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 21 September 2017

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 21 September 2017,

in the following composition:

Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman

John Bramhall (England), member

Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member

Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member

Pavel Pivovarov (Russia), member

on the matter between the club,

Club A, Country B

as Claimant / Respondent I

and the player,

Player C, Country D

as Claimant / Respondent II

and the club,

Club E, Country F

as Respondent III

regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 30 January 2014, the player of Country D, Player C (hereinafter: Claimant / Respondent I or player) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) with the club of Country B, Club A (hereinafter: Claimant / Respondent II or club) valid as from 1 February 2014 until 30 June 2016, including an extension option until 30 June 2017.

2. In accordance with the contract, the club undertook to pay the player, inter alia, a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 15,000 as well as a “signing fee bonus” in the amount of EUR 58,824 on 15 February 2014.

3. Art. VI. par. 3 d) of the contract, under the subtitle “Termination of the Agreement”, reads as follows: “The Player may withdraw from the Contract if the Club does not fulfil its undertaking given in Article IV point 1 [cf. point 2 above], or any other undertaking to pay remuneration, a bonus or any other payment due to the Player according to this Contract, and does not do so even in the replacement deadline of 30 days, which begins to run on the day of the delivery of the appeal from the Player addressed to the Club for payment of the due liabilities according to this Contract. The period of notice for this case is 60 calendar days and begins to run on the day following delivery of the written appeal to the Club; the Player is entitled to give notice to the Club at the earliest on the first day following the replacement deadline agreed between him and the Club.”

4. Moreover, the contract contains the following clause under the subtitle of “Undertakings of the Player”: “To observe all the instructions and internal regulations of the company, in particular the directives and regulations concerning sports clothing and the Communication Manual. To submit to the decisions of the bodies and management of the Club, to accept guest appearances, providing the Player is not in the A-team, and also the disciplinary competence of the Club arising from its statutes and the rules of the Football Association of Country B”.

5. In its article V., the contract contains the following provision: “In the case of infringement of the responsibilities according to this Contract on the part of the Player [the club] is entitled to impose on the Player a fine to the amount of a one month’s salary for each infringement of a contractual obligation. Before imposing a contractual fine [the club] is obliged to call upon the Player to observe contractual obligations, or to eliminate the faulty situation. In the case that the Player does not do this, in spite of a written appeal, [the club] is entitled to impose a contractual fine according to this article […].”

6. The Disciplinary Regulations of the club contain the following articles:

- Art. 4.2.5 in section “Types of Disciplinary Offences”: “Any failure to attend the training process, training camps, matches or official events without proper excuse, or failure to attend training session without an acceptable excuse that has been communicated immediately before or during the training session to the Club Secretariat, or Sports Secretary, as well as late arrival for the training session or repeated late arrival to the training session”.

- Art. 4.2.15 in section “Types of Disciplinary Offences”: “Any violation of obligations arising from the Professional Contract or Similar Agreement”.

- Art. 5.1 in section “Disciplinary Actions arising from the Breach of Contractual Obligations established by Professional Contract or Similar Agreement”:

lit.a: “to attend the training process, training camps and matches and while doing so to make every effort, to know and observe the laws of the game and regulations”.

lit. b: “to adhere to the prescribed regime arising from the preparation for the matches and attendance at the matches”.

7. Furthermore, art. 11.2 of the Disciplinary Regulations of the club reads as follows: “The imposed fine may be unilaterally set-off against the legitimate receivables of the Offender against the Club (basic monthly salary, bonus pay for sport results, bonuses, appearance money and so on)”.

8. On 30 June 2015, the player sent a default notice to the club requesting payment of outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 30,000 corresponding to the salaries of April and May 2015.

9. On 10 July 2015, the player sent a default notice to the club requesting payment of outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 45,000 corresponding to the salaries of April, May and June 2015. In this regard, the player warned the club that he would terminate the contract if the outstanding amount would not be remitted within 10 days.

10. On 28 July 2015, allegedly received by the club on 30 July 2015, the player terminated the contract in writing, since the club allegedly failed to fulfil its financial duties. The player invoked that “By this date you paid 15.000 EUR net for monthly remuneration for April 2015 and you are still in delay with payment of monthly remuneration in the total amount of 30.000 EUR net for April and May 2015”. The player further stated that the salaries for “April and June 2015” in the amount of EUR 30,000 remained outstanding.

11. On 28 July 2015, the club’s disciplinary committee issued a decision imposing a fine on the player in the amount of 1,000,000 in the currency of Country B, which was notified to the player on 30 July 2015.

12. On 29 July 2015, the club’s disciplinary committee issued a new decision imposing a fine on the player in the amount of 650,000 in the currency of Country B, which was notified to the player on 30 July 2015.

Claim of the club against the player:

13. On 6 August 2015, the club lodged a claim against the player for breach of contract without just cause, requesting payment of the following monies:

- 1,244,550 in the currency of Country B as imposed fines;

- EUR 865,298 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as of “date of effective payment”.

In addition, the club requested that the player shall pay the legal expenses incurred.

14. In its arguments, the club held that the player failed to resume for summer preparation training on 17 June 2015 and only returned from holidays on 22 June 2015. In this regard, the club imposed a fine in the amount of 1,000,000 in the currency of Country B on 28 July 2015 based on the club’s Disciplinary Regulations, i.e. art. 4.2.5, 4.2.15 and 5.1.

15. According to the club, subsequently, the player failed to attend training on 28 and 29 July 2015, for which the club imposed another fine in the amount of 650,000 in the currency of Country B based on the club’s Disciplinary Regulations, i.e. art. 4.2.5, 4.2.15 and 5.1.

16. In view of the above, the club set off the fines imposed on the player with the outstanding salary for June 2015, which led the club to the conclusion that the player needs to reimburse the amount of 1,244,550 in the currency of Country B.

17. Moreover, the club argued that the player terminated the contract on 30 June 2015 without just cause, since only one monthly salary was outstanding, i.e. May 2015. In this regard, the club held that the monthly salaries were due at the end of the following month since this was the practice during the contractual relationship.

18. Consequently, the club requested compensation for breach of contract in the total amount of EUR 865,298 consisting of EUR 1,356,417 (transfer fee in the amount of EUR 190,000; signing bonus; total remuneration including the extension according to the contract, lost profit of the expected transfer fee, “training, marketing and advertising costs”) less the saved salaries in the amount of EUR 491,119. In this regard, the club submitted the transfer agreement concluded with Club G in order to secure the services of the player on 28 January 2014. Player’s claim against the club

19. On 23 September 2015, with a subsequent amendment on 24 September 2015, the player lodged a separate claim against the club for breach of contract without just cause, requesting payment of the following monies:

- EUR 15,000 as outstanding remuneration corresponding to the June 2015 salary;

- EUR 180,000 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the residual value of the contract.

In addition, the player requested interest of 5% “of the date of effective payment”.

20. In his initial claim, the player held that the salaries of May and June 2015 remained outstanding, whereas he amended his claim on 24 September 2015 stating that at the moment of the termination the salaries of “April, May and June 2015” remained outstanding and that he therefore had just cause to terminate the contract after having previously put the club in default.

21. In this regard, the player pointed out that the club was repeatedly late in remitting his salaries and referred to a previous claim for outstanding remuneration lodged in front of FIFA, which was withdrawn at a later stage. Furthermore, the player submitted several default notices referring to late payments at an earlier stage.

22. Moreover, the player acknowledged receipt of the following payments from the club:

- EUR 15,000 on 15 July 2015 corresponding to the salary of April 2015;

- EUR 15,000 on 5 August 2015 corresponding to the salary of May 2015.

23. Moreover, the player requested compensation for breach of contract corresponding to the residual value of the contract in the amount of EUR 180,000, i.e. for 12 months.

