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 19 January 2017

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 19 January 2017,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Wouter Lambrecht (Belgium), member

on the matter between the player,

Player A, Country B,

as Claimant / Counter-Respondent

and the club,

Club C, Country D

as Respondent / Counter-Claimant

and the club,

Club E, Country B,

as Intervening Party

regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 24 February 2014, the Player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent), born on 28 September 1988, and the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent / Counter-Claimant), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as of the date of signature until 31 December 2016.

2. The contract stipulated that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was to receive a monthly salary of USD 26,000 net, payable at the exchange rate applicable by the National Bank of Country D at the date of signature of the contract.

3. On the same date, the parties signed an annex to the contract, inter alia specifying that “[the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] shall get monthly salary in 2014 in the tune of 26 000 U.S. dollars (net sum), in 2015 in the tune of 31 000 U.S. dollars (net sum), in 2016 – 36 000 USD (net sum).

Wage rate of [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent], set up in [the contract] for 2014, shall be amend in 2015 and 2016 with supplementary agreement for every year.”

4. The annex further indicated that all amounts foreseen were to be paid, as specified in point 2. above.

5. The annex finally provided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had to cover, each year, the cost of one round-trip flight ticket in economy from City F to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s home for him, his wife and his children.

6. On 29 December 2014, following a conversation with the coaching staff – from whom he was told to look for a new club –, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent wrote to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant requesting further clarification as to his situation within it, as well as regarding the start of the winter training camp. In further correspondence dated 2 and 5 January 2015, in addition to reiterating the aforementioned queries, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent further urged the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to provide him with a flight ticket in order to join its winter training camp. Finally, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent underlined that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was illegally preventing him from performing his contractual obligations.

7. On 6 January 2015, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant confirmed the relevant conversation with the coaching staff and informed the Claimant / Counter-Respondent that he would be notified on further steps.

8. On 20 January 2015, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent complained to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant that he had not been called up to participate in the training camp with the first team in City G, and that he had not been participating in the first team’s training session for more than 15 days.

9. On 21 January 2015, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant replied that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent should discuss “his status within the team” with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s coaching staff. According to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent agreed with the coach that he could look for a new club and was thus allowed to miss trainings. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant also referred to a loan offer to play for Club H “without financial loss for the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent]”, but the latter allegedly declined it. Finally, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant asked the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to inform it about his plan as soon as possible and in the event he had no reasonable offer, to invite him to train with its second team “to keep the fitness level and monitor his condition”.

10. On 22 January 2015, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent insisted that he did not tell the coach that he would look for a new club by himself, that he was informed by the coaching staff to do so; he was aware of the said loan offer solely in the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s letter dated 21 January 2015; he eventually insisted on being willing to perform the contract.

11. On 29 January 2015, following the information on the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s website regarding the second pre-season training camp held in City J, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requested (i) to be reintegrated in the first team by being provided with a flight ticket and hotel accommodation to City J; (ii) documentary evidence that he was registered with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s first team in the Football Federation of Country D, and that, in the event he did not receive such evidence, he would consider that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was no longer interested in his services; (iii) documentary evidence that his salary for January 2015 was paid on time. Failing to provide the relevant information and documentation, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent would terminate the contract.

12. On 30 January 2015, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant announced to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent that, considering that he was “not qualified enough to attract the attention of other clubs” and was “not considered by the head coach of the team as the member of the first team”, he would have to train with the reserve team as of 1 February 2015. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant further notified the Claimant / Counter-Respondent that he would be contacted to “arrange a flight to City F”. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant informed the Claimant / Counter-Respondent that in the event he demonstrated a “proper level of physical condition and determination”, he could resume the first team or keep on training with the second team, and that if he failed to be on time to train with the reserve team, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant would take legal action as to his breach of contract. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant also indicated that the registration period for the Premier league clubs of the Football Federation of Country D would start on 18 February 2015 and end on 3 April 2015 and that, thus, “the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] will be registered to the championship on due dates”. Finally, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant specified that, as per the contractual provisions, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s salary was due on the 10th day of the following month and that he would receive the relevant remuneration on time if he appeared to training sessions with the reserve team and fulfilled his contractual obligations.

