F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2016-2017) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 30 June 2017

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 June 2017,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Roy Vermeer (Netherlands), member

Zola Majavu (South Africa), member

on the claim presented by the player,

Player A, Country B,

as Claimant / Counter-Respondent

against 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

1. On 22 June 2013, the player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant / Counter-Respondent) born on 6 December 1985, and the club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent / Counter-Claimant), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 1 July 2013 until 30 June 2016.

2. According to article 2.1 of the contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to the following remuneration:

a) USD 1,350,000 net for the first year of the contract payable as follows:

“- Amount of 350,000 USD Provider contract becomes payable after registration in the Football Association of Country D.

- Amount of 1,000,000 USD paid as monthly salary (83,333 USD per month)”;

b) USD 1,300,000 net for the second year of the contract payable as follows:

“- Amount of 300,000 USD Provider contract.

- Amount of 1,000,000 USD paid as monthly salary (83,333 USD per month)”;

c) USD 1,300,000 net for the third year of the contract payable as follows:

“- Amount of 300,000 USD Provider contract.

- Amount of 1,000,000 USD paid as monthly salary (83,333 USD per month)”.

3. In accordance with article 2.2 of the contract, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had to provide the Claimant / Counter-Respondent with a “5 star accommodation including water & elec.”.

4. Moreover, article 2.4 of the contract established that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to “six air ticket business class roundtrip (City of Country B– City of Country D – City of Country B) per year”.

5. Furthermore, article 2.5 of the contract stated that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had to provide the Claimant / Counter-Respondent with “necessary health care in government hospitals in addition of health and accidents insurance”; whereas article 2.6 indicated that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant should provide the Claimant / Counter-Respondent “at its own expenses, the necessary treatment for the player if he is injured as a result of practicing his sport in favor of the club during the period of his contract”.

6. On 6 March 2015, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent put the club in default of paying his salaries of December 2014, January and February 2015 as well as medical expenses, accommodation and flight tickets for the total amount of USD 338,086. In his default notice, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent informed the Respondent / Counter-Claimant that, should the latter not pay him the requested amount within five days, he would terminate the contract.

7. On 11 March 2015, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent sent an e-mail to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in reply to an apparent offer of amicable settlement received from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. In his e-mail, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requested being paid the full outstanding amount in three instalments as well as the authorization from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to finish his medical treatment in Country B “until he is fully recovered from his injury, as well to negotiate a temporary transfer agreement until December 31st 2015”.

8. On 13 March 2015, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant replied to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent informing the latter that it would pay a total amount of USD 304,752 in three instalments and that it would provide the necessary medical treatment to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in the Country D. Moreover, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant expressed that it would be “happy to conclude a loan agreement with club in Country B at any sooner time”.

9. On the same day, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent replied to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant insisting in the payment of the amount of USD 338,086 and in finishing his medical treatment in Country B.

10. On 16 March 2015, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract in writing due to the non-payment of his remuneration.

11. On 23 June 2015, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent signed a new employment contract with the club of Country B, Club E.

12. On 27 March 2015, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant for breach of contract, requesting the total amount of USD 1,672,970 plus 5% interest as of each due date, according to the following breakdown:

- USD 250,000 as outstanding salaries corresponding to unpaid monthly salaries of December 2014, January and February 2015;

- USD 55,539 for accommodation expenses;

- USD 13,375 for flight tickets;

- USD 15,728 for medical expenses;

- USD 1,333,328 as compensation for breach of contract corresponding to the residual amount of the contract.

13. In his claim, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explained that he sustained an injury while playing a friendly match with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, as a consequence of which, he received surgery on 28 August 2014 which, according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, was approved by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent further explained that, three months after the surgery, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant stopped paying his salaries without any valid reason, thus breaching the contract.

