F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee / Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori – coach disputes / controversie allenatori (2019-2020) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 29 October 2019

Decision of the Single Judge

of the Players’ Status Committee

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 29 October 2019,

by

Roy Vermeer (The Netherlands),

Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee,

on the claim presented by the coach,

José Manuel Martins Teixeira Gomes, Portugal,

represented by Mr Sergio Araujo

as Claimant / Counter-Respondent

against the club,

Al Ahli FC, Saudi Arabia

as Respondent / Counter-Claimant

regarding an employment-related dispute

between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 21 May 2016, the Portuguese coach, José Manuel Martins Teixeira Gomes (hereinafter: the coach) and the Saudi Arabian club, Al Ahli FC (hereinafter: the club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from 1 June 2016 until 31 May 2019 according to which the former would be hired as the “head coach” of the latter.

2. The contract stipulated in the preamble that “Al Ahli Club is aware that in order for the Head Coach to terminate his contract with the club Al Ta’awoun, and consequently perform the job as Head Coach of Al Ahli, the Head Coach must pay compensation in the amount not more than of USD 400,000.00 […] to obtain a written consent from the club Al Ta’awoun Sporting Club.

Al Ahli Club agreed to provide to the Head Coach the request funds to activate the termination clause in his contract with club Al Ta’awoun and provide all assistance to the Head Coach in order to obtain written consent from Al Ta’awoun Sporting Club.

3. According to clause 3 of the contract the coach was, inter alia, entitled to receive the following amounts:

- EUR 2,400,000 total annual salary for the season 2016/2017;

- EUR 2,400,000 total annual salary for the season 2017/2018;

- EUR 2,600,000 total annual salary for the season 2018/2019.

4. Furthermore, the contract specified the payment of the above mentioned amounts as follows:

- EUR 360,000 as advanced payment payable on 15 June 2016;

- EUR 360,000 as advanced payment payable on 15 June 2017;

- EUR 390,000 as advanced payment payable on 15 June 2018;

- From June 2016 to May 2017 a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 170,000 to be paid “within the first 7 (seven) consecutive days of every new month”;

- From June 2017 to May 2018 a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 170,000 to be paid “within the first 7 (seven) consecutive days of every new month”;

- From June 2018 to May 2019 a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 184,167 to be paid “within the first 7 (seven) consecutive days of every new month”.

5. Moreover, the coach was entitled to a total of 4 “return Business Class tickets (Yearly) on Jeddah –Porto – Jeddah, for the use of the Head Coach. Unused tickets are not carried onto the next season.”

6. In addition the parties further agreed on the following “Performance Incentives”:

“For the three seasons (from 1st of June 2016 to 30th June 2019). Values for each season:

1. The Head Coach shall be entitled to receive double the amount of the bonus paid to the players competing in official games

2. The Head Coach is entitled to receive EUR 350,000.000 […] if the team is Champion of the Saudi Professional League

3. The Head Coach is entitled to receive EUR 150,000.00 […] if the team is Champion of the Kings Cup.

4. The Head Coach is entitled to receive EUR 100,000.00 […] if the team is Champion of Crown Prince Cup.

5. The Head Coach is entitled to receive EUR 500,000.00 […] if the team is Champion of the AFC Asian Champions League”

7. Furthermore, in clause 4 titled “SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION” the parties stipulated the following:

“A. Suspension or Termination by the Club for just Cause.

“The Clubs shall have the right and option to either suspend Head Coach for a period of time with or without pay or to terminate Head Coach’s employment and this Agreement for cause prior to the termination date […]. In the event this Agreement is terminated for cause, all obligations of the Club to make further payment or provide any other consideration hereunder shall cease as of the date of termination. In no case shall the Club be liable to Head Coach for the loss of any collateral business opportunities, or any benefits, perquisites, income or consequential damages suffered by Head Coach as a result of the Club’s termination of his employment. […]

B. Termination by the Club without Just Cause.

The Club shall have the right to terminate Head Coach’s employment and this Agreement without any reason and without cause prior to the termination date […]. In the event this Agreement is terminated without cause, (1) all obligations of the Club to Head Coach pursuant to this Agreement shall cease as of the date of any such termination, (2) Head Coach shall be eligible for any post-termination benefits applicable to regular employees of the Club will pay to the Head Coach the following:

If the Club terminates this agreement during the 1st, 2nd or 3rd seasons the Head Coach shall pay a penalty equivalent of 50% of the remaining value of the season in which the contract terminated.