Player’s reply to the claim of the club:

24. In reply to the club’s claim, the player rejected the latter in full.

25. The player admitted having been absent as of 17 June 2015 until 21 June 2017, but held that his absence was caused by a misunderstanding due to a change in the coaching staff of the club. In this regard, the player referred to text messages submitted by the club, according to which he informed the team manager of his phone number and an email dated 20 June 2015, in which he offered his services to the club.

26. As to the disciplinary sanctions imposed, the player held never having signed the Disciplinary Regulations, that it was “no proper attachment to the contract” and that he was, in any case, not bound by said regulations.

27. Furthermore, the player pointed out that he was not duly notified of the hearings of the Disciplinary Committee of the club on 28 July 2015 as well as on 29 July 2015 and that his right to be heard was violated since he could not be present.

28. Regarding the club’s argument that only one monthly salary remained outstanding at the moment of termination, the player stated that the documents submitted by the club demonstrate its constant late payments of salaries. In this regard, the player confirmed that the salaries were due at the end of the following month, but held that the club “has been in continuous delay of payments to the [player] from the very beginning of the year 2015 and expressly acknowledged the overdue claims for two consecutive months in row, April and May 2015”.

Club’s reply to the player’s claim:

29. The club rejected the player’s claim, reiterated its position and argued that the player’s new club, Club E (hereinafter: Respondent III), shall be held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation for breach of contract in accordance with FIFA’s regulations.

30. Regarding the alleged “permanent delay” in paying salaries to the player, the club held that the player was trying to distract from the fact that only one monthly salary was outstanding at the moment of termination. Furthermore, the club highlighted that the termination notice did not refer to “permanent delays”, but rather only to alleged outstanding remuneration of two months.

31. In this regard, the club held that the player accepted previous delays and that such delays were settled in the meantime.

32. Moreover, the club held that “there was an agreement related to the fact that due dates of all invoices could have been postponed in compliance with the cash flow” and submitted a confirmation of its managing director.

33. The club further rejected the player’s arguments that he was not bound to the Disciplinary Regulations and pointed out that it was the player’s responsibility to be familiar with these regulations as defined in the contract.

34. As to the player’s argument that his right to be heard was violated during the disciplinary proceedings, the club argued that according to its regulations the player did not need to be present at the hearing. The club further held that it fulfilled its obligations by informing him about the outcome of the meetings and sustained that the player could have appealed the decisions.

Player’s final comments:

35. In his final comments, the player reiterated his position and argued that even less than three outstanding salaries can constitute just cause to terminate the contract.

36. Furthermore, the player insists that he was not informed about the date of the training start for the summer preparation 2015. In this regard, the player submitted a statement of another player confirming “it was a mess in the Club and players even did not know about trainings of the First team”.

37. In addition to his previous arguments, the player held that the fines were “unlawfully imposed”, since the fines were not issued immediately after the offence, they were only imposed after the termination of the contract and are disproportionate compared to the salary. Further, the player pointed out that the club cannot set off said fines with the player’s salary.

38. Moreover, the player pointed out that agreements between the coaching staff about delayed payments are irrelevant.

Club’s final comments:

39. In its final comments, the club insisted that the fines were “not unlawfully imposed”. In this regard, the club pointed out the disciplinary regulations were available at the club secretariat at all times and that there was a contractual basis for the fines.

40. Further, the club denied that there was an “unreasonable delay” until the fines were imposed, since it took approximately one month from the incident.

41. The club also insisted that it is allowed to set-off the fines with the salary according to law of Country B and that there are no “binding rules at FIFA level” that prohibit such a set-off.

42. Furthermore, the club referred to article V. of the contract and argued that it was allowed to fine the player with one month’s salary for every incident and that he repeatedly infringed the contract with his absences for several days. Therefore, the club held being allowed to impose a fine in the amount of more than one monthly salary without being disproportionate.

43. Finally, the club pointed out the fines were imposed before the contract was terminated, since the termination was only effective upon receipt, i.e. on 30 July 2015.

44. The club further argued that the player did not comply with Art. VI. par. 3 d) of the contract when he terminated the contract. In this context, the club held that the player would have needed to grant more time to the club to pay the outstanding remuneration.

45. In view of the above, the club reiterated that the player did not have just cause to terminate the contract on 30 July 2015 and rejected the player’s claim referring to its previously stated requests.

The position of the Club E:

46. The club of Country F, Club E, endorsed in its position the player’s arguments and pointed out that the fines imposed on the player were abusive and disproportionate since the club failed to provide evidence that the player was duly notified of the start of the summer preparation training 2015.

47. Furthermore, Club E highlighted that the player was not even able to submit his position during the disciplinary proceedings.

48. Moreover, the club of Country F argued that Club A did not act according to the contract, i.e. article V. of the contract, since it did not “call upon the player” before it issued the sanctions.

49. Regarding the joint liability according to the FIFA regulations, Club E stated having “made sure that the Player is free of any obligations to any other club”, before he was registered.

50. The player confirmed that he remained unemployed between 30 July 2015 and 9 January 2016. Subsequently, on 10 January 2016, he signed an employment contract with the club of Country F, Club E for the period between 10 January 2016 until 30 June 2016, including a monthly salary of EUR 6,500 plus a single payment in the amount of EUR 10,000 due on 20 January 2016.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 6 August 2015 by the club, and 23 September 2015 by the player, respectively. Consequently, the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 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 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 club of Country B, a player of Country D and a club of Country F.

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 2016), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 6 August 2015 by the club, and 23 September 2015 by the player, the 2015 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: 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, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. 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 DRC recalled that, on 30 January 2014, the parties had signed an employment contract valid as from 1 February 2014 until 30 June 2016.

6. In continuation, the members of the Chamber noted that the club, on the one hand, lodged a claim against the player and the player’s new club maintaining that the player had terminated the employment contract without just cause on 28 July 2015, since at this date only one monthly remuneration remained outstanding. In this respect, and in accordance with the fines imposed, the club submits that the player shall reimburse the amount of 1,244,550 in the currency of Country B. Consequently, the club asks to be awarded payment of compensation for breach of the employment contract.

7. The Chamber further took notice that the player, for his part, lodged a claim against the club maintaining that he had terminated the employment contract with just cause on 28 July 2015, after previously having put the club in default, since the club allegedly had failed to pay the his remuneration. In this respect, the player submits that a total amount of EUR 30,000, corresponding to two monthly salaries, remained outstanding at the time he terminated the employment contract. Consequently, the player asks to be awarded his outstanding dues as well as the payment of compensation for breach of the employment contract. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber took notice that the player rejected the claim of the club and held that the fines were “unlawfully” imposed and shall be disregarded.

8. Subsequently, the DRC observed that the club rejected the claim lodged by the player and upheld its claim against the player and Club E.

9. On account of the above, the members of the Chamber highlighted that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the diverging position of the parties, was to determine as to whether the player had just cause to terminate the employment contract on 28 July 2015 and to decide on the consequences thereof.

10. With the above in mind, the Chamber proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the present matter, the parties’ arguments as well the documentation on file, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof.

11. The members of the Chamber noted that the player had sent a default notice to the club regarding outstanding salaries on 30 June 2015. Subsequently, on 10 July 2015 the player sent another default notice to the club requesting payment of EUR 45,000 as outstanding remuneration with a warning that he would terminate his employment contract if said debt would not be settled within 10 days.

12. In this context, the DRC underlined that it is undisputed that, on 15 July 2015, the club made a payment of EUR 15,000 to the player, corresponding to the salary of April 2015.

13. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber recalled that the player terminated the contract on 28 July 2015 due to the allegation that the amount of EUR 30,000, corresponding to two monthly salaries, remained outstanding.

14. In this context, the DRC established that it was essential to the outcome of the present matter to determine when the salaries of the player were actually due. In this regard, and due to the lack of a contractual provision defining the due dates of the monthly salary payments, the Chamber analysed the club’s argument that the monthly remuneration fell due at the end of the following month due to the constant practice during the contractual relationship. Said allegation was confirmed by the player. In this context, the members of the Chamber considered, thus that the monthly salary payments fell due at the end of the respective following month.

15. Consequently, the DRC was of the opinion that at the time of the termination, i.e. 28 July 2015, only the salary of May was due. Indeed, the salary of June 2015 would have fallen due on 1 August 2015. In this respect, the Chamber concluded that at the moment of the termination, i.e. on 28 July 2015, the salary of June 2015 had not yet fallen due.

16. As to the alleged “permanent delays” invoked by the player, the members of the Chamber rejected said argument, since neither the default notices nor the termination notice refer to such constant delays.

17. On account of the above and the documentation on file, the Chamber established that, contrary to the termination notice, only the salary for May 2015 was outstanding on the date of termination of the employment contract by the player, i.e. 28 July 2015.

18. At this stage, the members of the Chamber wished to emphasize that, according to the principle of contractual stability, the unilateral termination of a contract must be considered as an absolute last resort, where, given the particularities of the situation at stake, it could not be expected that one of the parties could reasonably continue to be bound by the contractual relationship. In what concerns financial obligations, one of the consequences of the aforementioned principle is that only a persistent and substantial non-compliance of these obligations could justify the unilateral termination of a contract.

19. In light of the above, the Chamber came to the unanimous conclusion that the non-payment of one monthly salary for a relatively short period of time can under the given circumstances of this particular matter not be considered a persistent and material non-fulfilment of the club’s contractual obligations, justifying the early termination of the contract by the player. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the player had no just cause to terminate the employment contract.

20. Subsequently, prior to establishing the consequences of the termination of the employment contract with just cause by the player in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber held that it had to address the issue of unpaid remuneration at the moment when the contract was terminated by the Claimant.

21. In this regard, the members of the Chamber recalled that at the date of the termination of the contract, the salary for May 2015 remained unpaid, but was subsequently remitted to the player on 15 August 2015.

22. Furthermore, the DRC took note, that the club imposed disciplinary fines and set off said fines with the player’s remuneration for June 2015.

23. In this context, the Chamber concurred that the fines imposed on the player by the club shall be disregarded, since the player’s right to be heard appears to have been violated during the internal disciplinary proceedings due to the fact that he was neither able to submit his position as to the substance nor attend the relevant hearings.

24. Furthermore, and irrespective of the foregoing consideration, the Chamber wished to point out that, in principle, the imposition of a fine, or any other available financial sanction in general, shall not be used by clubs as a means to set off outstanding financial obligations towards players. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the club’s argument.

25. Consequently, on account of the above and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay to the player the amount of EUR 30,000 with regard to the remuneration due to him for June and July 2015 until its early termination.

26. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s claim, the Chamber decided to award the player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 31 July 2015, until the date of effective payment.

27. Having established the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the consequences of the termination of the employment contract by the player without just cause on 28 July 2015.

28. The Chamber decided that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the player is liable to pay compensation to the club. Furthermore, in accordance with the unambiguous content of article 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, the Chamber established that the player’s new club, i.e. the Respondent III, shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to point out that the joint liability of the player’s new club is independent from the question as to whether the new club has induced the contractual breach. This conclusion is in line with the well-established jurisprudence of the Chamber and has been repeatedly confirmed by the CAS.

29. Taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, 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 reiterated 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 Claimant/Respondent II under the existing contract and/or the new contract(s), the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years as well as the fees and expenses paid or incurred by the former club (amortised over the term of the contract) and whether the contractual breach falls within a protected period.

30. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of 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.

31. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable in the present matter 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 considered when calculating the amount of compensation payable. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasised beforehand that each request for compensation for contractual breach has to be assessed by the Chamber on a case-by-case basis taking into account all specific circumstances of the respective matter

32. Along these lines, in order to estimate the amount of compensation due to the club in the present case, the Chamber firstly turned its attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and the new contract(s), which criterion was considered by the Chamber to be essential. In this context, the members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the DRC to take into consideration both the existing contract and the new contract(s) in the calculation of the amount of compensation, thus enabling the Chamber to gather indications as to the economic value attributed to a player by both his former and his new club(s).

33. In this regard, the DRC established, on the one hand, that the employment contract between the club and the player had been set to run as from 30 January 2014 until 30 June 2016. Since the breach occurred on 28 July 2015, i.e. the contract’s termination date, the total value of his employment agreement with the club for the remaining contractual period amounts to EUR 165,000 composed of eleven monthly salaries of EUR 15,000. On the other hand, the members of the Chamber established that the value of the employment contract concluded between the player and the Respondent III amounts to a total of EUR 80,663 for the period starting from the unilateral termination of the contract by the player until its contractual expiry, i.e. from 28 July 2015 until 30 June 2016. On the basis of the aforementioned financial contractual elements, the Chamber concluded that the average of remuneration between the contracts concluded by the player respectively with the club and the Respondent III over the relevant period amounted to EUR 122,831.50.

34. The members of the Chamber then turned to the further essential criterion relating to the fees and expenses paid by the club for the acquisition of the player’s services insofar as these have not been amortised over the term of the relevant contract. The Chamber recalled that a transfer compensation of EUR 190,000 had been paid by the club to Club G for the player’s transfer in 2014. According to article 17 par.1 of the Regulations, this amount shall be amortised over the term of the relevant employment contract. As stated above, the player would have been bound to the club for another eleven months when he terminated the contract, which was originally concluded for a total period of two seasons. As a result of the player’s breach of contract on 28 July 2015, the club has thus been prevented from amortising the amount of EUR 72,072, relating to the transfer compensation that it paid in order to acquire the player’s services.

35. As to the alleged non-amortised part of the signing fee, the Chamber wished to point out that such payment was due to the player on a specific date and should therefore not be taken into account as compensation.

36. In this context, due to the lack of evidence provided, any further request of the club for compensation, such as lost profit of an expected transfer fee and loss of “training, marketing and advertising costs” could not be considered.

37. Thus, the Chamber deemed that the amount of EUR 194,903.50 represents a fair and justified final amount of compensation for breach of contract, which the player has to pay to the club.

38. In addition, taking into consideration the club’s claim, the Chamber decided to award the club interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of claim, 6 August 2015, until the date of effective payment.

39. Furthermore, the Chamber decided that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, Respondent III shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned amount of compensation.

40. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the club and the player are rejected.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant / Respondent I, Club A, is partially accepted.

2. The Claimant / Respondent II, Player C, is ordered to pay to the Claimant / Respondent I, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 194,903.50 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 6 August 2015 until the date of effective payment.

3. The Respondent III, Club E, is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned compensation.

4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Respondent I is rejected.

5. The Claimant / Respondent I is directed to inform both the Claimant / Respondent II and the Respondent III immediately and directly, of the account number to which the respective remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.

6. The claim of the Claimant / Respondent II, is partially accepted.

7. The Claimant / Respondent I is ordered to pay to the Claimant / Respondent II, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 30,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 31 July 2015 until the date of effective payment.

8. Any further claim lodged by Claimant / Respondent II is rejected.

9. The Claimant / Respondent II is directed to inform the Claimant / Respondent I immediately and directly, of the account number to which the respective remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.

10. In the event that any of the above-mentioned amounts and interest due to the respective parties are not paid within the above-mentioned time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

*****

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:

Omar Ongaro

Football Regulatory Director

Encl: CAS directives