14. Moreover, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent asserted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not provide him with accommodation as per the contract, and he therefore had to enter into a loan agreement for the amount of 204,000 in the currency of Country D “corresponding to USD 55,539”. In this regard, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent provided an invoice entitled “Proforma Invoice – Lease” for the amount of 204,010 in the currency of Country D as well as a copy of two cheques in the respective amount of 102,000 and 102,010 in the currency of Country D with which he apparently paid the relevant loan amount.

15. Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent stated that in 2014 he was authorized to fly to Country B and that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not pay the relevant flight tickets as provided for in the contract. To this end, the player requested the reimbursement of the amount of 37,448.68 in the currency of Country B “corresponding to USD 13,375” and provided a copy of two flight tickets for the above-mentioned amount.

16. Additionally, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explained that he had to pay himself the surgery as well as the medical treatment and physiotherapy sessions related to the injury he suffered while playing with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, therefore, requesting their reimbursement in the amount of 47,184.64 in the currency of Country B “corresponding to USD 15,728”. In this respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent provided invoices and receipts for the total amount of 47,184.64 in the currency of Country B dated between 18 August and 1 September 2014.

17. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant firstly declared that due to the injury of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, it had to sign a new player on loan, thus incurring extraordinary expenses that resulted in financial difficulties for the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, preventing it from complying with its financial obligations towards the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. According to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, it explained this situation to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent who allegedly understood and did not object to it.

18. Furthermore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant stated that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent left the Country D and flew to Country B on 15 March 2015 without authorization from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. In addition, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant argued that it replied to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s termination letter on 19 March 2015 objecting to the termination of the contract and requesting his bank details to proceed to the payment of the outstanding remuneration. In such letter, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant informed the Claimant / Counter-Respondent that, “failure to return to Club C [i.e. the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] within the next 10 days shall automatically cause the termination of the employment agreement for just cause”.

19. In this respect and as the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not return to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within the given deadline, the latter declared that it terminated the contract in writing on 1 April 2015, with just cause due to the unauthorized stay of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in Country B. In such letter, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant requested again the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s bank details in order to pay the outstanding amount of USD 338,086.

20. According to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent “did not validly terminate the contract” for the following reasons: (i) the termination letter was not signed by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and there is no evidence that on the date of termination his lawyer had legal authorization to terminate the contract; (ii) the period of time, i.e. five days, given in the default notice to remedy the default was too short and; (iii) the termination was done in bad faith as the parties were negotiating an amicable settlement. In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant added that it always acted with good faith as it waited for the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s recovery for more than seven months.

21. In view of the above and, in particular, due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s alleged breach of contract by leaving the Respondent / Counter-Claimant without authorization, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and his new club, Club E. In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant requested compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 215,887 plus 5% interest as of 1 April 2015 as well as sporting sanctions to be imposed on both the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and Club E. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant explained that the amount requested as compensation corresponds to two thirds of the total amount that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant paid to the club of Country B, Club F, for the transfer of the player.

22. In his replica, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent first pointed out that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, in its reply, did not contest or deny any of the outstanding amounts claimed by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in his statement of claim. Moreover, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent denied that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant needed his bank details to transfer the outstanding amount, since the Respondent / Counter-Claimant already had these details.

23. As to the reasons invoked by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had not terminated the contract in a valid way, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent replied the following: (i) the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was always represented by the same lawyer, from the very first letter of default and even during the negotiation of an amicable solution to the matter. In this regard, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent enclosed the relevant power of attorney signed on 6 March 2015 and, therefore, considered that the termination letter was signed by his duly empowered legal representative; (ii) the Claimant / Counter-Respondent declared that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant actually had ten days to remedy the default before he terminated the contract, which he considered to be a reasonable period of time; (iii) the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that the parties “tried – but did not succeed – to negotiate an amicable solution” and, as they never reached an amicable settlement and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not reply to his last letter, there was no bad faith on his part in terminating the contract.