13. On 2 February 2015, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent submitted a final notice to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, rejecting the content of its last correspondence, and urging the latter to reintegrate him into the first team, to register him with the Football Federation of Country D for the season 2015, and to pay him his salary for January 2015, all by no later than 4 February 2015.

14. On 4 February 2015, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in writing.

15. On 6 February 2015, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant paid the amount of USD 26,000 to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent as remuneration for January 2015.

16. On 11 March 2015, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a complaint before FIFA against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant for breach of contract, requesting the amount of USD 780,000 net, broken down as follows:

 USD 5,000 as outstanding salary for January 2015, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 1 February 2015;

 USD 773,000 as residual value of the contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 4 February 2015;

 USD 2,000 corresponding to the return flight tickets City F - City K for two people, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 4 February 2015.

The Claimant / Counter-Respondent also requested the imposition of sporting sanctions on the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.

17. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent alleged that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had already delayed payments, referring in particular to default notices sent on 15 and 18 July 2014, regarding the payment of his salary from April to June 2014, the payment of which was albeit made by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, but with delay and only after having been reminded in writing. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent also emphasised that the payment of his salary for January 2015 had been delayed and partially done since, according to the annex to the contract, his salary for the season 2015 increased to USD 31,000, yet the Respondent / Counter-Claimant only paid him USD 26,000 on 6 February 2015.

18. Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent held that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant prevented him from performing as a professional football player. In this regard, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent sustained that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant banned him from training with the first team as from January 2015 without any ground, instructed him to train with the second team (i.e. U-21 team) as of 1 February 2015 in which, according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, only young amateur players perform at a very low level and for which he was not eligible to play in official matches. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent provided documentation regarding the reserve team indicating that foreign players were all born after 1993.

19. Moreover, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent asserted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not register him with the Football Federation of Country D for the season 2015, due to the aforementioned circumstances and, in this regard, pointed out that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant indicated an incorrect date as to the start of the registration period to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in its letter dated 30 January 2015. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent sustained that, as per the TMS extract submitted to the file, the registration period in the Football Federation of Country D started on 25 January 2015.

20. Consequently, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent deemed that the aforementioned considerations show that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was no longer interested in his services and, therefore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent considered that he duly terminated the contract on 4 February 2015 (cf. point I.14 above).

21. In its statement of defence, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant rejected the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim and alleged that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was the party who breached the contract in the first instance. According to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent missed trainings, without any reason, from 19 to 25 July 2014 and from 26 to 30 September 2014 and, in support of its allegations, provided statements of the coaching staff dated 25 July and 30 September 2014. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant then added that it nevertheless “forgave [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] and did not impose any disciplinary measure on him”.

22. With regard to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim for balance of his salary for January 2015, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant emphasised that the annex to the contract set out that the increase of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s salary for 2015 and 2016 was subject to an addendum to the contract for each relevant year. Yet, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant alleged that the parties did not sign any such document for 2015, considering that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not appear to train with its reserve team as requested by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in its letters dated 21 and 30 January 2015 (cf. points I.9 and I.12 above).

23. Furthermore, as to the alleged delay in the payment of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s salary for January 2015, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant stressed that the due date of payment of his salary was not regulated by the contract and therefore should fall under the scope of the laws of Country D. In particular, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant provided art. 134 par. 1 of the Labour Code of Country D, according to which a salary is paid no later than within the first ten days of the following month. As a result, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant deemed that it did not breach the contract by paying the Claimant / Counter-Respondent his salary for January 2015 on 6 February 2015.

24. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant also confirmed that it offered the Claimant / Counter-Respondent an opportunity to play on loan for Club H without any financial loss (cf. point 9 above), and underlined that said club was the country’s top division club, yet the Claimant / Counter-Respondent refused said offer. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant further acknowledged that since it could not find any suitable options for the Claimant / Counter-Respondent with new clubs, it offered him to train with the reserve team (cf. point I.12 above). However, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant sustained that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had an opportunity to file a request to be registered with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant as part of the first team for the season 2015 in Country D, considering that the registration period was to end on 3 April 2015, as confirmed by the Football Federation of Country D in its letter dated 29 January 2015. Nevertheless, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant stressed that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent decided to put an end to the contract instead.

25. On 15 April 2015, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant lodged a counterclaim before FIFA against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for breach of contract and termination of the contract without just cause, requesting the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to pay EUR 550,000 as compensation, corresponding to the transfer compensation paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to acquire his services.

26. Alternatively, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant wished to underline that in the event the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) considered that it breached the contract, as described by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the compensation for breach of contract to be paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant should then be calculated based on art. 157 of the Labour Code of Country D, which stated that in case an employment contract was terminated by the employee due to the employer’s breaches of contract, the employer shall pay compensation equivalent to the average salary for three months.

27. In his replica, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent first of all pointed to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s request for compensation for breach of contract and underlined that according to him, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was the party in breach and, thus, it should not be entitled to any compensation. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent further emphasised that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not provide any evidence that such amount was indeed paid by it to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s former club. Therefore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent deemed that the relevant request should be rejected.

28. As regards the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s allegations relating to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s absence to certain training sessions, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent underlined that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s evidence was unilateral and made only to serve its interest within the present proceedings. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent also stressed that said “unproved misconduct”, which “the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] forgave the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] and did not impose any disciplinary measure on him”, regarded a period that did not relate to the termination of the contract.

29. In any event, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent maintained that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was the party that repeatedly breached the contract in 2014 by not paying his salary in a timely manner as sustained in point I.17 above.

30. With regard to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s last minute offer to join the reserve team, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent alleged that such offer was “artificial” and made in the sole purpose to “avoid [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] from making good charge that [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] breached the contract”. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent further highlighted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not contest his allegations and evidence with regard to the status of the second team.

31. Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent stated that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not provide any evidence that he had to come to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to sign an addendum to the contract. In this respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent reiterated that he was entitled to the increase of salary for 2015, without necessity for the parties to sign any addendum since such increase had been already agreed in the annex. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent added that if an addendum was to be signed, it was the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s responsibility to prove that it did not prevent the signing of the addendum by acting in bad faith.

32. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent also alluded to the contract and the annex to state that in the absence of any date of payment of his salary, and considering that there was no custom established either in this regard, his remuneration was to be paid at the end of each month. In this respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent asserted that it was not appropriate to apply the law of Country D in view of the main objective of the FIFA Regulations, which was to create a standard set of rules that could not be achievable if the DRC applied the national law of a specific party in every dispute.

33. In view of the foregoing, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent reiterated his entire claim and rejected the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim.

34. In its duplica, and in order to substantiate the payment of the transfer compensation of EUR 550,000 to acquire the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s services, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant provided the transfer agreement concluded between the former club of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Club L, and Club C on 24 February 2014. It also submitted both payment orders made on 17 March 2014 and 28 May 2014 for the respective amount of EUR 275,000.

35. As to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s request regarding the cost of the return flight tickets City F - City K, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant put forward that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not substantiate the requested amount and, therefore, his claim should be dismissed.

36. In view of the above, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant reiterated its counterclaim.

37. In response to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim, Club E first of all highlighted that it had no standing to be sued in the case at hand since the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had no claim whatsoever against it.

38. Moreover, Club E deemed that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant due to his exclusion from the first team throughout January 2015, his inclusion in the transfer list against his will, his outstanding salary for January 2015 and his non-registration with the Football Federation of Country D and, thus, considered that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had just cause to terminate the contract. Club E consequently stated that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was not entitled to any compensation.

39. Finally, Club E sustained that it acted bona fide when it concluded a contract with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on 7 July 2015, i.e. 5 months following the termination of the contract by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. In addition, Club E emphasised that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant never sent a letter to contest the signing of the relevant contract. Therefore, Club E stressed that it cannot be sanctioned based on art. 17 par. 4 of the RSTP and rejected the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim.

40. Upon FIFA’s request, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and Club E confirmed that, from 4 February to 7 July 2015, he remained unemployed.

Thereafter, on 7 July 2015, he signed a contract with Club E valid as of 8 July 2015 until 31 May 2016. The contract stated that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to a monthly salary of 5,000 net.

The Claimant / Counter-Respondent then confirmed that, on 11 November 2015, the parties decided to put an end to the contract by mutual consent.

41. As from therein, he remained unemployed until 19 August 2016, on which date he registered with the Club of Country B, Club M, as an amateur.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 11 March 2015. Consequently, the 2014 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 stake (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules).

2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2017), 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 regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2017), and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 11 March 2015, the 2014 edition of said Regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered the substance of the present matter. In doing so, it started by acknowledging the abovementioned facts of the matter 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. In this respect, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the parties had signed an employment contract on 24 February 2014, valid as of the date of signature until 31 December 2016, and according to which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 26,000. The Chamber also took into consideration the annex to the contract signed by the parties on the same date, which provides for an increase of the monthly salary in the amount of USD 31,000 for the season 2015 and in the amount of USD 36,000 for the season 2016.

6. In continuation, the Chamber also took note that it is uncontested by both parties that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated in writing the contractual relationship on 4 February 2015.

7. In this regard, the Chamber took due note that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, on the one hand, insisted on the fact that his salary for January 2015 had not been paid at the time of the termination of the contract. Moreover, the DRC observed that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent deplored his sporting situation within the Respondent / Counter-Claimant insofar as he was not registered with the first team for the season 2015, was excluded from the first team’s pre-season training camps held in January 2015, was subject to a loan offer that he declined, and was included in the reserve team as of February 2015. On this basis, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent considered that he had a just cause to terminate the contract.

8. The Chamber further took note of the argumentation of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, which argued that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had unilaterally terminated the contractual relationship without just cause and had thus lodged a counterclaim for compensation for breach of contract. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, in particular, refuted the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s allegations pertaining to the delayed payment of his salary for January 2015 since it considered that, as per Law of Country D, the payment of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s salary was solely due the first ten days of the following month since it was not contractually regulated by the parties. Furthermore, the DRC noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant underlined that it gave the Claimant / Counter-Respondent opportunities to play – i.e. first on loan without financial loss, then with the reserve team in the absence of any suitable options with new clubs. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant also emphasised that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was also given the opportunity to file a request to be registered with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant as part of the first team for the season 2015, the player however decided to put an end to the contract instead. Therefore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant deemed that there was no objective reason for the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to terminate the contract.

9. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber considered that the underlying issue in the present dispute, considering the claim and counterclaim respectively lodged by the parties, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, and which party was responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship in question. The DRC also underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the employment contract was breached by one of the parties without just cause, it would be necessary to determine the consequences for the party that caused the unjust breach of the relevant employment contract.

10. In this respect, the DRC first of all took due consideration of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s argument pertaining to the non-payment of his salary for January 2015 at the time of the termination. In this regard, the DRC deemed it fit to point out that, in general, that is, regardless of specific circumstances surrounding a matter, solely the non-payment of more or less one monthly remuneration cannot be considered a just cause for a player to cease rendering his services to a club.

11. In continuation, the DRC considered the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s allegations regarding his sporting conditions with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. The DRC in particular drew its attention to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s written enquiries as of end of December 2014 on the pre-season training camps with the first team and to his request to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to obtain a flight ticket to join its first team in this respect, which the Respondent / Counter-Claimant evidently did not proceed with. The Chamber was also eager to underline that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was told by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s coaching staff to look for a new club, allegations which were confirmed by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant (cf. points I.7 and I.9 above). The DRC further brought into account that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant acknowledged having offered to loan the Claimant / Counter-Respondent who declined, and subsequently decided that he would be transferred to the reserve team as of February 2015 due to the fact that he was “not qualified enough to attract attention of other clubs”. Based on the aforementioned, the Chamber readily accepted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was not genuinely interested in continuing the contractual relationship with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent.

12. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC found it worthwhile to underline that, by the end of January 2015, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was informed that he would be contacted by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to “arrange a flight to City F” and that the deadline to register for the first team with the Football Federation of Country D was to end on beginning of April 2015 (cf. point I.12 above). The DRC also took into account the correspondence of the Football Federation of Country D dated 29 January 2015 (cf. point I.24 above) which confirmed the aforementioned cut-off date to register with the Football Federation of Country D. In due consideration of the above, the DRC was of the opinion that the time line of the events at hand seems to indicate that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not give much time to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in order for the situation to evolve in a more favourable manner and decided to terminate the contractual relationship only one month after the start of the new season.

13. Therefore, the Chamber came to the conclusion that, on the basis of the circumstances detailed above, it appears that both the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant were not interested in continuing the contractual relationship and that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had no just cause to unilaterally terminate the contractual relationship with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant on 4 February 2015.

14. Having established the above, and taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the DRC decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was not entitled to receive from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant any compensation for breach of contract. Equally, the Chamber decided to reject the counterclaim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.

15. Subsequently, the DRC reverted to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s financial claim which includes, inter alia, the outstanding payment for his salary of January 2015.

16. In this respect, the DRC recalled that, on 6 February 2015, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant paid the amount of USD 26,000 to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, who acknowledged said payment as salary for January 2015. The Chamber also took note that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent deemed that said payment was partially made insofar as, according to him, he was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 31,000 for the season 2015, as per the annex to the contract.

17. At this stage, the members of the DRC deemed it fit to recall the contents of the annex to the contract, which inter alia stipulates that “[the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] shall get monthly salary in 2014 in the tune of 26 000 U.S. dollars (net sum), in 2015 in the tune of 31 000 U.S. dollars (net sum), in 2016 – 36 000 USD (net sum). Wage rate of [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent], set up in [the contract] for 2014, shall be amend in 2015 and 2016 with supplementary agreement for every year.”

18. In application of the relevant provision, the DRC understood that, in order to confirm the increase of salary, it first of all had to clarify whether a “supplementary agreement” was signed by the parties for each respective year, in addition to the annex to the contract. In this regard, the Chamber underlined that there was no such supplementary agreement provided by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for the relevant season 2015.

19. Therefore, and in accordance with the general legal principal of burden of proof set forth in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the DRC decided that the salary for January 2015 was due in the sole amount of USD 26,000, and not of USD 31,000 as alleged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, and that since such amount had been already paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant after the termination of the contract, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not owe the Claimant / Counter-Respondent any other amount regarding his remuneration.

20. With regard to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s request pertaining to the reimbursement by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant of the flight ticket City F - City K, and on the basis of the information provided by FIFA Travel and referring to the annex to the contract, the Chamber decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the amount of USD 2,000 as flight tickets for the player and his family.

21. In continuation and with regard to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent's request for interest, as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the DRC decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent an interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 2,000 as of 4 February 2015 until the date of effective payment.

22. The DRC concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

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

2. The counter-claim 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, the amount of USD 2,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 4 February 2015 until the date of effective payment.

4. In the event that the amount foreseen above plus interest is not paid within the stated time limit by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

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

6. 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.

*****

Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):

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, 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:

Marco Villiger

Deputy Secretary General

Encl: CAS directives