F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2019-2020) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 23 April 2020

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed on 23 April 2020,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Stijn Boeykens (Belgium), member

José Luis Andrade (Portugal), member

on the claim presented by the player,

Marius Valerică Găman, Romania,

represented by Mr Mincu Paul-Alexandru and Mr Lazăr Marius Constantin

as Claimant

against the club,

Al Shabab, Saudi Arabia,

represented by Squire Patton Boggs

as Respondent

regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 10 December 2019, the Romanian player, Marius Valerică Găman (hereinafter: “Claimant” or “player”) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) with the Saudi Arabian club, Al Shabab, (hereinafter: “Respondent” or “club”), valid as from 1 July 2019 until 30 June 2020.

2. Pursuant to Item 3 of the contract, the parties agreed upon the following: “The two parties shall comply with and implement the laws, circulars and regulations issued by SAFF, FIFA, the Confederation and Saudi professional league.”

3. By means of Item 4 of the contract, the Respondent committed itself to pay the Claimant the total amount of USD 900,000 for the duration of the contract, as follows:

a) USD 150,000 on 15 March 2019;

b) USD 150,000 on 1 July 2019;

c) USD 50,000 as monthly salary, payable “at the end of every Gregorian month”.

4. In accordance with Item 5 of the contract, the player inter alia committed himself to the following:

a) “Comply with the laws, regulations, decisions […] by SAFF [...] and FIFA and all policies of an lawful instructions from the club;

b) Attend training, camps […] and taking part in friendly and official matches of the club […] according to established dates;

c) Maintain his physical fitness and attend technical tests and periodical medical examinations and treatment according to tables prepared by technical and medical staffs of the club and SAFF and examinations performed by Anti-Doping National Committee;

d) Participate and exert his best and capabilities in performing the activities and duties provided for in the contract signed with him unless the player’s health does not allow this according to medical reports approved by the [club];

e) Notify [the club] of any injury or disease and to use medical treatment without the knowledge of the physician of the [club] except in emergency cases, and shall also use only the medical treatment determined for him by agreement of the [club].”

5. Pursuant to Item 6 of the contract, the parties agreed the following: “[The Club] may not delay payment of the [player’s] salaries or terminate the contract due to player’s injury during play or training”.

6. Item 8 of the contract stipulated the following: “[The Club] may take decisions and issue sanctions against the [player] in case of violation of his obligations stipulated in the contract, or the policies or instructions of the Club, […] or SAFF, provided that he shall inform the [player] in writing, and the latter may object according to regulations and rules.”

7. According to Item 9 of the contract, the parties agreed on the following:

a) “The two parties shall seek solving their disputes on the enforcement of the contract by amicable ways.

b) The Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Saudi Arabian Football Federation, or FIFA is concerned with considering and resolving the disputes that arise between the club and player on this professional contract, implementing and interpreting it.”

8. Item 12. 3 of the contract stipulated the following: “The player accepted that he has been briefed on the sanctions and rewards internal regulations of the clubs and received the copy from that”.

9. Item 13.1 of the contract stipulated the following: “The two parties declare that they have taken note of SAFF and FIFA Regulations and circulars before signing this contract and that they are obliged to implement them.”

10. The Claimant signed the employment contract as follows:

11. On 1 August 2019, the club informed the player in writing of the following: “We refer to the misbehaving with the President of the club during his visiting to the training camp of the first football team [on] 31.07.2019, which is not respect the president and this is a disgraceful behaviour.” Therefore, the football management decided the following:

1. Deducted (25%) of your monthly salary for the month of July 2019;

2. […]

3. This decision is subject to appeal in accordance with chapter 5 of the list of violations and penalties.”

12. On 5 August 2019, the player sent a letter to the club, referring to the disciplinary sanction received on 1 August 2019, holding that he “had no possibility to express his point of view regarding the accusation as he had no information about the disciplinary investigation […] This is against any and all the rights which should have been guaranteed by the club for such a procedure. I kindly as you to provide us […] the list of violation and penalties to which the reference is made in the sanctioning […] and any other procedural rules applicable to sanctioning proceedings, if such rules exist.”

13. On 9 August 2019, the club replied to player’s letter, stating that “we were and still in the Hajj Eid Holiday in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We are therefore currently unable to provide you with a response to your letter, however we will endeavour to do so next week.”

14. On 18 September 2019, the “team physition” informed the club in writing that the player “presented to clinic 18/9/2019 complain right knee and weakness quadriceps muscle. On examination no signs of pain […] and he can play after doing below medical plan […] Conclusion: Player can be back for training.”

15. On 25 September 2019, the club informed the player in writing that he “intentionally refused to travel with the team […] by claiming an injury […] and how you intentionally refused to have the proper treatment as per the medical conduct […] Thus, and according to […] The Typical List of Penalties and Sanction to the Clubs that apply professionalism, [the club] has decide the following:

- A deduction a %50 of you September 2019 salary;

- This decision is subject to appeal in accordance with chapter 5 of The Typical List of Penalties and Sanction to the Clubs that apply professionalism.”

16. On 2 October 2019, the player informed the club in writing of the following: “The player went to the clinic […] where it was sent by the club […] At the clinic the player received only a document that bears no signature of a radiologist, and the findings of this letter are not true compared to the player’s injury.”

17. On 6 October 2019, and following an MRI scan the player had undertaken on his own accord, the player provided his MRI results regarding his injury to the club. As per the conclusion of the MRI results, “there is focal severe cartilage thinning with full-thickness cartilage loss […] The remainder of cartilage is intact.”

18. On 7 October 2019, the player wrote a letter to the club with regard to his financial sanction of 50% of his September 2019 salary, inter alia arguing that his right to be heard was not respected. In this context, the player held that he only received the sanctioning decision of the club, but that he was not informed about any investigation against him. Finally, the player requested the club to provide him with the list of violations and penalties “to which the reference is made”.

19. On 11 October 2019, the club informed the player in writing, inter alia, of the following:

a) the sanction letter of 25 September 2019 clearly provides the player the right to appeal in accordance with chapter 5 of the Disciplinary Regulations;

b) The player’s letter of 7 October 2019 is time-barred in accordance with the Disciplinary Regulations;

c) “Given that there is a right to appeal provided for in the Disciplinary Regulations, there is no basis for this case to be brought before FIFA, since FIFA does not have jurisdiction”;

d) “However […] the Club is willing to allow the Player a further seven days from the date of this letter to submit his appeal […] in accordance with the Disciplinary Regulations”.

20. On 23 October 2019, the “team doctor” informed the player of the following: “As you are, still complain of right knee pain and no improvement with physiotherapy since one month ago. Advised to do diagnostic arthroscopy […] next week”.

21. On 28 November 2019, the player informed the club in writing that he “showed good signs of medical improvement. Yesterday the player joined his first team training […] In the following days he will increase the intensity of training/exercise till 100% capacity […]”.

22. On 7 December 2019, the player was informed via WhatsApp that he had an appointment “today T 18:00 in […] hospital”.

23. Furthermore, also on 7 December 2019, the club informed the player that “he did not show up in the appointment. Thus we will communicate another appointment to finalize the recovery process.”

24. On 9 December 2019, the player informed the club inter alia that he was never provided his medical records as he requested. In this context, the player held that only after receiving his medical records will he be willing to choose together with the club “an independent doctor […] and the player will perform the investigation needed.”

25. On 13 December 2019, the player informed the club that he refused to perform the arthroscopy because the club, inter alia, did not provide him the medical reports it had of the player. In said letter, the player held that he was “aware” of Item 5 of the contract, but stated that the club does not have “full power over the physical body of [the player]”. The player further informed the club that he is “willing to perform any reasonable medical act”.

26. On 16 December 2019, the club informed the player of the following: “Regarding your absence [at the hospital] a reference to what is stated in the list of violations and penalties […] it was decided that:

- 50% deduction of your monthly salary of December 2019 […] a deduction of 5% will be deducted from December 2019 salary and 45% will be deducted from January 2020 salary.

- […]

- This decision is subject to appeal in accordance with chapter 5 of the list of violations and penalties.”

27. On 3 September 2019, amended on 16 October 2019 and 21 January 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent for outstanding remuneration, requesting the total amount of USD 85,000, as follows:

a) USD 12,500, corresponding to the remaining July 2019 salary, plus 5% interests p.a. as from 31 July 2019;

b) USD 25,000 corresponding to the remaining September 2019 salary, plus 5% interests p.a. as from 30 September 2019;

c) USD 25,000 corresponding to the remaining December 2019 salary, plus 5% interests p.a. as from 31 December 2019;

d) USD 22,500 corresponding to the remaining January 2020 salary, plus 5% interests p.a. as from 31 January 2020.

Competence

28. The club questioned the jurisdiction of FIFA in the matter.

29. First of all, according to the club, the player was contractually bound to follow the disciplinary procedures set out in the employment contract.

30. In continuation, the club inter alia referred to Items 3, 5.1 and 12.3 of the contract, and held that the player was aware that he had to follow the Saudi Arabian FA Football Regulations.

31. In this context, the club referred to a document issued by the Saudi FA entitled “a typical list of penalties and sanction that apply to the club and professionalism 2014”.

32. In particular, the club to Art. 21, which holds the following: “The appeal raised by the player against the decisions issued from the sanction complied with the provisions of the issued from the sanction complied with the provisions of the list […] within one week of the notification of the sanction or knowing about it through [the club] with a copy of the appeal being signed by [the club] on the original copy. If the delay is expired, it is considered as an acceptance of the sanction and confirmation of the violation. The president and his deputy have the right to select the suitable person to study the appeal.”

33. According to the club, “in seeking to appeal the sanction before [FIFA], the Claimant has lodged an impermissible appeal as he is now bound by the decision”.

34. Secondly, the club argued that there is no legitimate reason for this claim to be dealt with by the FIFA in accordance with Article 5(4) of FIFA’s Procedural Rules, holding that “this matter is concerned entirely with the [player's] Employment Contract and the [Saudi FA] Disciplinary Regulations” (hereinafter: Disciplinary Regulations).

35. In this context, the club included the following list of sanctions as enshrined in the Disciplinary Regulations:

36. According to the club, if FIFA were to be “seized of jurisdiction in each minor disciplinary dispute between clubs and their players, particularly in circumstances where there exists an alternative appeals process, it would be inundated with claims and would not have the resources to deal with the volume of disputes”.

37. Thirdly, as per the club, the sanction should have been appealed to the Saudi Arabian NDRC in accordance with Item 9 of the contract.

38. In this context, the club held that the Saudi NDRC complies with all the criteria in order to be recognized by FIFA.

39. The player, for his part, referred to Item 9.2, and held that it did not provide for an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the Saudi Arabian NDRC, but that the parties had also agreed on the competence of FIFA.

40. In addition, the player held that the “pecuniary sanctions issued by the Club can be regarded as a matter of an employment-related dispute having an international dimension”.

Substance

41. Firstly, with regard to the alleged outstanding salary in the amount of USD 12,500 corresponding to the month of July 2019, the player referred to the sanction letter dated 1 August 2019 received from the club, and held that the sanction was imposed “without any disciplinary procedure and without bringing the accusation to the attention of the player”. As per the player, the fact that no disciplinary procedure is undertaken is demonstrated by the fact that the alleged misbehaviour occurred only the day before, on 31 July 2019.

42. Furthermore, the player referred to point 4 of the sanction letter dated 1 August 2019, and maintained that the club never provided him with “Chapter 5 of the list of violations and penalties”.

43. According to the player, notwithstanding the fact that, by means of its email dated 9 August 2019, the club promised a full reply to the player’s letter dated 5 August 2019, ne reply was ever provided to the player.

44. Given the above, the player concluded that the club violated the contract by retaining 25% of his July 2019 salary and that this amount is therefore still outstanding.

45. In continuation, the club referred to the 2nd disciplinary sanction imposed on him on 25 September 2019, because the player allegedly “refused to travel with the team to play a very important match in a very important competition by claiming an injury in his right knee”.

46. In this context, the player argued that he refused to follow the medical plan proposed by the club because the injury was more serious than described by the club.

47. As per the player, “he was in a great deal of pain and could not psychically train nor play and because of this he was sanctioned by the Club”.

48. With regard to the disciplinary sanction, the player again argued that there was no disciplinary procedure and his right to be heard was violated.

49. Moreover, the list of “penalties and Sanction to the Clubs that apply Professionalism to which the Club’s letter refers was never communicated to the player, and therefore he was not aware of such a document”.

50. The player referred to his letters dated 2 October 2019 and 7 October 2019 respectively and held that, even though the club had promised to provide him its MRI results, it never did.

51. The player failed to understand why the Club would not treat the cause of his injury and just the effects.

52. In this context, the player carried out his own investigations, which resulted in a medical report which proved that there was “severe cartilage thinning with full thickness cartilage loss”.

53. As per the player, this demonstrated that he was not faking his injury and “that the Club acted in bad faith the entire time and did not care about the Player’s well-being”.

54. Given the above, the player concluded that the club violated the contract by retaining 50% of his September 2019 salary and that this amount is therefore still outstanding.

55. Next, the player referred to the sanction imposed on him by the club on 16 December 2019 by which the club decided to withhold 50% of the December 2019 salary and 45% of the January 2020 salary.

56. In this light, the player explained that the sanction concerns the same alleged disciplinary misconduct, namely the “absence of the player from the medical appointments made by the club on 7, 8 and 9 December 2019”.

57. For the third time, the player alleged that he “was not officially notified of the alleged disciplinary violation, a disciplinary procedure was not initiated and he was not given the opportunity to express his point of view in such a procedure”.

58. Furthermore, the player maintained that this pecuniary sanction is excessive and disproportionate, given that it amounted to USD 47,000 in total “which represents 95% of the monthly allowance”.

59. The player further held that his “absence from the medical appointment made by the club was not an unjustified absence that would allow the Club to apply a disciplinary sanction”.

60. In this context, the player referred to the two medical appointments notified to him on 7 December 2019, and explained that he did not show up to them because the club refused to provide him the documents regarding his health as well as inform him about the purpose of the appointment. In this light, the player referred to his correspondences dated 9 December 2019 and 13 December 2019 respectively, in which he highlighted the reasons for his refusal to show up.

61. Given the above, the player concluded that the reasons for him not showing up to his medical appointments were justified. Consequently, as per the player, the club’s decision to impose disciplinary sanctions on him constituted a breach of contract, and the amounts retained from his salary are still outstanding.

62. As to the substance, and regarding the club’s disciplinary sanction of 1 August 2019, the club held that the player did not “challenge the substantive actions underlying the sanction and has chosen not to submit any factual account or witness evidence in respect of the encounter with the President”. Thus, as per the club, the player did not carry his burden of proof.

63. With regards to the player’s argument that he never received the Disciplinary Regulations, the club counter argued that the player received said Regulations upon signing the contract.

64. In this regard, the club provided a document entitled “Statement of players receiving the list of sanctions and internal regulation of the club”, which allegedly included the player’s signature, as follows:

65. In addition, the club stated that it complied with its Disciplinary Regulations when imposing the disciplinary sanction on the player, particular Art. 13 which holds the following: “It is not allowed to apply a deduction if it is more than 30% only after notifying the player by a written notification about the violation he committed and after hearing his statements […] in case the professional player refuses or rejects to hear his statements and investigating his defense, the rejection will be affirmed in the record”.

66. Therefore, and as regards the sanction imposed on 1 August 2019 which concerned a 25% salary reduction, the club determined that it not obliged to consider the player’s position.

67. In continuation, the club referred to Art. 14 of the Disciplinary Regulations, which hold the following: “The disciplinary accountability may fall from the professional player of the club does not notify him […] about signing the sanction within two weeks after the date of the occurrence of the violation.”

68. According to the club, by informing the player the day after the incident took place (i.e. 31 July 2019), the club had complied with the Disciplinary Regulations.

69. With regard to the sanction imposed on the player on 25 September 2019, the club referred to its letter dated 11 October 2019, and reiterated that it had provided the player an additional 7 days to appeal before the NDRC “despite being out of time to file such an appeal”.

70. Having said this, the club maintained that it was within its right to sanction the player, because the player breached the contract by refusing to travel with the team.

71. Finally, with regard to the sanction imposed on the player on 16 December 2019, the club firstly referred to the player’s letter of 28 November 2019, in which he held that he was 100% fit to play.

72. The club held that it “sought its own analysis of the [player’s] fitness, […], and informed the [player] that he was required to attend an appointment”.

73. However, as has been acknowledged by the player, the club held that the player did not show up to this medical appointment, nor to the one that followed.

74. As a result, the club maintained that it was in its right to sanction the player on 16 December 2019.

75. In this regard, the club reiterated that the player had the right to appeal this sanction, but that he did not do so.

76. Given all of the above, the club requested FIFA to dismiss all of the player’s claims.

77. By means of his additional comments, the player held that club had forged his signature on the document entitled “Statement of players receiving the list of sanctions and internal regulation of the club”.

78. In this context, the player argued that the signature does not resemble his signature on the employment contract.

79. As per the player, the club failed to prove that it provided him with the Disciplinary Regulations.

80. In continuation, the player reiterated his request for relief.

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 case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 3 September 2019. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 2019 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.

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 2019) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is, in principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Romanian player and a Saudi Arabian club.

3. The Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of Items 3, 5.1 and 12.3 of the contract, in conjunction with the Saudi Arabian FA Football Regulations. Moreover, the DRC recalled that the Respondent argued that there is no legitimate reason for this claim to be dealt with by the FIFA since the “matter is concerned entirely with the [player's] Employment Contract and the [Saudi FA] Disciplinary Regulations”. In addition, the Chamber took into account that, as per the Respondent, the disciplinary sanctions should have been appealed to the Saudi Arabian NDRC in accordance with Item 9 of the contract.

4. In this context, the members of the DRC firstly observed, in relation to the competence, that the aforementioned contract included the following clause: “The Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Saudi Arabian Football Federation, or FIFA is concerned with considering and resolving the disputes that arise between the club and player on this professional contract, implementing and interpreting it” (Item 9 of the contract).

5. After having duly examined the content of the aforementioned clause, the members of the DRC observed that, while Item 9 of the relevant contract refers to the NDRC of Saudi Arabia, it also refers to FIFA as a forum for resolving contractual disputes between the Claimant and the Respondent. As such, and considering that a clear reference to FIFA was included in the contract, the members of the Chamber agreed that the DRC is competent to decide on the claim at hand on the basis of the contract.

6. Next, and with regards to the Respondent’s argument that there is no legitimate reason for this claim to be dealt with by the FIFA since the “matter is concerned entirely with the [player's] Employment Contract and the [Saudi FA] Disciplinary Regulations”, the DRC understood that the retention of a player’s contractually agreed salary is by definition a contractual dispute. Thus, according to the Chamber, even if the sanction itself could only be annulled by the NDRC, this should be considered irrelevant, since the player is only requesting outstanding salaries.

7. Consequently, in light of the above considerations, in particular the fact Item 9 provides that FIFA is competent, and the fact that it is contractual dispute with an international dimension, the members of the Chamber agreed that the DRC is competent to decide on the claim at hand.

8. Next, 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, and considering that the present claim was lodged on 3 September 2019, the June 2019 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

9. 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.

10. The Chamber first acknowledged that the player and the club signed an employment contract valid as from 1 July 2019 until 30 June 2020, by means of which the Claimant was entitled to, inter alia, a monthly salary of USD 50,000.

11. In continuation, the DRC recalled that the Respondent imposed three disciplinary sanctions on the Claimant, as follows:

a) On 1 August 2019, by means of which it deducted 25% of the Claimant’s July 2019 salary;

b) On 25 September 2019, by means of which it deducted 50% of the Claimant’s September 2019 salary;

c) On 16 December 2019, by means of which it deducted 50% of the Claimant’s December 2019 salary, as well as 45% of his January 2020 salary.

12. In continuation, the DRC evoked that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent, requesting outstanding remuneration in the total amount of USD 85,000, corresponding to the partial salaries that were deducted by the Respondent following the disciplinary sanction imposed on the Claimant.

13. Thus, the Chamber established that the fundamental issue at stake is determining whether the disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Respondent on the Claimant were proportionate, and whether the Respondent was correct in deducting the salary from the Claimant.

14. However, before delving into the question of whether the disciplinary sanctions imposed were proportionate, the members of the DRC noted that by means of his additional comments, the Claimant held that Respondent had forged his signature on the document entitled “Statement of players receiving the list of sanctions and internal regulation of the club”, and that the Respondent had to prove that it provided him with the Disciplinary Regulations.

15. Having said this, the members of the DRC referred to the principle of the burden of proof explicitly stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, and agreed that the Claimant had not provided any additional evidence and/or documentation that could demonstrate that the signature was indeed forged. Along these lines, according to the Chamber, there is no indication on file by which an unequivocal conclusion could be reached that the Claimant did not have the Disciplinary Regulations in its possession. Therefore, the DRC decided not to take into account this part of the Claimant’s argumentation.

16. In continuation, the Chamber proceeded to analysing the three disciplinary sanctions. In this context, and for the sake of clarity, the DRC decided to scrutinize each disciplinary sanction separately.

17. Firstly, with regard to the disciplinary sanction of 1 August 2019, the Chamber noted that this sanction was imposed because the Claimant allegedly displayed misbehavior vis-à-vis the Respondent’s president. Having said this, the DRC was quick to point out that the Respondent never provided any evidence whatsoever describing that this misbehavior actually took place. Moreover, the Chamber noted that the sanction was imposed a mere one day after the alleged misbehavior took place. Thus, the DRC established that the Claimant did not appear to have had the right to defend himself.

18. Given the above, the DRC unanimously agreed that the sanction of 1 August 2019 imposed on the Claimant was disproportionate and that the amounts retained from his July 2019 salary (i.e. USD 12,500) are to be reimbursed by the Respondent to the Claimant.

19. Secondly, as regards the the disciplinary sanction of 25 September 2019, the Chamber recalled that the Respondent imposed this sanction because the Claimant did not travel with the team, claiming an injury. Along these lines, the DRC took into account that, as per the Respondent, the Claimant was fit to travel, whereas the Claimant had argued that he was not.

20. Notwithstanding the large amount of documentation submitted by both parties regarding the Claimant’s alleged injury, the Chamber found it very difficult, if not impossible, to unequivocally determine whether the Claimant was injured, let alone fit to travel. Having said this, the DRC understood that two important elements need to be pointed out, namely: (1) the proportionality of the sanction; and (2) the procedure followed by the Respondent.

21. As to the proportionality, the Chamber agreed that the retention of 50% of a player’s monthly salary is disproportionally high. Furthermore, the DRC analyzed the correspondence exchange held between the Claimant and the Respondent, and concluded that the Respondent did not properly warn the Claimant that it would impose such a high sanction. In other words, the Chamber determined that not sending any kind of warning to the Claimant prior to actually imposing the sanction is fundamental in such disciplinary proceedings.

22. Given the above, the DRC concluded that the sanction of 25 September 2019 was disproportionate, that the Respondent should have remitted a warning to the Claimant and that, as a consequence, the Claimant is entitled to USD 25,000 as outstanding salary, corresponding to 50% of the September 2019 salary.

23. Third and lastly, with respect to the disciplinary sanction of 16 December 2019, the Chamber evoked that this sanction was imposed by the Respondent on the Claimant because the Claimant refused to show up at a number of doctors’ appointments, as requested by the Respondent. In this context, the Chamber followed its previous procedure, taking into account the proportionality of the sanction, as well as the procedure followed by the Respondent.

24. With regard to the proportionality of the disciplinary sanction, the DRC agreed that the retention of 50% of the Claimant’s December 2019 salary plus 45% of his January 2020 salary is disproportionately high. Secondly, from the correspondence exchange between the Respondent and the Claimant, the Chamber established that the Respondent did not properly warn the Claimant that it was going to impose such disproportionate sanctions.

25. Consequently, the DRC concluded that the sanction of 16 December 2019 was disproportionate, that the Respondent should have remitted a warning to the Claimant and that, as a consequence, the Claimant is entitled to USD 25,000 as outstanding salary, corresponding to 50% of the December 2019 salary, as well as to USD 22,500 corresponding to 45% of the January 2020 salary.

26. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the total amount of USD 85,000, corresponding to the amounts retained from his July 2019 salary (i.e. USD 12,500), 50% of the September 2019 salary (i.e. USD 25,000), 50% of the Claimant’s December 2019 salary (i.e. USD 25,000) and 45% of his January 2020 salary (i.e.USD 22,500).

27. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim, the Chamber decided to award the player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 85,000 as of the day following the day on which said instalments fell due.

28. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./8. above, the Chamber referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.

29. In this regard, the Chamber established that, in virtue of the aforementioned provision, it has competence to impose a sanction on the club. More in particular, the DRC pointed out that, against clubs, the sanction shall consist in a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.

30. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the club does not pay the amount due to the player within 45 days as from the moment in which the player, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the club, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the club in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

31. Finally, the Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned sanction will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.

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

Player Marius Valerică Găman, Romania / Club Al Shabab, Saudi Arabia 17/12

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant, Marius Valerică Găman, is admissible.

2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted

3. The Respondent, Al Shabab, has to pay to the Claimant outstanding salaries in the amount of USD 85,000, plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows:

a) on the amount of USD 12,500, as from 1 August 2019;

b) on the amount of USD 25,000, as from 1 October 2019;

c) on the amount of USD 25,000, as from 1 January 2020;

d) on the amount of USD 22,500, as from 1 February 2020.

4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.

5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly, preferably to the e-mail address as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the amount mentioned under point III.3.

6. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with point III.3 above to FIFA to the e-mail address psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if need be, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).

7. In the event that the amount in accordance with point III.3 above is not paid by the Respondent within 45 days as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the Respondent, the Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

8. The ban mentioned in point III.7 above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amounts are paid.

9. In the event that the aforementioned sums plus interest are still not paid by the end of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

*****

Note related to the publication:

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

Note relating to the appeal procedure:

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. 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.

The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:

Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)

Avenue de Beaumont 2

CH-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:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer