F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 November 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member John Bramhall (England), member on the matter between the club, Club A, country B as Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the player, Player C, country D as Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, country D as Respondent 2 regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I.

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) - controversie di lavoro – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 November 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member John Bramhall (England), member on the matter between the club, Club A, country B as Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the player, Player C, country D as Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, country D as Respondent 2 regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 July 2011, the player from country D, Player C (hereinafter: the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant), born on 28 August 1985 and the club from country B, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2013. 2. In accordance with the contract, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant was entitled to receive, per season, “the gross annual salary amounting to the country B’s currency equivalent of EUR 312,500…making the net annual salary amounting to the country B’s currency equivalent of EUR 250,000… or the monthly gross salary amounting to the country B’s currency equivalent of EUR 26,041.66…”. 3. Art. 4.2 of the contract stipulated that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is obliged to provide Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant with 3 round trip business class air tickets, 2 for him and 1 for his spouse, per year, in the route city F – city G, plus 1 round trip infant air ticket in the route city F – city G. Furthermore, said article established that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent would reimburse the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant with a one-time payment of EUR 3,000 as moving expenses, upon receiving a valid invoice from the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant. 4. According to art. 4.4 of the contract, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant shall issue an invoice each month to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, and the Claimant / Counter-Respondent shall pay the invoice within 15 days from the date the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant submitted each invoice. 5. In addition, according to art. 5.17 of the contract, the Respondent 1 / CounterClaimant shall commission a certified accountant to maintain his business books. 6. Furthermore, art. 11 of the contract established that, on one hand, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was authorized to punish the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant in line with its by-laws, and that the Respondent 1 / CounterClaimant accepted, by signing the contract, the application of the regulations regarding punishments and to pay fines to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. On the other hand, said clause stipulated that each party was authorized to unilaterally terminate the contract in case of violation of the contract by the other party. 7. On 6 July 2011, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and the Claimant / Counter-Respondent signed an agreement (hereinafter: the supplemental agreement) where it was stipulated that the club would pay the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant EUR 625 per month as an accommodation allowance during the term of the contract. 8. On 3 February 2012, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and the club from country D, Club E (hereinafter: the Respondent 2), signed an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 31 January 2015. 9. On 9 May 2012, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, maintaining that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for breach of contract without just cause on 16 January 2012 and payment of compensation in the amount of USD 650,000, plus interest as of 17 January 2012. 10. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent further claimed that the Respondent 2 shall be held jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation. Moreover, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent claimed an unspecified amount for costs. 11. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent maintained that, by means of a letter dated 16 January 2012, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant terminated the contract without just cause. In this respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant provided his invoices for the payment of his salary corresponding to the months of November and December 2011 to it, on 24 January 2012 only, and which, according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, were paid the very next day. 12. Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explained that it instituted a disciplinary proceeding against the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant on 18 January 2012 and decided to fine the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant in the amount of “the country B’s currency equivalent to EUR 22,000” after the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant failed to appear for the match played on 16 January 2012, and also missed the morning and afternoon trainings held on 17 January 2012. 13. Therefore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent deemed that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant did not have just cause to terminate the contract, as it argued that it was the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant’s fault which prevented the Claimant / Counter-Respondent from making the due payments, since the contract stipulated that the invoices have to be paid within 15 days from the date of reception, and it was the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant who failed to produce his invoices in a timely manner. In consequence, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requested damages, taking into account the principle of positive interest, which in this case was to be measured by the offer to transfer the player, received from the club from country H, Club I, in the amount of USD 650,000. 14. On 24 May 2013, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant lodged a claim against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for outstanding remuneration. In this regard, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant asked to be awarded payment of EUR 29,349.78, plus 5% interest p.a. In addition, the Respondent 1 / CounterClaimant requested that sporting sanctions be imposed on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 15. According to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, between July 2011 and January 2012 and despite numerous verbal and written requests, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent consistently refused to pay or was late in paying his salary. 16. In this regard, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant explained that he terminated the contract on 16 January 2012, by means of a letter (hereinafter: the termination notice) sent on that date, by his agent on his behalf. The Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant argued he had just cause to terminate the contract due to the alleged consistent late payments and non-payments of the remuneration he was contractually entitled to. 17. In this respect, the termination notice stated that, according to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, at the date of termination, 508,675.81 out of a total of 966,796.22 he was supposed to earn as salary, remained outstanding. Moreover, the termination notice stated that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent owed Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant a further EUR 2,500, out of a total of EUR 3,000, in outstanding accommodation allowances. The Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant concluded that the total amount outstanding at the date of termination was 546,385.55. 18. The Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant further argued that after the termination notice was sent, although some telephone conversations and a meeting were held with officials of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in order to settle the issue, no amicable settlement was reached between the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 19. On 9 July 2014, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, after being informed of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim, rejected said claim and explained that although he submitted his initial claim on 24 May 2013, “if, however, [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent]’s claim was submitted prior to 24 May 2013, [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent]’s claim should be considered the main claim”. 20. Nonetheless, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant insisted on the arguments stated in his initial claim, and again requested to be awarded payment of EUR 29,349.78, plus 5% interest p.a. and sporting sanctions be imposed on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. In this regard, the Respondent 1 / CounterClaimant insisted that despite numerous verbal and written requests, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent consistently refused to pay or was late in paying his salary and that the total amount outstanding at the date of termination was 546,385.55, and that in consequence, he had just cause to terminate the contract. 21. According to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, it was only after the termination of the contract by means of the termination notice sent by him, that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent first claimed that the non-receipt of his invoices was the reason for the late payments. 22. Furthermore, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant argued that he was instructed by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to issue his invoices through an accountant, and therefore, he was not involved in the issuance of the invoices. 23. Moreover, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant argued that on 26 January 2012, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s financial director, Mr J, sent an email to his agent, in order to clarify the amounts owed to him, which enclosed a financial statement titled “2011 Financial Account”, which according to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, had the obligations of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent reflected inaccurately. In this respect, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant argued that the amounts for flight tickets and accommodation were wrongly stated on said document. 24. The Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant further argued that the document titled “2012 Financial Account”, enclosed to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim, is unreliable, as it had fabricated figures in it. In this regard, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant argued that it contradicts the document titled “2011 Financial Account” in respect to his October 2011 salary and accommodation allowance. He also argued that the document titled “2012 Financial Account”, showed that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent acknowleged that his salaries were supposed to be paid on the 15th day of the month following the relevant salary month, which according to the player, is a common practice in country B’s football. 25. The player stated that the fact that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was punished by UEFA, in line with Financial Fair Play regulations, was proof of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s bad financial situation, which most likely was the reason of the non-payment of his salaries. 26. Subsequently, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant argued that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s disciplinary action against him was groundless and the offer enclosed to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim was contradictory, as it is dated 2 December 2012, which is 7 months after the date its claim was lodged. 27. Moreover, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant argued that up until 25 January 2012, EUR 29,349.78 were still outstanding. In this regard, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant enclosed his breakdown of the amounts allegedly owed and allegedly paid by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, at the date of termination and up until 25 January 2012. 28. On its part, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent highlighted that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant was entitled to receive a monthly gross salary of EUR 25,041.68, which according to it, was equivalent to country B’s currency 195,312.45 and that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant was obliged to hire a certified accountant to maintain his business books. 29. Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent declared that it always fulfilled its obligations towards the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant as set in the contract. In this respect, and in order to explain the payments to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent provided a table of the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant’s account inside the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s accountability, which according to it, contained the total debts towards the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant until 31 December 2011. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent stressed the following details in respect to the debts towards the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant: Salary of July 2011 in the amount of 161,132.77 due on 1 August 2011; Salary of August 2011 in the amount of 161,132.77 due on 31 August 2011; Salary of September 2011 in the amount of 157,714.80 due on 15 October 2011; “Moving expenses and Accommodation” in the amount of 22,500 due on 15 October 2011; “July/ August / September” in the amount of 11,355.47 due on 30 September 2011; Salary of October 2011 in the amount of 161,499.96 due on 15 November 2011; “Flight Tickets” in the amount of 10,205.20 due on 12 November 2011; Salary of November 2011 in the amount of 161,499.96 due on 15 January 2012; Salary of December 2011 in the amount of 161,499.96 due on 15 January 2012; “Total debt”: 1,008,540.89 30. Subsequently, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent proceeded to explain the alleged payments of each monthly salary, which for the sake of clarity will be explained in the following table: Monthly Salary or nature of Other payments to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant Alleged date of invoice from the the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and alleged due date of payment Alleged Payments from the Claimant / CounterRespondent Salary July 2011 Invoice date: 16 September 2011 Due date of payment: 1 October 2011 - Payment of 50,000 on 21.09.2011. - Payment of 73,632.77 on 30.09.2011 - Payment of 37,500 on 30.09.2011. Total alleged payments for the salary of July 2011: 161,132.77 Salary August 2011 Invoice date: 16 September 2011 Due date of payment: 1 October 2011 - Payment of 161,132.77 on 24.10.2011. Total alleged payments for the salary of August 2011: 161,132.77 According to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, these payments correspond to “Accommodation allowance”, “Moving expenses”, and “Mobile phone expenses”. - Payment of 3,867.23 on 24.10.2011. - Payment of 26,000 on 24.10.2011. - Payment of 2,842.40 on 24.10.2011. Total alleged other payments done in October 2011: 32,709.63 Salary September 2011 Invoice date: 30 September 2011 Due date of payment: 15 October 2011 - Payment of 48,000 on 24.11.2011 - Payment of 109,714.80 on 14.12.2011 Total alleged payments for the salary of September 2011: 157,714.80 According to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, this payment corresponds to “Part of Accommodation allowance”. - Payment of 1,145.84 on 14.12.2011 Salary October 2011 Invoice date: 30 October 2011 Due date of payment: 14 November 2011 - Payment of 80,000 on 10.01.2012 - Payment of 81,499.96 on 25.01.2012 Total alleged payments for the salary of October 2011: 161.499.96 Salary November 2011 Invoice date: 24 January 2012 Due date of payment: 8 February 2012 - Payment of 7,500 on 31.12.2011 - Payment of 153,999.96 on 25.01.2012 Total alleged payments for the salary of November 2011: 161.499.96 Salary December 2011 Invoice date: 24 January 2012 Due date of payment: 8 February 2012 - Payment of 161,499.96 on 25.01.2012 31. With respect to its delays in the payments to the Respondent 1 / CounterClaimant, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that they are completely acceptable, as it is part of the world of football and explained the following in respect to each monthly salary payment: Salary July 2011: The Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that “it paid on time”; Salary August 2011: The Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that “the payment was performed 23 days after the due date because it had cash flow difficulties at the time”; Salary September 2011: The Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that “the payment was performed no more than 45 days late”; Salary October 2011: The Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that “the payment was performed with certain delays despite it was facing financial difficulties”; Salary November 2011: The Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that “the payment was performed in December 2012 and the remaining amount one day after presenting the invoice”; Salary December 2011: The Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that “the payment was performed one day after presenting the invoice”. 32. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent further argued that it had complied with its obligation regarding flight tickets as the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant only sent an invoice in the amount of 10,205.20, which was paid according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on 16 January 2012. 33. In addition, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that although it is very difficult to prove any possible inducement by the Respondent 2 over the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant to breach the contract, the Respondent 2 must be held jointly liable to pay any compensation related to the breach. 34. Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent amended its request for relief, requesting the following: - EUR 132,025 as salaries paid to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant; - USD 650,000 as “loss of the opportunity to negotiate the transfer of the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant to another club”; - EUR 100,000 as compensation for breach of the contract without just cause, considering the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s need to replace the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant; - Request that the Respondent 2 shall be deemed jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation and sporting sanctions be imposed on the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant. 35. The Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant submitted his final comments, where he repeated his position, and argued that the payments for the months from September 2011 to December 2011 are not in compliance with the terms of the contract. 