F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2017-2018) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 7 June 2018

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 7 June 2018,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Roy Vermeer (The Netherlands), member

Jon Newman (USA), member

Wouter Lambrecht (Belgium), member

Pavel Pivovarov (Russia), 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

regarding an employment-related dispute

between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On an unspecified date, the player from Country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent), and the club from Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent / Counter-Claimant), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract for the 2012/2013 season) valid as from 16 July 2012 until 31 May 2013.

2. According to clause 7 of the contract for the 2012/2013 season, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive the amount of USD 250,000 net payable as follows:

- USD 80,000 after the signature of the contract, receipt of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s ITC and approval of the medical exams;

- USD 170,000 to be paid in ten instalments of USD 17,000 each “in the last [day] of each month starting from August 2012 till May 2013”.

3. Moreover, said clause 7 establishes that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive the following bonuses:

- USD 1,000 “if [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] does not suffer goals during a match”;

- USD 500 “if [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] plays each game as main player”.

4. After the conclusion of the 2012/2013 season, and on an unspecified date, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant signed a new employment contract (hereinafter: the contract for the 2013/2014 season) which according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was valid for the 2013-2014 season.

5. According to clause 7 of the contract for the 2013/2014 season, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive a total amount of USD 200,000 net. From this amount, USD 50,000 was payable after the signature of the contract, receipt of the Claimant / counter-Respondent’s ITC and approval of the medical exams.

6. Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant signed an addendum to the contract for the 2013/2014 season (hereinafter: the addendum), which stipulates that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive, inter alia, the following bonuses:

- USD 1,000 “if [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] does not suffer goals during a match” ;

- USD 30,000 “if [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] will get 1st and 2nd position in the table in end of the league or be champion in the national Tournament X of Country D”;

- USD 20,000 if the Claimant / Counter-Respondent “play 80% of the matches during the season”.

7. Subsequently, and on an unspecified date, the parties concluded a contract valid as from 24 May 2014 “for a period 2014-2015” (hereinafter: the contract for the 2014/2015 season).

8. Clause 4-8 of this contract reads as follow:

“For any inexcusable absence in each training session 1.000$ and for each absence in any game 10.000$ will be deducted by the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] from the payments agreed to be paid to the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] in the contract”.

9. Clause 4-10 of the same contract stipulates:

“For the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s] absence for more than 10 days, the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] is legally permitted to terminate the contract unilaterally as well as to follow the legal actions through official authorities for compensation of the damages made to the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant]”.

10. Moreover, according to clause 7 of the contract for the 2014/2015 season, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive USD 220,000 net. From this amount, USD 50,000 was payable after the signature of the contract, receipt of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s ITC and approval of the medical exams while USD 20,000 was to “be paid at the end of the contract”.

11. Finally, on 6 September 2014 the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant signed a document labelled “Contract Amendment” (hereinafter: the amendment).

12. Article 1 of the amendment stipulates:

“The amount that the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] debts to the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] for the last season (2013-2014) will be calculated and certified by the financial Committee and will be paid to the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] during the current season (2014-2015)”.

13. Article 2 of the amendment reads as follow:

“The first instalment of contract (fifty thousand USD) will be paid to the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] as bellow:

2-1: The amount of fifteen thousand USD immediately after signing of this agreement.

2-2 The remaining amount (thirty five thousand) will be paid to the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] during/in three weeks.

2-3: The remaining amount of the contract of the current season will be calculated by the club financial Committee and will be paid to the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] in weekly instalments.

Note: the amount of twenty percent of the contract will remain with the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] as a guaranty of technical performance, moral criteria and Etc of the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] and in case of no breach will be paid to the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] at the end of the current season”.

14. The above-mentioned contracts do not contain any clause relating to compensation for breach of contract.

15. On 5 January 2017, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim before FIFA, and requested the payment of the total amount of USD 283,066 broken down as follows:

 Outstanding salaries amounting to USD 212,233 “plus 5% interests on each of the payments” consisting of:

- USD 32,500 for the 2012/2013 season;

- USD 80,000 for the 2013/2014 season;

- USD 99,733 for the 2014/2015 season.