24. In reply to the counterclaim and regarding the argument of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant that he breached the contract by leaving the country without authorization, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent declared that he had no other choice as he was in a precarious situation due to the non-payment of his salaries, accommodation and medical expenses. Additionally, he argued that he “only left to Country B after exhausting all possible attempts to solve the matter in an amicable way”.

25. Based on the above, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent considered that the only party in breach was the Respondent / Counter-Claimant due to the non-payment of three monthly salaries, the accommodation and medical expenses and the relevant flight tickets, and thus requested the rejection of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim.

26. Club E, in its reply to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim, first stated that it was broadly informed by the press that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent became a free agent, and that only then Club E approached the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to sign a contract, which was finally signed two months after said initial appraoch. Additionally, Club E declared that it was not the only club interested in hiring the Claimant / Counter-Respondent.

27. In this respect, Club E pointed out that “at no time any contact, approach or proposal was made to the Player by Club E while [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] was under contract with [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant]”. Club E further stressed that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent earned less with Club E than with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.

28. Furthermore, Club E maintained that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract with just cause on 16 March 2015, due to lack of payment by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant of the player’s remuneration.

29. Based on the above, Club E concluded that it did not induce the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to terminate his employment contract with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and requested the dismissal of the counterclaim. Alternatively, in case FIFA considered that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent breached the contract, Club E requested to be considered free of any liability “for its good faith and law-abiding attitude”.

30. In its duplica, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant repeated its previous arguments and added that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not want to continue his contractual relationship with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant pointed to the requests of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to stay in Country B for his physical recovery, despite the Respondent / Counter-Claimant offering him “a first class rehabilitation”, and to play on loan with a club of Country B. According to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent “was not truly concerned about his recovery, but rather wanted to leave the Country D and [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] after collecting his outstanding salaries”.

31. Finally, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant insisted in its initial counterclaim against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and Club E and requested a copy of the employment contract signed between the player and Club E, upon which receipt “[the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] will provide FIFA with a detailed calculation of the compensation due by the Respondents on a jointly basis”.

32. Upon request of FIFA, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent informed that he signed the following two contracts:

a) On 23 June 2015 with Club E, valid as from 24 June 2015 until 31 May 2017, according to which he was entitled to a monthly remuneration of 120,000 in the currency of Country B;

b) On 19 May 2016 with Club G, valid as from 19 May 2016 until 31 December 2016, according to which he was entitled to a monthly remuneration of 50,000 in the currency of Country B.

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 case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 27 March 2015. Consequently, the 2015 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 2015, 2017 and 2018 editions 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 and par. 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player of Country B, a club of Country D and a club of Country B.

3. Furthermore, 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 2015, 2016 and 2018) and reiterating that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 27 March 2015, the 2015 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

5. First of all, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that on 22 June 2013, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant concluded an employment contract valid as from 1 July 2013 until 30 June 2016 in accordance with which the player was entitled, inter alia, to the following the following remuneration:

 USD 1,350,000 net for the first year of contract, amount which payable as follows:

- “Amount of 350,000 USD Provider contract becomes payable after registration in the Football Association of Country D.

- Amount of 1,000,000 USD paid as monthly salary (83,333 USD per month)”;

 USD 1,300,000 net for the second year of contract payable as follows:

- “- Amount of 300,000 USD Provider contract.

- - Amount of 1,000,000 USD paid as monthly salary (83,333 USD per month)”;

 USD 1,300,000 net for the third year of contract payable as follows:

- “- Amount of 300,000 USD Provider contract.

- - Amount of 1,000,000 USD paid as monthly salary (83,333 USD per month)”.

6. The Chamber further noted that in accordance with the contract, the parties agreed on the following:

 The Respondent / Counter-Claimant had to provide the Claimant / Counter-Respondent with a “5 star accommodation including water & elec.”;

 The Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to “six air ticket business class roundtrip (City of Country B– City of Country D – City of Country B) per year”;

 The Respondent / Counter-Claimant had to provide the Claimant / Counter-Respondent with “necessary health care in government hospitals in addition of health and accidents insurance”; whereas article 2.6 indicated that the club should provide the player “at its own expenses, the necessary treatment for the player if he is injured as a result of practicing his sport in favor of the club during the period of his contract”.