C. Termination by the Head Coach without Just Cause

The Head Coach will pay to the Club the following:

1. If the Head Coach terminate this agreement during the 1st, 2nd or 3rd seasons the Head Coach shall pay a penalty equivalent of 50% of the remaining value of the season in which the contract terminated.

2. In addition to the above obligation the parties agree the extra penalty if the head coach – in a year period after leave The Club – take a job in the GCC region and / or China. In this case there will be an extra compensation of EUR 1,500,000 […] if the head coach in the period referred to above take a job in the GCC region and EUR 2,000,00 […] if the Head coach in the period referred to above take a job in China.

[…]

D. Waiver of Claims.

The financial consequences of this Agreement or suspension hereunder are exclusively set forth herein. Therefore, with the sole exception of payments required by this Agreement, in any instance of termination for cause or without cause, or suspension effected in accordance with the procedures established in this Agreement, neither Head Coach nor the Club shall be entitled to receive, and each herby waives any claim against the other, and their respective officers, directors, agents, employees, successors, and personal representatives for consequential damages by reason of any alleged economic loss. […]

F. Termination by the Head Coach with Just Cause

The Head Coach shall have the right to terminate this Agreement henceforth with just cause without need for notice if:

[…]

If the Club meets once of the two above-mentioned clauses […] the Head Coach shall be entitled for the delayed financial compensation and all other maturing financial compensation until the end of the season that occurred the event including all bonuses that are mathematically still attainable at the date of cancellation of the Agreement.”

8. Finally, in clause 5. H. the parties agreed that “The Club undertakes the responsibility to provide to the Head Coach the final value up to USD 400,000.00 […] net to be paid by 23th May 2016 by bank transfer in order to allow the Head Coach to execute termination of the employment contract with his current club”

9. On 1 October 2016, the club informed the coach that the “contract has been terminated from today 01st October 2016.”

10. On 24 October 2016, the former representative of the coach, requested the club to pay EUR 700,000 in accordance with clause 4. B. of the contract.

11. On 26 January 2017, the former representative of the coach, requested once more the club to pay EUR 700,000.

12. On 6 March 2017, the new (and current) representative of the coach, put the club in default for the payment of EUR 6,389,000 and insisted, that if the parties can’t “reach a friendly consensus” the coach will be force to refer the matter to FIFA.

13. The coach lodged a claim for breach of contract without just cause and requested the payment of the following amount, plus 5% interest as from the “service date”:

EUR 6,398,728.32, corresponding to the following:

- EUR 6,360,000 corresponding to the residual value of the contract, i.e. as from 1 October 2016 until 31 May 2019;

- EUR 20,056.96 corresponding to bonuses;

- EUR 2,500 corresponding to flight tickets from October 2016;

- EUR 16,171.36 corresponding to “vitamin supplements for the Men Professional football team”.

14. Alternatively, the coach claimed the amount of EUR 7,078,728.32, corresponding to the above mentioned amount plus “a penalty equivalent of 50% of the remaining value of the season in which the contract terminated” in the amount of EUR 680,000.

15. In his claim, the coach argued that he “was illegally dismissed without any reason or just cause, without precedence of a disciplinary process and without prior notice.”

16. Furthermore, the coach deemed that the termination clauses in the contract, in particular clauses 4.B. and 4.C. “are not reciprocal clauses” and that “there isn’t any doubt that we are facing an excessive commitment” and therefore “not valid and void” and “shall not be applied in the present matter”.

17. Moreover, the coach stressed that the contract was not terminated in accordance with clause 4.B. of the contract as the termination letter is “completely silent about these objective criteria” and in any case “Clause 4.B. it is not in compliance with the principle of maintenance of contractual stability, as well as it is clearly a potestative clause”.

18. Consequently, the coach pointed out that “having been illegal the dismissal of the Claimant, once he was dismissed without any reason or just cause and without precedence of a disciplinary process, he has the right to claim to the Respondent, not only all amounts due and unpaid to him, up to his dismissal, as well all amounts that he would be entitled if the employment contract had terminated on its term, which should have happened on 31.05.2019”.

19. In this regard, the coach highlighted that “the Claimant was entitled to be paid for performance incentives, per season and for the three seasons, namely, to receive the double amount of the bonus paid to the players competing in official games, form June 1st, 2016 to June 30, 2019”.

20. According to the coach, “the players were entitled to receive, among others, the following bonus:

- 25.000,00 (Twenty five thousand Saudi Arabia Ryals) SAR net [about 6.267,81 […] Euros net] if the team was Champion in the ‘Saudi Super Cup 2016’; and

- 5.000 […] SAR net [about 1.253,56 […] Euros net] for each winning game”

21. Due to the above, the coach deemed that he was entitled to the amount of SAR 50,000 (“EUR 12.535,60”) for winning the Saudi Super Cup 2016 and to the amount of EUR 7,521.36 corresponding to “3 winning games.

22. In addition, the coach argued that he “paid from his own pocket several vitamin supplements” for the team and that he had the “appropriate authorization of the Respondent [club]”.

23. In regards to the coach’s alternative claim (cf. point 14.), in case clauses 4.B and 4.C of the contract are “considered valid and legally effective, which is not conceived nor accepted”, the coach argued that the clause shall “be understood as the right to the Claimant to receive, besides the compensation for the earlier employment contract termination that the Respondent is also obliged to pay to the Claimant, a penalty amount, to be calculated according to the prediction of such clause.”

24. In its reply, the club argued that “the right to terminate the contract is guaranteed to both parties in accordance with the terms of the contract between them” and that “the coach’s claim relates to the termination of the contract by the club without just cause, therefore the claim is subject to the Clause (4/B) of the contract.”

25. Furthermore, the club deemed that the clause 4.B “is clear and explicit and has specified accurately the effects of termination without just cause, where must be respected and compliance with.”

26. In regards to the argument of “the Claimant that the contract is unfair and excessive” the club pointed out that “the effects of the Clause (4/A) of the contract, regarding the termination of the contract by the Respondent with just cause, in which the Claimant does not bear any financial consequences, accordingly the contract and the obligations of parties shall cease. While if the contract terminated by the Claimant with just cause as Clause (4/F). And the Respondent shall pay compensation for the duration of the remaining season from the date of his termination.”

27. In addition, the club argued that it has already contacted the coach and offered to pay EUR 700,000 “which equals 50% of the value of the rest of the sports season 2016/2017 which starts form 1/10/2016 until 30/6/2017.”

28. Moreover, the club deemed that the contract (cf. point I.6.) “does not stipulated the coach’s eligibility to entitle the Super Cup bonus, therefore, the relevant claim must be rejected.”

29. Furthermore, the club stated that the coach purchased the vitamins “in the absence of any purchase order from Respondent, which considered a unilateral act by him and therefore the claim must be rejected.”

30. The club however agreed that it owes the coach EUR 7,521.36 as a bonus “of winning matches” and that it is “ready to pay it”.

31. In continuation the club referred to the coach’s former representative’s letter’s in which he indicated “that the claimed amount is only EUR 700,000.

32. Consequently, the club requested to dismiss the claim “partially”.

33. In his replica, the coach reiterated the position expressed with his claim and, in particular, stressed that “’the right’ to terminate the contract before its term isn’t not only non-reciprocal – vide the wording of the Clauses 4.B and 4.C. -, but also predicts excessive, unreasonable and unlawful consequences to the Claimant”.

34. Moreover, the coach further repeated that the clause 4.B. is in fact a “penalty clause” and not a compensation clause.

35. In addition, the coach pointed out that “it is very clear from the exhibits attached by the Respondent […] that the Claimant, before having lodged the claim towards FIFA, was available to reach an amicable agreement with the Respondent, on the amount of EUR 700.000,00”.