 USD 70,833 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest as of 27 January 2015 until the effective date of payment, amount that according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent corresponds to the residual value of the contract, i.e. from 27 January 2015 until 31 May 2015.

16. Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requested the imposition of sanctions on the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.

17. In support of his claim, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explained that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant paid the amount of USD 250,000 established in the contract for the 2012/2013 season. However, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that during the 2012/2013 season the Respondent “did not pay him any of the conditional payments due”. In particular, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent stated that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant failed to pay him USD 32,500, as he played in 33 matches in the starting eleven (USD 500 for each match) and that he did not concede goals in 16 matches (USD 1,000 for each match).

18. Despite the fact that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not pay the above-mentioned amounts, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explained that he “has agreed to extend his contract with the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant]” for the 2013/2014 season as the Respondent / Counter-Claimant “has assured him that it would pay him all the conditional amounts regarding the previous season during the new season”.

19. Subsequently, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that, once again, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant “was not consistent with its financial responsibilities towards” him as it failed to pay USD 80,000 during the 2013-2014 season.

20. In this regard, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explained that during the 2013-2014 season an amount of USD 12,000 remained outstanding from his total remuneration of USD 200,000. In addition, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that during the same season he was also entitled to receive USD 18,000 as he did not concede goals in 18 matches (USD 1,000 for each match), USD 30,000 for the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s “second place” and USD 20,000 “for playing 80% of the season matches”.

21. Subsequently, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent stated that at the beginning of the 2014/2015 season he “still had some faith in [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s] representative since they were constantly promising that [he] would receive all of his fixed and conditional remuneration from the previous two season in a near future”. Consequently, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explained that he “accepted to continue and extend his link with [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] for one more season”.

22. Within this context, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that during the 2014/2015 season he only received USD 50,000. According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, during that season, he was also entitled to receive USD 170,000, “payable in 10 equal monthly instalments of USD 17,000”, which the Respondent / Counter-Claimant failed to pay. According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, as from the beginning of the 2014-2015 season, he “constantly requested the payment of his monthly salary as well as the payments from the previous two seasons”.

23. Due the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s lack of response, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explained that on 22 January 2015 he sent a default notice to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant granting a 48 hours deadline to proceed with the payment of “all the amounts due at that time”. According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant also failed to reply to his default notice and consequently, as from 24 January 2015, all the outstanding amounts “have become due and payables”.

24. With those considerations in mind, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explained that he terminated the contract “with just cause and with immediate effects” by means of a letter dated 26 January 2015. Therefore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that he is entitled to receive compensation in the amount of USD 70,833, corresponding to the contract’s residual value, i.e. from 27 January 2015 until 31 May 2015.

25. According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, at the date of the contract’s termination, he had just cause to terminate the contract as the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had failed to pay his remuneration for “almost 6 months”. In particular, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explained that there was an outstanding amount of USD 99,733 for the 2014/2015 season, corresponding to five instalments of USD 17,000 each (August to December 2014) plus USD 14,733, as the pro rata remuneration for January 2015, i.e. until 26 January 2015.

26. On 6 February 2017, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant replied to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim, and simultaneously lodged a counterclaim against him. In particular, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant requested “to condemn the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] to compensate all loss he made for the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] and to commit his contractual obligations and to pay thirty five thousand USD for absent sessions trainings and also to pay the absent fine in matches as well the amount of forty four thousand USD according to note of Art 2 of the contract as guarantee fee and also to particularly pay the payable income tax according to the tax rules and regulations and to pay the fee of compensation for loss the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] has caused for the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant]”.

