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 Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member Zola Majavu (South Africa), member on the matter between the player, Player A, country B, as Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the club, Club C, country D as Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the club Club E, country B as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I.

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 Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member Zola Majavu (South Africa), member on the matter between the player, Player A, country B, as Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the club, Club C, country D as Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the club Club E, country B as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case Facts relating to the preliminary issue of the competence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber: 1. On 13 January 2012, the Player A from country B (hereinafter player or Claimant/Counter-Respondent) and the Club C from country D (hereinafter club or Counter-Claimant) signed an employment contract (hereinafter contract) which stipulates in its art. 15 that in case of a dispute that cannot be amicably settled, the matter shall be referred to the Football Federation of country D “and eventually” to FIFA’s deciding bodies. 2. The club contested the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter, referring to the aforementioned art. 15 of the employment contract and asserted that none of the first two steps it sets forth have been complied with by the player. 3. In this regard, and in spite of having been requested to do so, the club did not provide any information or documentation in connection with the deciding bodies of the Football Federation of country D which the contractual clause at hand refers to. 4. The player, for his part, did not present any comment in this respect. Facts related to the substance of the matter: 5. The employment contract signed between the parties was valid as from its date of signature until 30 June 2015. 6. According to art. 3 of the contract, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was entitled to the following remuneration: sporting season net monthly salary bonus total 2011/2012 USD 12,500 x 6 USD 75,000 USD 150,000 2012/2013 USD 12,500 x 12 USD 150,000 USD 300,000 2013/2014 USD 12,500 x 12 USD 150,000 USD 300,000 2014/2015 USD 12,500 x 12 USD 150,000 USD 300,000 7. According to art. 3 par. 1 al. 2 of the contract, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive the aforecited bonus of USD 75,000 “des qu’il [player] sera régulièrement qualifié avec le Club C [club].” (Free translation: once he is formally registered with the club). 8. According to art. 4 of the contract, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant undertook to pay the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s accommodation and medical expenses as well as to provide him with transportation and five roundtrips flight tickets country D / country B per season. 9. According to art. 5 of the contract, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant reserved its right to impose a reduction of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s remuneration should the latter show a lack of performance. 10. On 7 May 2012, after having terminated the contract in writing on 3 May 2012, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged a claim against the Respondent/CounterClaimant before FIFA for outstanding salaries and compensation for breach of contract. 11. In this context, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent requested that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant be ordered to pay him the following amounts: USD 37,500 as outstanding salaries related to the months of February, March and April 2012 as well as the outstanding amount of USD 75,000 corresponding to the contractual bonus stipulated in art. 3 par. 1 al. 2 of the contract; 5% interest p.a. to be applied on the two aforesaid amounts and calculated as from the date of the claim; USD 25,000 as compensation for breach of contract and corresponding to the residual value of the contract in connection with the sporting season 2011/2012; USD 900,000 as compensation for breach of contract and corresponding to the player’s remuneration during the sporting seasons 2012/2013, 2013/2014 and 2014/2015; The equivalent amount of five roundtrips flight tickets country D / country B. 12. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent further asks that sporting sanctions be imposed upon the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 13. In his statement of claim, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent explained that after having received his remuneration in relation to the month of January 2012, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stopped paying him. 14. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent further explained that before terminating the contract in writing on 3 May 2012, he had put the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in default of payment on 19 April 2012 and 27 April 2012. However, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent asserted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant neither replied to his letters, nor did it pay him any sum. 15. In the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s opinion, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s persistent failure to pay his remuneration without any reason whereas he complied with all his contractual obligations represents an unjustified breach of contract having entitled him to terminate the contract and to lodge the claim at hand. 16. In its reply, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant asserted that it always complied with its contractual obligations towards the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. It further held that it is the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s termination of the contract that lacks just cause and hence lodged a counterclaim against the player. 17. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant asserted that it paid the player 11,500, i.e. about USD 7,187, for the period between 13 January 2012 and 12 February 2012 as well as 7,500, i.e. USD 4,787, to the player’s agent, as per the alleged request of the player. 18. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant further held that in line with its contractual obligations, it paid three flight tickets in the amount of 1,150 each as well as the player’s rent and transportation. 19. In continuation, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant explained that contrary to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s assertion that he has always been available and fit to render his services to the club, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had concealed an injury during his recruitment. 20. In this respect, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant specified that it paid 400, i.e. about USD 250, for medical costs for a player that could only lightly train. In this respect, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant submitted copies of invoices and various medical reports dated as of 27 February 2012 until 23 April 2012 confirming an injury in the upper left leg. 21. In continuation, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant explained that considering the player’s injury, and on the basis of art. 5 of the contract, it made an offer to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to revise the above-mentioned contractual financial terms, but that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent rejected this temporary amendment of his remuneration. 22. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant reports that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent left the club without information or authorisation at the beginning of May 2012 and that it received the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s notice of termination on 3 May 2012. 23. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant stated that it wrote to the Claimant/CounterRespondent on 12 May 2012 to inform him that he had to return to the club. 24. In particular, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant informed the Claimant/CounterRespondent that after having been unable to proceed to some payments as a result of a change of its board of directors, the player’s monies related to the months of March and April 2012 were at his disposal when he returns. 25. According to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the aforementioned elements show that it always executed the contract, that it requested the Claimant/CounterRespondent to come back, and that it never had any intention to ignore its obligations. 26. On the contrary, according to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had bad intentions and breached the contract without any just cause. 27. In this respect, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant insisted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent concealed his injury and refused to reduce his remuneration prior to leaving the club without any authorisation. 28. In addition, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent ignored the club’s request to return to the club, terminated the contract before three months of his remuneration had fallen due and eventually lodged a claim against the Respondent/Counter-Claimant by means of which he asked that he be inter alia granted the entire residual value of a contract which he himself was not able to execute. 29. In view of the above, and based on the prejudice allegedly suffered by the club in connection with the player’s absence, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant requested that the player be ordered to pay it USD 1,500,000. 30. In particular, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant held that as it was taking part in the African Champions’ League, the timing of the player’s departure did not permit it to find any replacement. 31. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not present any submission in relation to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim. 32. In spite of having been invited to submit its comments as to the club’s counterclaim, the Intervening Party did not present any comments in relation thereto. 33. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player signed a contract with the Club E from country B (hereinafter Intervening Party) valid as from 10 July 2013 until 15 December 2013. According to said contract, the player was entitled to a monthly remuneration amounting to 1,000. 34. On 30 May 2014, the player and the Club F from country G signed an employment contract entering into force on 1 June 2014 and expiring on 30 November 2014. According to said contract, the player received a signing-on fee in the amount of 200,000 and a monthly salary of 200,000. 35. According to the information contained in the TMS, the player was employed by the Club H from country B as from 26 March 2015 up and until 10 July 2015. According to the contract signed between the parties, the player is entitled to a monthly remuneration amounting to 1,100. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. 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 submitted to FIFA on 7 May 2012. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 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 conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from country B, a club from country D as well as a club from country B. 3. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of the stipulations contained in art. 15 of the employment contract. In this respect, the Chamber further noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, for his part, did not present any comments in relation to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s assertion at hand. 4. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the 2015 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players it is competent to deal with a matter such as the one at hand, unless an independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs, has been established at national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to the standards to be imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings, the Chamber referred to the FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. Equally, the members of the Chamber referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008. 5. In relation to the above, the Chamber also deemed it vital to outline that one of the basic conditions that needs to be met in order to establish that another organ than the DRC is competent to settle an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an international dimension, is that the jurisdiction of the relevant national arbitration tribunal or national court derives from an explicit reference in the employment contract. 6. Therefore, while analysing whether it was competent to hear the present matter, the Dispute Resolution Chamber considered that it should, first and foremost, analyse whether the employment contract at the basis of the present dispute contained a clear jurisdiction clause. 7. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that art. 15 of the employment contract stipulates that in case of a dispute that cannot be amicably settled, the matter shall be referred to the Football Federation of country D and eventually to FIFA. 8. Having examined the relevant provision, the Chamber came to the unanimous conclusion that art. 15 does not constitute a clear jurisdiction clause in favour of one specific court of arbitration tribunal in country D, since it only referred to the Football Federation of country D as regards jurisdiction. The foregoing conclusion is even supported by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s statements which itself does not seem to be able to specify which judicial organ related to the Football Federation of country D is precisely competent. 9. What is more, the Chamber emphasised that it is even more pertinent that art. 15 includes FIFA as a deciding body in the event of a dispute between the parties. 10. In addition, the Chamber highlighted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had not presented any documentation in support of its position with respect to the issue of competence. 11. On account of all the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent/CounterClaimant’s objection towards the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected, and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance. 12. 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 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 7 May 2012, the 2010 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 13. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, 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. 14. First of all, the DRC acknowledged that it is undisputed that, on 13 January 2012, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant concluded an employment contract valid as from its signature date until 30 June 2015. 15. In continuation, the Chamber took note that, according to the Claimant/CounterRespondent, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant only paid his remuneration for the month of January 2012 and did not react to two default notices which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent sent to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant during the month of April 2012. 16. As a consequence of the aforementioned, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the contract, in writing, on 3 May 2012, and lodged a claim in front of FIFA asking, inter alia, that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant be ordered to pay outstanding remuneration as well as compensation for breach of contract. 17. In continuation, the Chamber noted that although the Respondent/CounterClaimant held before this deciding-body having always complied with its financial obligations towards the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, it had yet admitted in its correspondence dated 12 May 2012 sent to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent that financial difficulties had prevented it from paying him all his dues. 18. The Chamber further took note that in said correspondence of 12 May 2012, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant asked that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent returns to the club, where his remuneration for the months of March and April 2012 was at his disposal. 19. In continuation, the Chamber took due note of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s position that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had concealed the injury he was suffering from and had rejected the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s proposal to temporarily diminish his financial entitlements, in spite of art. 5 of the contract. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant considers that it has fully complied with its contractual obligations and that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent has terminated the employment contract without just cause, as a result of which he shall be ordered to pay compensation to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 20. In view of the diverging position of the parties with regard to the termination of the employment contract, the Chamber deemed that the central issue in the matter at stake was to determine as to whether the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had just cause to terminate the relevant employment contract on 3 May 2012 and to decide on the consequences thereof. 21. In this context, the Chamber firstly turned its attention to the financial aspects of the matter at hand. 22. The Chamber highlighted that on the basis of the parties’ submissions as well as the documentation available on file, it could be noted that the Respondent/CounterClaimant had admitted that at the time of the termination of the contract, i.e. on 3 May 2012, it had not paid the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s monthly remuneration related to the months of March and April 2012, each in the amount of USD 12,500. 23. Indeed, the Chamber recalled that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant informed the Claimant/Counter-Respondent via its correspondence dated 12 May 2012 that he would be able to collect the amount of money corresponding to said installments when he returned to the club, thus admitting that said remuneration was still outstanding. 24. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant alleged having had some financial difficulties in order to justify its non-payment of said monthly installments. 25. However, the Chamber wished to stress that, in line with its well- established jurisprudence, a club’s financial difficulties cannot be considered a valid justification for non-compliance by a club with its essential contractual obligation deriving from the signature of an employment contract, that is, to pay a player’s remuneration in full and in a timely manner. 26. On account of the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent/CounterClaimant had not paid the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s outstanding monthly remuneration for the months of March and April 2012, without any valid reason. 27. In continuation, the Chamber turned its attention to the Claimant/CounterRespondent’s monthly remuneration for the month of February 2012, which is included in the Claimant/Counter/Respondent’s claim. 28. In this respect, the Chamber firstly noted that according to the Respondent/CounterClaimant, it paid the amounts of USD 7,187 and USD 4,787, latter amount to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s agent, for the period of time between 12 January 2012 and 12 February 2012, which represents a total of USD 11,974. 29. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not claim any sum in relation to the month of January 2012. 30. Bearing in mind the above, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 3 of the contract and noted that according to said clause, a monthly installment of USD 12,500 had to be paid to the player in relation to each of the six months pertaining to the sporting season 2011/2012, i.e. as of January 2012 until the month of June 2012 included. 31. Given the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s statement that it paid the amount of USD 11,974 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, partially via his agent, which was not disputed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, as well as the fact that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent has not claimed outstanding remuneration in relation to the month of January 2012, the members of the Chamber agreed that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s aforementioned payment was related to the month of January 2012. 32. Having said this, the Chamber concluded that also the Claimant/CounterRespondent’s remuneration in the amount of USD 12,500 for the month of February 2012 had remained unpaid at the time when the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the employment contract. 33. On account of the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber reached the conclusion that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had not paid any salary to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for the months of February, March and April 2012 and had failed to present a valid justification in this respect. 34. Having so found, the Chamber turned its attention to the Claimant/CounterRespondent’s claim related to the contractual bonus of USD 75,000. 35. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that according to art. 3 par. 1 al. 2 of the contract, the payment of said bonus would fall due upon the official registration of the player with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. In this regard, the Chamber observed that there are no elements on file which indicate that such condition had not been fulfilled. Consequently, on account of the above, the DRC concluded that the amount of EUR 75,000 was due and remained unpaid at the time when the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the employment contract. 36. Subsequently, the Chamber deemed it fit to revert to the argumentation of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant as regards the Claimant/Counter-Respondent being injured and allegedly having concealed such injury during his recruitment. In this respect, the Chamber wished to highlight that an injury or health condition of a player can be no valid reason to cease the payment of a player’s remuneration and that it is the club’s responsibility to secure the continuation of payment of remuneration in such cases, possibly by means of adequate insurance. 37. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber wished to emphasise that on the basis of art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations and the Chamber’s respective jurisprudence, a club wishing to employ a player has to exercise due diligence and carry out all relevant medical examination prior to entering into an employment contract with a player. 38. On account of all the above considerations, which show a persistent non-compliance by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant with its essential obligation to pay the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s remuneration in full and in a timely manner, the Chamber decided that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had just cause to terminate the employment contract on 3 May 2012 and that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 39. In addition, in light of the above, the Chamber decided to reject the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 40. Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber went on to deal with the consequences of the termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 41. First of all, the members of the Chamber concurred that the Respondent/CounterClaimant must fulfil its contractual obligations as per the employment contract in accordance with the general principle of pacta sunt servanda. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is liable to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the remuneration that was outstanding at the time of the termination, i.e. USD 112,500, corresponding to the Claimant/CounterRespondent’s contractual bonus of USD 75,000 and USD 37,500 as outstanding salaries corresponding to the months of February, March and April 2012. 42. Moreover, with regard to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s request for interest, the Chamber decided that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 5% p.a. to be applied on the amount of USD 112,500 as from the date on which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged his claim, i.e. 7 May 2012. 43. In continuation, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant compensation for breach of contract. 44. In this context, the Chamber outlined that, in accordance with said provision, 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/Counter-Respondent under 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. 45. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first had to clarify whether the pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon a 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. 46. Having recalled the aforementioned, and in order to evaluate the compensation to be paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the members of the Chamber took into account the remuneration due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in accordance with the employment contract as well as the time remaining on the same contract, along with the professional situation of the Claimant/CounterRespondent after the early termination occurred. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that at the time of its termination, the employment contract would run for at least another three sporting seasons, i.e. as from May 2012 until 30 June 2015. Taking into account the foregoing, the Chamber decided that the amount of USD 925,000 (i.e. remuneration as from May 2012 until 30 June 2015) shall serve as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the matter at hand. 47. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent entered into a new employment contract with the Intervening Party. According to said contract, which was valid as of 10 July 2013 until 15 December 2013, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive a total remuneration of approximately USD 2,640. 48. Likewise, the Chamber noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent entered into an employment contract with the Club F from country G, valid as of 1 June 2014 until 30 November 2014, and which stipulated a total remuneration of the approximate amount of USD 42,616. 49. Finally, the Chamber took due note that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent entered into an employment contract with the Club H from country B, valid as of 26 March 2015 until 10 July 2015. According to said contract, until the month of June 2015, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive a remuneration of approximately USD 1,038. 50. Consequently, in accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the general obligation of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to mitigate his damages, the above-mentioned amounts shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 51. In continuation, the Chamber addressed the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s request to be compensated with the equivalent amount of five roundtrips flight tickets country D / country B. 52. In this respect, and after having carefully reviewed the Respondent/CounterClaimant’s position as well as the document it submitted in this regard, the Chamber found that it could not be established that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant paid round trip flight tickets for the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, nor that said flight tickets actually corresponded to the aforementioned destinations. 53. However, the Chamber deemed that since the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not submit that he himself ever paid any flight ticket in advance, the Chamber deemed fare and adequate to grant him in this respect compensation equivalent to the price of one round trip flight ticket between country D and country B as established by FIFA Travel, i.e. USD 1,613, in connection with his flight to return home. 54. In view of all of the above and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must pay the amount of USD 880,613 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent as compensation for breach of contract. 55. The Dispute Resolution Chamber continued its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further request filed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The Claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player A, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is partially accepted. 3. The claim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club C, is rejected. 4. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 112,500 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 7 May 2012 until the date of effective payment. 5. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 880,613 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 6. In the event that the amount stipulated in point 5. is not paid within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limit. 7. In the event that the amounts stipulated in points. 4. and 5. are not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 8. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected. 9. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent/CounterClaimant 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: __________________________ Marco Villiger Acting Deputy Secretary General Encl.: CAS Directives