36. However, “once he has considered, in first instance, such value was no longer acceptable, considering the time elapsed since the unilateral decision of the Respondent to put an end on the contract” the coach highlighted that “when the Respondent contacted the new ‘Claimant’s representative and offered to pay the balance of his client’s 700.000 euro’, the Claimant categorically refused such proposal.”

37. In regards to the bonus, the coach deemed that “on the one hand, if that is true such clause does not expressly stipulates the coach’s eligibility to entitle the Super Cup bonus, on the other hand, is mandatory to accept such claim, once the relevant contract […] expressly predicts that the Claimant ‘shall be entitled to receive double the amount of bonus paid to the players competing in official games’”.

38. Consequently, the coach argued that “those goals and bonus’s amount which were no autonomously and expressly predicted in the Claimant’s contract, doesn’t mean that the Claimant wouldn’t be entitled to them: NO WAY!”

39. Continuously, the coach deemed that “the Claimant – an employee of the Respondent – should not only take care of the health of the players – also employees and financial actives of the Respondent – in order to avoid injuries and to increase their physical performance”.

40. In this regards, the coach stressed that he had “the oral authorization of the Respondent” to make the order and “also had the Respondent’s commitment of reimbursing him for all expenses done”.

41. As a consequence, the coach repeated his request and alternative request submitted with his previous claim.

42. The Claimant pointed out that “the signature doesn’t match, nor does it even seem, at all, with the signature of the claimant.”

43. Finally, the coach deemed that “if the Riffa Sports Club claims that they have paid his debts to the claimant, they must accomplish the rules of the burden of proof” and that “the party insisting that the fact actually occurred, i.e. that the payment of the salaries, fees or ‘receivables’, was made, has as well to prove such position”.

44. In its duplica, the club insisted on the principle of pacta sunt servanda and referred to its counterclaim (see below) lodged shortly after its reply, which however was not forwarded to the Claimant at that time.

45. On 18 June 2017, the club lodged a counterclaim against the coach and requested the payment of USD 400,000, corresponding to the compensation that was paid to Al Ta’awoun Sporting Club.

46. According to the club, “the Claimant has asked the Respondent to provide him the amount of USD 400,000.00 […] to pay to Al – Ta’awoun Club because he does not have that amount”.

47. Finally, the club deemed that “what the Respondent has done is simply to provide the amount to the Claimant, and not to replace his place to pay off his obligations towards Al-Ta’awoun Club. Therefore, the Claimant is owing to Respondent with the amount of USD 400.000.”

48. In his reply to the counterclaim, the coach rejected the club’s counterclaim in its entirety.

49. In particular, the coach dismissed the club’s argument that the amount of USD 400,000 was a “loan”.

50. In this regard, the coach argued that when the club approached his former club, it was informed that Al Ta’awoun would release the coach only if the two following conditions would be met:

- “The first condition was that he only would leave ‘Al-Taawon FC’ if this club accepted to release him from the last year contract that they had, in an amicable way!

- The second condition imposed by the Claimant / Counter-respondent to the Respondent / Counter-claimant was that, if ‘Al-Taawon FC’ accepted to relsease him from the last year contract, in an amicable way, the Respondent / Counter-claimant should to pay the amount that ‘Al-Taawon FC’ would claim to release him.”

51. Furthermore, the coach referred to the Preamble and clause 5.H. of the contract and added that the club’s counterclaim “is nothing else than a fairy tale, which seems to enchant, but quickly fades and collapses, given the fantasy and surrealism of the story told.”

52. The coach informed FIFA that on 23 October 2016, he signed an employment contract with the Emirati club Baniyas Football SC, valid as from 23 October 2016 until 31 May 2017, according to which he was, inter alia, entitled to receive a total amount of USD 526,000, to be paid as follows:

- USD 176,000, as advance of payment;

- USD 50,000, as monthly salary, due “within the 1-15 day of each month”.

53. On 21 March 2017, the coach signed a contract with the Saudi Arabian club Al-Ta’awoun SC, valid as from 21 March 2017 until the end of the 2017/2018 season, according to which the coach was entitled to receive the total amount of USD 1,200,000.

54. On 10 July 2018, the coach signed a contract with the Portuguese club Rio Ave FC, valid as from 10 July 2018 until 30 June 2019, according to which he was entitled to receive the total gross amount of EUR 261,432, payable in 12 monthly salaries.

55. On 22 December 2018, the coach signed a contract with the English club Reading FC, valid as from 22 December 2018 until 30 June 2020, according to which he was entitled to an annual salary in the amount of GBP 820,000 to be paid in equal monthly salaries.

II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee

1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter also referred to as: the Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 20 March 2017, the Single Judge concluded that the 2017 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 Procedural Rules).

2. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 and 4 in combination with art. 22 lit. c) of the October 2019 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he shall adjudicate on an employment-related dispute between a club or an association and a coach that has an international dimension.

3. As a consequence, the Single Judge is the competent body to decide on the present litigation involving a Portuguese coach and a Saudi Arabian club regarding an alleged breach of an employment contract.

4. In continuation, the Single Judge 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, he referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the October 2019 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged with FIFA on 20 March 2017. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2017 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance (cf. art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations).

5. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started his analysis by acknowledging the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties as well as the documents contained in the file. The Single Judge, however, emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

6. In this respect and first of all, the Single Judge acknowledged that, on 21 May 2016, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract valid as from 1 June 2016 until 31 May 2019, by means of which the Claimant was, inter alia, entitled to receive the amounts mentioned in points I. 3. and 4.

7. Subsequently, the Single Judge took note that in his claim to FIFA, the coach had accused the club of having terminated the contract without just cause on 1 October 2016 and therefore claimed to be entitled to receive as compensation the residual value of the contract. In addition, the Single Judge took into account that the coach had also accused the club of having failed to pay him the sum of EUR 38,728.32 as mentioned in point I.13.

8. In continuation, the Single Judge observed that, for its part, the club did not contest having terminated the contract without just cause, but argued that due to the termination in accordance with clause 4.B. of the contract the coach shall only be entitled to EUR 680,000. At the same time, the Single Judge also observed that the club had admitted having failed to pay to the coach outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 7,521.36 corresponding to bonuses for 3 won games. However, the club denied that the coach is entitled to any further bonuses, in particular, the bonus for winning the Super Cup, as no such bonus is stipulated in the contract. Moreover, the club argued that the coach purchased the vitamins on his own and the club never agreed to reimburse the costs. And finally, the Single Judge took note of the club’s request to be reimbursed with the amount of USD 400,000, which it paid as compensation to the coach’s former club, Al Ta’awoun SC.

9. In light of all the above, the Single Judge observed that it was undisputed by the parties that the contract had been unilaterally terminated by the club on 1 October 2016 without just cause. Thus, the Single Judge deemed that the first question to be addressed whether there is any outstanding amounts owed to one of the parties.

10. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled the basic principle of the burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. In other words, only allegations supported by clear evidence can be taken into consideration by the deciding body. In this regard, the Single Judge considered that the coach did not provide any evidence that he is entitled to a bonus for winning the Saudi Super Cup in 2016, as there is no provision in the contract which would entitle the coach to such a bonus. Moreover, the Single Judge noted that the coach also failed to provide any evidence that he had an “appropriate authorization” from the club to purchase vitamins and supplements for an amount of EUR 16,171.16. In addition, the Single Judge highlighted that the coach failed to provide any documents in regards to the costs of the flight tickets. However, the Single Judge did recognize, that the club acknowledged that it owes the coach the amount of EUR 7,521.36 as a bonus for 3 won matches.

11. The Single Judge then proceeded to analyse whether the club would be entitled to be reimbursed with the amount of EUR 400,000, corresponding to the compensation that was owed to the coach’s former club Al Ta’awoun SC. In this respect, the Single Judge analysed clause 5.H. of the contract and concluded, that the clause did not foresee any reimbursement by the coach and that the wording of said clause did not indicate that the amount to be paid by the club would be considered as a loan.

12. In view of all the above and, in particular, taking into account that the club did not contest the fact that the aforementioned bonus payments in the amount of EUR 7,521.36 were due, the Single Judge decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the club must fulfil its contractual obligations towards the coach and is to be held liable to pay the coach the amount of EUR 7,521.36.

13. In continuation and with regard to the coach’s request for interest, the Single Judge decided that the coach is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 7,521.36 as from the date of termination, i.e. 1 October 2016, until the date of effective payment.

14. The Single Judge then turned his attention to the calculation of the amount of compensation payable to the coach by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge observed that as stated in clause 4.B. of the contract, in case of a termination of contract by the club without just cause, the latter had to pay to the coach “a penalty equivalent of 50% of the remaining value of the season in which the contract terminated”.

15. Equally, the Single Judge further remarked that clause 4.C. of the contract specified that in case of a termination of contract by the coach without just cause, the latter had to pay to the club, as compensation, “a penalty equivalent of 50% of the remaining value of the season in which the contract terminated”.

16. In continuation, the Single Judge acknowledged that the relevant clause did not include a precise and specific amount of compensation, however, it clearly provided for a determinable amount of compensation payable to the party that is not at the origin of the unilateral termination, which amount corresponds 50% to the remaining value of the season in which the contract was terminated, which was not considered disproportionate by the Single Judge.

17. Furthermore, the Single Judge outlined that the provisions of said clause were fully reciprocal.

18. Moreover, the Single Judge wished to recall that, in the present dispute, the club had terminated the contract without just cause and, as such, the aforementioned clause is in principle applicable for the purpose of the determination of the compensation for a unilateral termination without just cause payable by the club to the coach.

19. On account of the above, the parties having contractually agreed on the compensation payable in the event of unilateral termination without just cause and such compensation being deemed proportionate and reciprocal, the Single Judge concluded that the provision contained under clause 4.B. of the contract has to be considered as valid and fully effective, i.e. the amount of compensation provided for in said article shall be awarded to the coach.

20. In this regard, the Single Judge established that the remaining value of the relevant season amounts to EUR 1,360,000 which results in a compensation in the amount of EUR 680,000.

21. In addition, taking into account the coach’s request as well as the constant practice of the Player Status Committee in this regard, the Single Judge decided that the club must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of the compensation as of the date of termination of the contract, i.e. 1 October 2016, until the date of effective payment.

22. Taking into account all the above considerations, the Single Judge decided to partially accept the coach’s claim and to reject the counterclaim of the club in full.

23. Lastly, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee including its Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25’000 are levied. The relevant provision further states that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings (cf. art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).

24. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the claim of the coach had been partially accepted, the Single Judge concluded that both the coach and the club had to bear a part of the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA.

25. Furthermore and according to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. On that basis, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 6,398,729.32. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000.

26. In conclusion, and considering that the case at hand did pose some particular factual difficulties, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 25,000. Moreover, in line with his aforementioned considerations and taking into account the degree of success, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of CHF 15,000 has to be paid by the club and the amount of CHF 10,000 by the coach to cover the costs of the present proceedings.

III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee

1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, José Manuel Martins Teixeira Gomes, is partially accepted.

2. The claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Al Ahli FC, is rejected.

3. 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 EUR 7,521.36, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 October 2016.

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, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 680,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 October 2016.

5. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received.

6. If the aforementioned sums, plus interest as established above, are not paid within the aforementioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

7. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 25’000 are to be paid by both parties, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows:

7.1. The amount of CHF 10,000 has to be paid by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. Considering that the latter already paid an advance of costs in the amount of CHF 4’994 at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent has to pay the remaining amount of CHF 5,006.

7.2. The amount of CHF 15,000 has to be paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. Considering that the latter already paid an advance of costs in the amount of CHF 4,986, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay the remaining amount of CHF 10,014.

7.3. The aforementioned amounts have to be paid directly to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. 17-00547/mdo-gra:

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

8. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected.

*****

Note related to the publication:

The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 20 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).

Note related to the appeal procedure:

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

For the Single Judge of the

Players’ Status Committee

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer