746,363 as compensation for breach of contract, plus interest of 5% p.a. as of 14 July 2014 until the date of effective payment. 31. As to the Claimant’s request for an additional amount of EUR 1,630,000 (cf. point I.16. above), the Chamber decided to reject such request as it was not substantiated and it lacked any regulatory basis. 32. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further request filed by the Claimant is rejected. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, is ordered to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding monies in the amount of EUR 1,860,000 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment, as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 19 June 2014 over the amount of EUR 1,820,000; b. 5% p.a. as of 1 July 2014 over the amount of EUR 40,000. 3. The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 746,363 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 14 July 2014 until the date of effective payment. 4. The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, flight tickets in the amount of EUR 9,500 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 14 July 2014 until the date of effective payment. 5. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected. 6. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant in accordance with the abovementioned numbers 2., 3. and 4. are not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 7. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 67 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives). The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following: Court of Arbitration for Sport Avenue de Beaumont 2 1012 Lausanne Switzerland Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org www.tas-cas.org For the Dispute Resolution Chamber: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS directives