7. Moreover, the Chamber further noted that on 6 March 2015, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent put the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in default of paying his salaries of December 2014, January and February 2015 as well as medical expenses, accommodation and flight tickets for the total amount of USD 338,086.

8. Along this line, the DRC duly observed that the player left the Respondent / Counter-Claimant on 15 March 2015 and that after an exchange of correspondence between him and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, where the parties seemed to be negotiating an amicable settlement, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract on 16 March 2015, as the player deemed he had a just cause to do so since the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had failed to pay him the alleged outstanding amounts. In this respect, the members of the Chamber took note that, according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant stopped paying his salaries after he suffered an injury and he had to cover all his expenses for accommodation, surgery and recovery.

9. On the other hand, the Chamber duly noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant held for its part, that due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s injury, it incurred in extraordinary expenses that resulted in financial difficulties, which prevented it from fulfilling its financial obligations towards the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. Furthermore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant also made the case that, on 1 April 2015, it terminated the contract due to the departure of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, by means of a letter where it offered to pay the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the requested outstanding amount. In addition, the members of the DRC observed that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant asserted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not validly terminate the contract, as it argued that:

a) the player did not sign the termination letter of 16 March 2015 and allegedly, there is no documentary evidence that his legal representative was authorized to terminate the contract on that date;

b) the short period to remedy the default established in the default notice and;

c) the Claimant / Counter-Respondent allegedly terminated the contract in bad faith, since the parties were negotiating an amicable settlement.

10. In this context, the Chamber noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and his new club, Club E, in view of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s alleged breach of contract as he left the Respondent / Counter-Claimant without authorization.

11. As a consequence of the abovementioned considerations, the Chamber acknowledged that it first had to determine the date on which the contract was terminated and by whom it was terminated. Whereas the Claimant / Counter-Respondent held that the relevant date is 16 March 2015, i.e. the day on which he notified the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in writing about his decision to terminate the contract, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant alleged that it objected to this termination on 19 March 2015 and subsequently it terminated the contract by means of its letter of 1 April 2015.

12. Having established the above, the Chamber underlined that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had already indicated in clear and unambiguous terms in its letter dated 16 March 2015 his decision to terminate the contract (“…NOTIFIES [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] regarding the rightful termination of the Foreign Player Contract, as of the date of the receipt of the present notification…”). Furthermore, the Chamber observed that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had confirmed having received such notification. Therefore, the Chamber decided to take into account the date of 16 March 2015 as the date on which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent unilaterally put an end to the contract.

13. Bearing in mind the above, the Chamber proceeded to address the question whether the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s decision to terminate the contract with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant on 16 March 2015 was with or without just cause.

14. In this regard, the Chamber confirmed that it remained undisputed that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not pay the salaries of December 2014 until February 2015. Moreover, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not contest not paying the flight tickets, accommodation and medical expenses incurred by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent.

15. In this context, the Chamber duly noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant defended the non-payment of the player’s salaries due to financial difficulties, as an alleged consequence of expenses it had to incur due to the player’s injury. In this regard, the Chamber was of the firm opinion that the alleged consequences could not be held against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, who bears no responsibility in the financial difficulties of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. Indeed, a club should ensure that it is properly insured in case a player is injured; if it is not insured, this cannot be the player’s fault. Thus, the Chamber unanimously agreed that the fact that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant encountered some financial difficulties due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s injury could not be a justification for its failure to pay the player’s salaries for the months of December 2014 until February 2015, as well as the flight tickets, accommodation and medical expenses.

16. Moreover, the Chamber observed that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant deemed that the termination of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was “invalid”.