36. In particular, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant contested the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s allegations, inter alia, as follows: - The amounts he was entitled to receive are the following: 161,132 net as monthly salary; 3,785.16 net as monthly accommodation; 109,714.80 corresponding to his round flight ticket; 22,500 net as moving expenses. - The invoice date stated by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for the November and December 2011 salaries is wrong, as it should be 31 December 2011 and not 24 January 2012; - The Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s contradictions between its allegations and the documents titled “Financial Account 2011” and Financial Account 2012”. 37. The Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant amended his claim, and requested to be awarded payment of EUR 26,637.66, plus 5% interest p.a. In addition, the player requested that sporting sanctions be imposed on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 38. The Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant provided his own breakdown of the amounts owed and paid in the matter at hand as follows:  “Total amount as of 16 January 2012”: 1,118,879.97  “Total payments made up until 16 January 2012 (at the time the contract was terminated)”: 594,993.41  “Total amounts outstanding on 16 January 2012 (at the time the contract was terminated)”: 523,886.56 “Total amount under the contract (between the period of 1 July 2011 and 16 January 2012”: 1,203,998.90 “Total payments made up until 25 January 2012”: 1,002,198.41 “Total amount outstanding on 23 May 2013 in country B’s currency”: 201,800.49 “Total amount outstanding on 23 May 2013 in EUR”: 26,637.66 39. On its part, the Respondent 2 explained that it only engaged the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, after it was assured by the Respondent 1 / CounterClaimant’s legal representative, that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant had terminated his contract with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent with just cause. The Respondent 2 declared that it never had the intention to induce the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant to commit a breach of his contract, as the Respondent 2 was “nothing but a pure third party without any knowledge on the essentiality on the dispute between [the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant] and [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent]”. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, the DRC took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 9 May 2012. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the 2008, 2012, 2014 and 2015 editions of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC referred to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015) the DRC would, in principle, be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a club from country B, a player from country D and a club from country D. 3. The competence of the Chamber having been established, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players 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 (editions 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2015), and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 9 May 2012, the 2012 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. Having established the foregoing, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber continued by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file in relation to the substance of the matter. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. In this respect, the members of the DRC took note that on 1 July 2011, an employment contract was concluded between the Claimant / CounterRespondent and the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant for the period from 1 July 2011 until 30 June 2013. 6. In continuation, the Chamber acknowledged that it had been uncontested by the parties that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant prematurely terminated the employment contract on 16 January 2012, by means of a termination notice. 7. Within this context, the members of the DRC took note that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant considered the contract as terminated with just cause as from 16 January 2012, on the grounds of the alleged consistent late payments and non-payments of monthly salaries and other remuneration from the Claimant / Counter-Respondent towards him. Moreover, the DRC observed that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant sustained that at the time of termination, i.e. 16 January 2012, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent held a debt towards him of 523,886.56. 8. On the other hand, the Chamber acknowledged the Claimant / CounterRespondent’s argument, according to which the Respondent 1 / CounterClaimant prematurely terminated the contract without just cause, as according to it, the partial non-payment of his remuneration was due only to his own failure to produce the relevant invoices on time. 9. The DRC analysed that, in order to substantiate its argument, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, first referred to the contents of art. 4.4. of the contract, which established that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant shall issue an invoice each month to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, and the Claimant / Counter-Respondent shall pay the corresponding invoice within 15 days from the date the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant submitted each invoice. 10. In this respect, the Chamber unanimously agreed that the above-mentioned clause, which makes the payment of remuneration for services rendered dependent on the issuance of an invoice by the employee, cannot be acceptable. The Chamber concluded that the object of an employment contract between a player and a club, i.e. the rendering of professional football services in exchange for a remuneration, would be disrupted with such a clause, as a player would have an extra obligation just to receive his basic remuneration. 11. Furthermore, the DRC noted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, in support of its argumentation, also referred to the contents of art. 5.17. of the contract, which established that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant shall commission a certified accountant to maintain his business books. 12. In this regard, the members of the DRC concluded that the aforementioned clause unjustifiably imposed an administrative burden on the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, as he was supposed to hire an employee to ensure the due payment of his remuneration. In consequence, the DRC agreed that such a clause cannot be considered valid. 