27. In support of its allegations, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant referred to the amendment signed between the parties according to which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s salary for the 2014-2015 season “was amended” and was to be “calculated by the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] financial department”. In addition, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant stated that according to said document “20% of the contract amount, equivalent to forty four thousand dollars (44,000 USD) will remain at the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] as ensuring and guarantee of the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s] technical and ethical performance until the end of the season and in case of the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] non-infringement this amount will be paid to the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent]”.

28. Moreover, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant argued that according to the amendment the “[Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s] possible claims for the season 2013-2014 was clarified by the consent of the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent]” and that he “did not have any claims for the contract 2012-2013” as this “was considered paid off and terminated”.

29. In relation to the facts, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant explained that the Claimant / Counter Respondent was absent “without prior permission” as of 21 December 2014, which was confirmed by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s team manager and its head coach, who reported the alleged absence of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent by means of letters sent to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s “director boards”.

30. In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant referred to clause 4-8 of the contract for the 2014-2015 season and stated that it “has the right to deduct compensation fee from the contractual amount of the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent]”. Moreover, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant stated that, according to clause 4-10 of the same contract, it can unilaterally terminate the contract and request compensation if the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is absent for more than 10 days.

31. Subsequently, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant pointed out that at the date of the contract’s termination by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent , i.e. 26 January 2015, he had been absent for a period of 35 days. According to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, “35 training sessions and some matches were held” during these 35 days.

32. On account of the above considerations, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant stated that the contract’s termination by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is “not acceptable”. In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant explained that on 28 January 2015 it had sent “a letter of notice” to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent informing “the possible consequences of unjustified absence”.

33. Finally, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant referred to a document labelled “contract complement” which according to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, was signed by Mr. Y who the Respondent / Counter-Claimant argued is the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s “representative and agent who already signed the contract season 2014-2015” .

34. According to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, by means of said document “the parties agreed for the amount of 1,250,000,000 in the currency of Country D, (32000 USD, by the current rate of that date) given by the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] and received by the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent], the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] leaves to the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] all his contractual rights in contracts for season 2012-13, season 2013-14 and season 2014-15 and does not have any claims by means for the mentioned contracts”.

35. Furthermore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant held that according to the contract complement “the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] is committed to pay income tax on all his contracts and to provide to the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] with the receipt of tax pay-off”; arguing that said amounts were not paid by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent.

36. In his replica and reply to the counterclaim, the Claimant / Counter- Respondent reiterated his arguments and petitions submitted in his claim and requested the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim to be rejected.

37. In this respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s response and counterclaim “is purely speculative” and “repetitive”. Moreover, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent held that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant failed to prove any of its allegations in accordance with article 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules.

38. In continuation, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent referred to the amendment which according to him “proves a lot of the facts that [he] has reported”.

39. In particular, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent held that in this document the Respondent / Counter-Claimant admitted that it owed the Claimant / Counter-Respondent “certain amounts for the season 2103/2014”, sum that, according to him, amounts to USD 80,000. In addition, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that the amendment also establishes that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant “had declared to the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] that it would pay its debts towards him during season 2014/2015”.

40. Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that the amendment confirmed that the value of the contract for the 2014/2015 season was USD 220,000. In relation to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s alleged right to withhold USD 44,000 until the end of the 2014/2015 season, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent considered that such was “irrelevant” considering that he is entitled to receive the residual value of the contract as compensation.

41. This being established, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent remarked that he “did not infringe his professional duties towards the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant]”. Regarding the alleged 35-day absence, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent stated that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant failed to “provide any evidence” for this allegation and that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant “never officially notified or questioned him” before he terminated the contract. Moreover, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explained that during January 2015 he “has been in Country D with a view to negotiate the payment of his outstanding salaries and bonus owed”.

42. Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent stated that, he has never seen the “contract complement” and that he “never authorized anyone to negotiate or sign on his behalf a termination agreement”. According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, there is no evidence that Mr. Y was still his “agent at the time of the termination of his contract with the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant]”.

43. Finally, and irrespective of the aforementioned consideration, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent deemed that the counterclaim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must be considered barred by the statute of limitations, in accordance with art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. In particular, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that, “regardless of whether we are considering the event giving rise to the dispute”, the two-year time limit for lodging a claim “has already elapsed”.

44. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant submitted its final comments, reiterating its arguments and confirming its positions with regard to the claim.

45. Moreover, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant pointed out that “in the main contract and in the contract amendment which were both signed by the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent], there exist the signature of Mr. Y as the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s] agent too”. Consequently, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant held that it “is crystal clear that the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s] agent had power to sign contract complement too”.

46. Finally, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant stated that its counterclaim cannot be considered as barred by the statute of limitations as it “was filed right after the letter of FIFA”. According to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim is indeed time barred as it was “submitted two years after the dispute occurred”.

47. Upon request of the FIFA administration, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent informed that he remained unemployed until the end of the season 2014-2015, i.e. after the ordinary expiry of his contract with the Respondent / Counter Claimant.

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, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 5 January 2017. Consequently, 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 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 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2018), the Dispute Resolution Chamber, would, in principle, be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from Country B and a club from Country D

3. Before entering into the substance of the present matter and while exercising their duty to analyse ex officio the admissibility of every claim lodged in front of them, the members of the DRC considered that the question of prescription must be discussed in the context of the present claim and counterclaim.

4. Indeed, the DRC referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2018), which, in completion to the general procedural terms outlined in the Procedural Rules, clearly establishes that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall not hear any dispute if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute arose.

5. In this regard, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that, according to the documents presented by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in support of his claim, on an unspecified date, an employment contract was concluded between the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, valid as from 16 July 2012 until 31 May 2013. In accordance with this contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive the amount of USD 250,000 net. From this amount, USD 80,000 was payable after the signature of the contract, receipt of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s ITC and approval of the medical exams while USD 170,000 was to be paid in ten instalments of USD 17,000 each “in the last [day] of each month starting from August 2012 till May 2013”.

6. Moreover, the Chamber noticed that according to this contract the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was also entitled to receive USD 1,000 “if [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] does not suffer goals during a match” and USD 500 “if [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] plays each game as main player”.

7. Subsequently, the Chamber observed that after the conclusion of the 2012/2013 season, and on an unspecified date, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant signed a new employment contract which according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was valid for the 2013-2014 season. According to this contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive, inter alia, a total amount of USD 200,000 net plus the following bonuses:

- USD 1,000 “if [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] does not suffer goals during a match” ;

- USD 30,000 “if [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] will get 1st and 2nd position in the table in end of the league or be champion in the national Tournament X of Country D”;

- USD 20,000 if the Claimant / Counter-Respondent “play 80% of the matches during the season”.

8. Furthermore, the Chamber acknowledged that on an unspecified date, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant concluded a contract valid “for a period 2014-2015” according to which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive a total amount of USD 220,000 net. From this amount, USD 50,000 was payable after the signature of the contract, receipt of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s ITC and approval of the medical exams while USD 20,000 was to “be paid at the end of the contract”.

9. The members of the Chamber equally observed that, according to the documentation on file, the contract for the 2014/2015 season does not specify how the remaining value of the contract, i.e. USD 150,000, should be paid. In this regard, the DRC concluded that this amount was to be paid in ten monthly instalments of 15,000 each from August 2014 until May 2015 considering that the contract for the 2012/2013 also established that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive part of his remuneration in ten equal instalments from August until May.

10. In this context, while recalling that the present claim was submitted to FIFA on 5 January 2017, the Chamber took into account that the amounts claimed until December 2014 as outstanding remuneration by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had fallen due more than two years prior to the date on which he lodged his claim in front of FIFA.

11. As a consequence, referring to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC concluded that the time limit of two years for the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to claim outstanding remuneration had elapsed at the time he lodged his claim in front of FIFA.

12. Therefore, the DRC decided that this specific part of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations and, consequently, inadmissible.

13. Subsequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber highlighted that, on 6 February 2017, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant on its part lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent.

14. In this regard, the Chamber deemed that the counterclaim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must also be considered barred by the statute of limitations in accordance with art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. The present counterclaim having been lodged in front of FIFA on 6 February 2017 and the contract having been terminated on 26 January 2015, the members of the Chamber had to reject the respective argument of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and confirmed that the present counterclaim was not lodged in front of the DRC within the two years’ period of time established in the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.

15. Therefore, the DRC decided that counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is barred by the statute of limitations and, consequently, inadmissible.

16. In continuation, the Chamber decided to analyse 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 (editions 2016 and 2018), and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 5 January 2017, the 2016 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

17. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the members of the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter, while emphasizing that, although having acknowledged all the above-mentioned facts, 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.

18. As established before, the DRC duly took note that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in front of FIFA on 5 January 2017, maintaining that he had terminated the employment contract with just cause, since the Respondent / Counter-Claimant failed to pay him various bonuses and his remuneration for “almost 6 months”.

19. In this context, the DRC took particular note of the fact that, after previously having put the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in default on 22 January 2015, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract in writing on 26 January 2015.

20. Moreover, the DRC noticed that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant referred to a document labelled “contract complement” by means of which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent allegedly “does not have any claims” in relation to the contracts for the 2012/2013, 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 seasons (cf. numbers I/33, I/34 and I/35 above). According to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, this document was signed by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s representative on his behalf.

21. In this regard, the members of the Chamber recalled that according to the legal principle of the burden of proof, any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). In this context, the DRC observed that the contract complement presented by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant does not bear the signature of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not provide any evidence that confirms that the alleged Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s representative was authorized to sign the contract complement on the latter’s behalf.

22. As a consequence of the above, the members of the Chamber concluded that the contract complement cannot be considered as a valid and legally binding document between the parties.

23. This being established, and in view of the dissent between the parties, the Chamber highlighted that the underlying issue in this dispute was to determine whether the employment contract had been terminated by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent with or without just cause and, subsequently, to determine the potential consequences thereof.

24. In this respect, the DRC observed that, at the time of the termination of the contract by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant failed to pay, at least, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s salaries from August 2014 until December 2014.

25. Consequently, the members of the Chamber decided that it could be established that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant neglected its contractual obligations towards the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for a considerable period without any valid reason which would justify the non-payment of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s salaries.

26. As a consequence of the above, the Chamber decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had just cause to terminate the employment contract on 26 January 2015 and that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and that, consequently, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant an amount of money as compensation.

27. In this context, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, 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.

28. 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.

29. In this regard, the DRC observed that at the moment the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract, the binding contract between the parties contract was the contract for the 2014/2015 season. This being established, and upon careful examination of said contract concluded between the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.

30. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations.

31. Having recalled the aforementioned, and in order to establish the amount of compensation to be paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, 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.

32. In particular, the Chamber observed that at the time of the termination of the employment contract, the remaining value of it corresponds to USD 95,000 consisting of the salaries from January 2015 to May 2015, i.e. USD 75,000 (5*15,000), as well as USD 20,000 corresponding to the sum payable at the of the contract. In this respect, the DRC agreed that the 26 days of January 2015 are to be taken into account in the amount of compensation as an entire month. Consequently, the DRC concluded that the amount of USD 95,000 serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.

33. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.

34. In this regard, the Chamber noted that, according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, he did not enter into any professional football relationship with a new club after the termination of the contract with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.

35. The Chamber therefore concluded that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 95,000 which is considered by the members as a fair and justified amount.

36. In addition, taking into account the constant practice of the DRC in this regard, the Chamber decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e. 5 January 2017, until the date of effective payment.

37. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

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

2. The counter-claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C, is inadmissible.

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, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 95,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 5 January 2017 until the date of effective payment.

4. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision

5. Any further claim lodged by the 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 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