17. Having examined the documentation on file, the Chamber is of the opinion that the argumentation of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant regarding the termination of the contract not being valid can be rejected, since the power of attorney granted by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to his legal representative bears the date of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s letter of termination. Furthermore, in respect to the other arguments put forward by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, particularly, that the termination of the contract should not be considered valid due to the short period given by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in his default notice to remedy the default and that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent allegedly terminated the contract in bad faith, since the parties were negotiating an amicable settlement, the Chamber concluded that these arguments cannot be followed. Indeed, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had in fact 10 days to remedy the payment default before the termination of the contract, which, in the Chamber’s view, was a reasonable timeframe to remedy the default. Equally, the Chamber noted that, ultimately, the parties did not reach a settlement.

18. Taking into consideration all the previous deliberations, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had not put forward any justified reasons for the non-payment of the player’s remuneration and that it could thus be concluded that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had seriously neglected its contractual obligations towards the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in a continuous and substantial manner. As a consequence, the Chamber was of the unanimous opinion that the foregoing situation legitimately caused the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s confidence in the Respondent / Counter-Claimant respecting its future duties under the contract to be lost and that he had just cause to terminate the employment contract with the club on 16 March 2015.

19. On account of all the above, the Chamber established that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had terminated the employment contract with just cause on 16 March 2015 and that, consequently, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact with just cause by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent.

20. Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber went on to deal with the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent.

21. First of all, the members of the Chamber concurred that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must fulfill its obligations as per employment contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is liable to pay to the player the remuneration that was outstanding at the time of the termination, i.e. the amount of USD 334,641, amount that consists of the salaries from December 2014 until February 2015, plus the flight tickets, accommodation and medical expenses which were all substantiated by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent with satisfactory documentary evidence.

22. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on each of the relevant payments as of the day following the day on which the relevant payments fell due in respect to the salaries, and interest of 5% p.a. on the amounts corresponding to the flight tickets, accommodation and medical expenses incurred as from 27 March 2015, i.e. the date on which the player lodged his claim in front of FIFA, considering it is not possible to determine the due date of payment for these concepts.

23. In continuation, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the player is entitled to receive from the club compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding remuneration on the basis of the relevant employment contract.

24. 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 player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.

25. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all 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.

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

27. Having recalled the aforementioned, and in order to evaluate the compensation to be paid by the club, 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 / Counter-Respondent after the early termination occurred. In this respect, the Chamber concluded that the remaining value of the contract as from its early termination by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent until the regular expiry of the contract amounts to, in accordance with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s request, is USD 1,333,328 and that such amount shall serve as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.

28. In continuation, the Chamber remarked that the player had found new employment with the clubs Club E and Club G, contracts in which he earned amounts that correspond to a total of approximately USD 409,300 during the period between 24 June 2015 until 30 June 2016.

29. Consequently, in accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the general obligation of the player to mitigate his damages, the remuneration as indicated in the new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.

30. In view of all of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay the amount of USD 924,028 to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, which is considered by the Chamber to be a reasonable and justified amount as compensation for breach of contract.

31. In addition, taking into account the player’s request, the Chamber decided that the club must pay to the player interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation for breach of contract as of the date on which the claim was lodged until the date of effective payment.

32. The DRC concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected and that also the counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.

*****

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

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

2. The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C, 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 USD 334,641 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows:

a. 5% p.a. as of 1 January 2015 on the amount of USD 83,333;

b. 5% p.a. as of 1 February 2015 on the amount of USD 83,333;

c. 5% p.a. as of 1 March 2015 on the amount of USD 83,333;¨

d. 5% p.a. as of 27 March 2015 on the amount of USD 84,642.

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 USD 924,028 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 27 March 2015 until the date of effective payment.

5. If the aforementioned sums plus interest are not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within the stated time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

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

7. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant 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. 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, 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

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Omar Ongaro

Football Regulatory Director

Encl. CAS directives