13. The Chamber highlighted that both art. 4.4. and 5.7, were drafted in such a way that it would greatly be to the benefit of the Claimant / CounterRespondent and in consequence, the DRC rejected the Claimant / CounterRespondent’s defence of the partial non-payment of the remuneration due to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, as it was his own fault to produce the relevant invoices on time and his failure to engage an accountant to take care of his bookkeeping, that prevented the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to pay the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant on time. 14. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent confronted the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant’s argument on the existence of the aforementioned debt in the amount of 523,886.56 since, according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, it always fulfilled its obligations towards the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant as set in the contract. 15. In this regard, the DRC took into consideration that the Claimant / CounterRespondent acknowledged delays in the payment of the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant’s remuneration. The members of the Chamber observed that in relation to this, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent sustained that the late payments to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, were completely acceptable, as it is part of the world of football. The DRC took note that, specifically, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent brought up “cash flow difficulties” and “facing financial difficulties” as reasons for its late payment. 16. In this context, the members of the Chamber agreed that the reasons put forward by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for the uncontested fact that salaries of the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant were consistently paid late, cannot be accepted as valid. 7. The Chamber further noticed that according to the documentation on file, and the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s own admissions, the salaries for August to October 2011 were in fact paid late, while the salaries for November and December 2011, were only paid after the termination of the contract. Therefore, the Chamber was eager to point out that the relation between the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant was disrupted from the beginning. 18. In light of the above, the Chamber took into account that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had not indicated any valid reasons that possibly could have justified the late and non-payment of the Respondent 1 / CounterClaimant’s remuneration during such considerable period of time. 19. Having said that, the Chamber pointed out that, in the present matter, and after a thorough analysis of the documentation on file, as from the starting date of the employment contract until the date of termination, more than 3 monthly salaries remained outstanding. 20. On account of all of the above considerations, the Chamber decided to reject the arguments put forward by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in its submissions and established that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent has failed to comply with its contractual obligations. 21. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant had just cause to terminate the employment contract with effect as of 16 January 2012 and that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the contract with just cause by the Claimant. 22. The DRC highlighted that according to the contract and the supplemental agreement, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant should have received until 16 January 2012, salaries in the amount of 1,047,363, accommodation allowances in the amount of 24,603, as well as moving expenses in the amount of 22,500. 23. The DRC took note that according to the contract, the Respondent 1 / CounterClaimant was entitled to 3 round trip business class air tickets, 2 for him and 1 for his spouse, per year, in the route city F – city G, plus 1 round trip infant air ticket in the route city F – city G. However, from the flight invoice provided by the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, it could not be established which family members were the passengers and in this respect, the Respondent 1 / CounterClaimant failed to provide any specification that would help clarify the users of the corresponding flight tickets, in consequence, the DRC decided that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant was only entitled to the reimbursement of one flight ticket in the amount of 55,000. 24. In light of the above, the player would have received the total amount of 1,149,466 until 16 January 2012. 25. Furthermore, the members of the DRC pointed out that, based on the documentation on file, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant received the total amount of 1,007,389. 26. In view of all the above, the DRC decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent must fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Respondent 1 / CounterClaimant and is to be held liable to pay the Claimant the amount of 142,077, as outstanding remuneration. 27. In addition, taking into account the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant’s request, the Chamber decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent must pay to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of outstanding remuneration, i.e. country B’s currency 142,077, as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e., 24 May 2013 until the date of effective payment. 28. Finally, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any further claim lodged by the parties. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Club A, is rejected. 2. The counter-claim of the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, Player C, is partially accepted. 3. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent has to pay to the Respondent 1 / CounterClaimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of 142,077 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 24 May 2013 until the date of effective payment. 4. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest due to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant is 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. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant is rejected. 6. The Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant is directed to inform the Claimant / Counter-Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 3. is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to article 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 Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives