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 9 April 2020
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC)
passed on 9 April 2020,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Roy Vermeer (The Netherlands), member
Daan de Jong (The Netherlands), member
on the matter involving the player,
Aly Ahmed Aly Mohamed, Egypt,
represented by Mr Nuno Barbosa
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent
and the club,
CD Feirense, Portugal,
represented by Mr Fernando Veiga Gomes,
Mr Alexandre Miguel Mestre and Ms Sofia Silva e Sousa
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
and the club,
Larissa FC, Greece,
represented by Mr Konstantinos Zemberis
as Intervening Party
regarding an employment-related dispute
between the parties
I. Facts of the case
1. On 5 January 2019, the Portuguese club, CD Feirense (hereinafter: the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant or the club), and the Egyptian player, Aly Ahmed
Mohamed (hereinafter: the Claimant/Counter-Respondent or the player), concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from 2 January 2019 until 30
June 2021.
2. According to clause 2 of the contract, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant undertook to
pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the following:
“(i) A signing-on fee of EUR 130.000,00 (one hundred and thirty
thousand euros) net, payable as follows:
(a) EUR 40.000,00 (forty thousand euros) within forty-eight hours of signature
of this contract by both parties; and
(b) EUR 90.000,00 (ninety thousand euros) on or before 1 September 2019
[…].
(ii) As consideration for the activity exercised by the Player during the
sports season of 2018/2019 (from the date of signature of this contract to 30
June 2019), as well as for the transfer of rights referred to in clause 8, the
total net remuneration of EUR 72.000,00 (seventy two thousand euros), paid
in 6 (six) monthly and equal net instalments of EUR 12.000,00 (twelve
thousand euros) each, which includes the proportional amounts
corresponding to holidays and Christmas allowances and meal allowance.
(iii) As consideration for the activity exercised by the Player during the
sports season of 2019/2020 (from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020), as well as for
the transfer of rights referred to in clause 8, the total net remuneration of
EUR 144.000,00 (one hundred and forty four thousand euros), paid in 12
(twelve) monthly and equal net instalments of EUR 12.000,00 (twelve
thousand euros) each, which includes the proportional amounts
corresponding to holidays and Christmas allowances and meal allowance.
(iv) As consideration for the activity exercised by the Player during the
sports season of 2020/2021 (from 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021), as well as for
the transfer of rights referred to in clause 8, the total net remuneration of
EUR 144.000,00 (one hundred and forty four thousand euros), paid in 12
(twelve) monthly and equal net instalments of EUR 12.000,00 (twelve
thousand euros) each, which includes the proportional amounts
corresponding to holiday and Christmas allowances and meal allowance.
(v) Feirense SAD shall support all costs with housing for the Player and
pay for a house approved by the Player, fully furnished and equipped and
Feirense SAD shall pay the maximum allowance of EUR 400,00 (four hundred
Euros) per month either directly to the landlord or to the Player under terms to be agreed. The Player shall pay for all utility bills related to such house to
be used exclusively by the Player and his family.
(vi) Feirense SAD shall issue and pay to the Player the cost of 4 (four)
airline economic tickets between Porto and Belgium or Cairo (at the Player’s
discretion) for each year of this contract”.
3. Moreover, pursuant to clause 9 of the contract, the parties agreed upon the following:
“lf one of the parties rescinds this contract with just cause whose
existence is not recognized, it will be constituted in the obligation to
compensate the counterparty for the damages caused by the unlawful
conduct and it is already determined the indemnifying amount to as follows:
a) ln the event that Feirense SAD terminates this contract unlawfully or
unilaterally and without just cause, it is obliged to and shall pay the Player a
net indemnity sum corresponding to the full amount of the remunerations
that the Player would be owed until the end of the contract, without
prejudice to compensation of a higher value on proof of damages of a higher
amount incurred by the Player not being due to this other compensation, for
whatever reason;
b) The Parties agree to establish the Player's right to unilaterally and
without just cause terminate this Contract at any time at the Player's election
provided that he makes to or procures for the First Contractor, by himself or
through any Club or SAD, the payment of the amount of EUR 2.000.000,00
(two million euros), VAT not included, to be settled in two equal instalments
(the first instalment within seven (7) days of said unilateral termination by
the Player, and the second instalment one (1) year later), which sum
corresponds to the valuation of the player's federative and economic rights
made by the parties in this contract. ln case Feirense SAD is relegated in the
end of the 2018/2019 season the above referred amount shall be
automatically reduced to EUR 120.000,00 (one hundred and twenty thousand
euros) and in case Feirense SAD is relegated in the end of the 2019/2020
season the above referred amount shall be automatically reduced to EUR
210.000,00 (two hundred and ten thousand euros). The Parties expressly
agree and declare that the amounts indicated above were established after a
discussion and negotiation process and that it was freely agreed and accepted
as fair in the interest and safeguard of both, taking into account, inter alia,
the stability of the contractual bond assumed between the Parties, and that
no further sums shall be due to Feirense SAD upon the unilateral termination
of this contract without just cause by the Player”.
4. On 18 May 2019, after having played the last game of the 2018/2019 season, the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant was relegated to the Second Division of Portugal, i.e. the
Liga Pro. In this context, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent maintained that, “due to the
fact that the level of the Player was too high to compete on the Liga Pro”, the parties allegedly agreed “that the best solution would be to transfer the Player and therefore
he, in principle, would not make part of the squad of the Club for the season
2019/2020”.
5. In this context, according to the player, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and his agent
had been “working on the market on a possible transfer for the Player”.
6. Meanwhile, between 6 June and 6 July 2019, the player joined his national team in
order to participate in the African Cup of Nations (hereinafter: the CAN). In this respect,
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent sustained that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
“was informed by the Egyptian Football Association”.
7. As per the player, by July 2019, the club’s representative allegedly informed him that he
“could stay on holidays one month, as [he] was not expected to be part of the Club
squad for the season 2019/2020”.
8. Moreover, on 30 July 2019, the Sports’ Director of the club contacted the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent asking him about his “situation”. In this context, on 31
July 2019, the player replied saying “I’m still looking for something good”.
9. As per the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, between 31 July 2019 and 14 August 2019, the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the player’s agent, exchanged several messages
regarding the situation of the player. On 14 August 2019, the player’s agent allegedly
sustained the following: “There is zero benefit for the player to stay home, it is better
he is training with the squad until a solution is found otherwise he loses fitness. You are
the one who never told him to come back, in fact after the African cup you told he can
stay in Egypt and not part of the plans. You are not being correct […] but no worries,
[the player] will come back immediately and train with [the Respondent/Counter-
Claimant] and be ready for the games – if we don’t find suitable financial offer for him
[…] he can continue with [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] for the season”.
10. On 14 August 2019, the player allegedly contacted the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
and requested it to provide him with “the plan of training” and “the flight ticket as
stated in the Contract, so he [could] present himself at the Club”. On 15 August 2019,
the player reiterated his request.
11. In this respect, on 15 August 2019, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant informed the
player that there was “no indication” that the player was coming back to the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s club, sustaining that his case was “being analysed by
administration and the [legal] department”.
12. As per the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, in reply to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s
message, he explained the following: “[the club’s representative] didn’t send my salary
this month and said I should have been training with the team, while he is the one said I
can be away because I’m not on the club plans till I find something so now I wanna
come to training immediately”. According to the player, the Respondent/CounterPlayer Claimant reiterated that the player’s case was “being examined by the administration of
[the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] and the [legal] Department”.
13. Subsequently, on 16 August 2019, the club allegedly terminated the contract with the
player “on the grounds of abandonment of the employment”. According to the
termination letter, the club further mentioned that, after having concluded the
2018/2019 season on 19 May 2019, all players were informed that they should resume
training on 27 June 2019. According to the termination letter, the club acknowledged
being aware of the player’s participation in the CAN as from 6 June until 6 July 2019, but
it claims that the player went on unauthorized holidays after having concluded the
African Cup of Nations. In this respect, taking into account the content of the
termination letter, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant further sustained that the player’s
unjustified absence for more than 15 business days constituted a breach of the contract
and, therefore, the club deemed having just cause to terminate their employment
relationship.
14. In continuation, on 4 September 2019, the club sent an email to the player, by means of
which it stated that the player “never picked up at [the Respondent’s] offices” the
termination letter dated 16 August 2019. In this context, the club sent a copy of the
termination letter to the player.
15. On the same date, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent replied to the club’s
correspondence, stating the following: “It is the first time I hear about this from Feirense
and I just think this is a joke. Feirense knew all the time where I was and never replied to
my requests to send the tickets from me to come back or even answer to my and my
agent request of information for the new season. I will send this to my lawyer. He sent
you an email this morning. Please reply to him”.
16. On 27 September 2019, subsequently amended on 9 October 2019, the Claimant/
Counter-Respondent lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent/Counter-
Claimant for breach of contract without just cause and requested that the club should
proceed with the payment of the total amount of EUR 450,000, broken down as follows:
a) EUR 90,000 “as the second instalment of the signing-on fee that was due on or
before 1st September 2019”, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 August 2019 until
the date of effective payment;
b) EUR 12,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 July 2019 until the date of effective
payment, corresponding to the outstanding monthly salary for July 2019;
c) EUR 6,194, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 August 2019 until the date of
effective payment, “as outstanding salary from 1st August until 16th August 2019;
d) EUR 269,806, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 August 2019 until the date of
effective payment, as compensation for breach of contract;
e) EUR 72,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 August 2019 until the date of
effective payment, as compensation for additional damages.
17. In his claim, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent asserted not having received the
termination letter dated 16 August 2019. In this respect, the player pointed out that the
said notice of termination was allegedly “sent by the board of the members to the head
office of the Club […] on the grounds that this is the address that is stated in the
Contract”. In this context, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent wished to highlight that
the address indicated in the contract “was the head office of the Club because in the
moment he signed [the contract] (5th January 2019) he had not yet rented a house in
Portugal”.
18. Moreover, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent sustained that, on 22 January 2019, with
the assistance of the club, he rented a house in Portugal. In this respect, the player
indicated the following: “as this was taken care by the Club, it is unequivocal that the
Club had the Player’s address in Portugal”.
19. In view of the aforementioned circumstances, the player sustained that the club
terminated the contract without just cause on 16 August 2019. In this respect, as regard
the termination letter dated 16 August 2019, the player stressed the following:
a) First of all, considering the club’s argument that it “never heard from [the
player]” as from 6 July 2019, the player highlighted “that during July and
August 2019 the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant] spoke several times with the
Player, which proves that the Club was always in touch with the Player”.
b) Secondly, with regard to the club’s argument that the player’s behavior
“unequivocally reveals the unwillingness not to return to work”, the player
pointed out that “the Club did not invite or summoned or requested the Player,
either directly or through his agent, to join pre-season”. In this regard, the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent also indicated that he “requested the training
program and requested the flight ticket to return to the club”.
c) Finally, as regards the communication of the termination letter dated 16 August
2019, the player maintained having “exchanged several communications” in July
and August 2019 and, therefore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant “was aware”
of his phone number and email address. For this reason, according to the player,
the “Club has hidden from the Player the existence of that letter and the
existence of the unilateral termination of the Contract”.
20. Finally, in view of all the above, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent maintained that the
club “was not interested in the continuation of the Player”, so the club “unlawfully
terminated the contract”.
21. In reply to the claim, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant maintained that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s description of the facts was “inaccurate and distorted”.
22. As regards the possible transfer of the player to a third club, the Respondent/Counter-
Claimant acknowledged having discussed it with the player. However, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant highlighted that the possibility of transferring the player
had been commented because the Player allegedly informed the Club “that he did not
intend to play to the Second Division of Portugal”.
23. Moreover, the club also affirmed that, after having concluded the season 2018/2019 on
19 May 2019, the player “said goodbye to his team mates”, “picked up his personal
belongings” and “left the WhatsApp group used for communication and information of
the Club’s professional football team squad”.
24. In continuation, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant further maintained that it “never
authorized the Player to be absent from work until he found a new club and a possible
transfer would be executed”, nor authorized the player to have a one month vacations
after the CAN. In this respect, the club also highlighted that “by communicating with
different persons linked directly or indirectly with the Club”, the player and his agent
were trying “to find a context that justified the Player’s stay in Belgium and not
returning to Portugal”.
25. Moreover, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant held that, after having concluded the CAN
on 6 July 2019, it “never heard from the Player, neither the Player attended any training
session or was present at the Club premises, which in itself constitutes abandonment of
employment”. In this context, as per the club, the player’s absence as from 6 July 2019
“revealed the Player’s intention of not resuming to work”.
26. In this context, the club pointed out that contrary to what the player affirmed, it was
not that the club lost interest in the player, but rather the player that lost interest in the
club. In this respect, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant also highlighted that the
“player's interest in the Club was only rekindled when [the player] realised that he had
not, after all, managed to find another club”.
27. In view of the above, pursuant to clause 9 of the contract, the club maintained having
just cause to terminate the employment relationship. As per the Respondent/Counter-
Claimant, on 16 August 2019, it sent a termination letter on the grounds of
abandonment of employment, and stated that the player’s behaviour did not comply
with the duties contained in the contract and/or the principles of the Portuguese Law. In
support of its statements, the club stated the following: “Under Portuguese law,
abandonment of employment is one of the legal alternatives for termination of
employment contracts in general, including sports employment contracts, and
corresponds, considering its effects, and by operation of law, to a unilateral termination
of the contract by the employee without just cause with all legal consequences, as
expressly stipulated in article 403 of the Portuguese Labour Code”.
28. Furthermore, as regards the player’s monthly salary for July 2019, and maintaining that
the player had been absent without authorization as from 7 July 2019 until 16 August
2019, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant also pointed out having the right to deduct
those “unjustified absences” from the player’s salary.
29. Subsequently, the club lodged a counterclaim against the player, for breach of contract
without just cause, requesting compensation in the amount of EUR 120,000, plus 5%
interest p.a. until the date of effective payment.
30. In his final position, the player maintained his previous allegations regarding the
substance of the case.
31. Having been invited by FIFA to submit its comments, the intervening party, Larissa FC,
maintained that it could not be considered as a party in the proceedings, since it “has
not been named as a party by any of the parties […] neither by the Claimant nor by the
Respondent”.
32. Notwithstanding the above, the intervening party wished to emphasize that it entered
into negotiations with the player in January 2020 “after having received the
confirmation that the player was free to sign with [its club] and that there was no kind
of rights and or entitlements of any other club”. Having said this, the intervening party
pointed out that the contract was concluded on 17 January 2020.
33. Lastly, the intervening party held that “it was the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant] that
decided […] to set [the player] free and be liberated from any contractual obligations”,
depriving the Respondent/Counter-Claimant from any right to claim any possible
compensation. Consequently, the intervening party maintained that “the principle of
joint and several liability of the new club, does not apply to cases where the
employment contract of the player with his former club was actually terminated by the
former club itself”.
34. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the
player and the intervening party concluded an employment contract as from 17 January
2020 until 30 June 2021, according to which the player was entitled to receive a monthly
salary of EUR 626.68. Additionally, pursuant to clauses 4.1 and 4.4 of the new
employment contract, the intervening party also committed itself to pay to the player
the amount of EUR 114,800, as well as a Christmas bonus, an Easter bonus and a Holiday
benefit corresponding to “half of the monthly fees of the Player”.
II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber)
analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it
referred to 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) as well as to the fact that the present matter was
submitted to FIFA on 27 September 2019 and decided on 9 April 2020. Therefore, the
DRC concluded that the 2019 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter
at hand.
2. Furthermore, the DRC 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 27 September 2019, the June 2019 edition of said
regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
3. With regard to the competence of the DRC, art. 3 of the Procedural Rules states that
the DRC shall examine its jurisdiction in the light of art. 22 to 24 of the Regulations. In
accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 lit. i. in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the
aforementioned Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal
with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between an Egyptian player and a Portuguese club.
4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established,
the DRC entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC started
by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation submitted by the parties. However, the DRC emphasised that in the
following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary
evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
5. First of all, the DRC acknowledged that the parties entered into an employment
contract valid as from 2 January 2019 until 30 June 2021, according to which the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent was inter alia entitled to receive the following
remuneration:
a) A signing-on fee of EUR 130,000, payable in two instalments as follows: (i) EUR
40,000 “within forty-eight hours of signature of this contract by both parties”;
and (ii) EUR 90,000 “on or before 1 September 2019”.
b) During the sports season of 2018/2019, i.e. as from the date of signature until 30
June 2019, the player was entitled to receive 6 monthly salaries of EUR 12,000,
amounting to EUR 72,000;
c) During the sports season of 2019/2020, i.e. as from 1 July 2019 until 30 June
2020, the player was entitled to receive 12 monthly salaries of EUR 12,000,
amounting to EUR 144,000;
d) During the sports season of 2020/2021, i.e. as from 1 July 2020 until 30 June
2021, the player was entitled to receive 12 monthly salaries of EUR 12,000,
amounting to EUR 144,000.
6. In continuation, the DRC observed it was undisputed by the parties that said contract
was terminated by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 16 August 2019, in writing, on
the basis of clause 9 of the contract and sustaining that the player had “abandoned his
employment”.
7. The Chamber further took note of the fact that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
maintained that Respondent/Counter-Claimant terminated the contract without just cause. In particular, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent averred that the club was aware
of the reason why the player did not join the pre-season, namely the fact that his
absence had been authorised and that the parties were negotiating his transfer to
another club.
8. Additionally, the DRC observed that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stated to have
been unaware of the club’s termination letter until 4 September 2019, date in which
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant sent an email to the player, attaching the
termination letter dated 16 August 2019. As regards the notification of the termination
letter of 16 August 2019, the DRC also noted that the club explained the following:
“the postal notice was never picked up at [the Respondent’s] offices neither by [the
player] or someone on [his] behalf”.
9. As a consequence thereof, the DRC noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
requested the amount of EUR 18,194 as outstanding remuneration, as well as EUR
431,806 as compensation for breach of contract.
10. In continuation, the Chamber went on examining the reply of the Respondent/Counter-
Claimant as to the substance of the claim. In this regard the DRC observed that the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant rejected the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent,
arguing that the player’s behaviour did not comply with the duties contained in the
contract and/or the principles of the Portuguese Law. The club equally stated that, after
having concluded the CAN on 6 July 2019, it “never heard from the Player, neither the
Player attended any training session or was present at the Club premises, which in itself
constitutes abandonment of employment”.
11. Based on the aforementioned facts, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant lodged a
counterclaim against the player, for breach of contract without just cause, requesting
compensation in the amount of EUR 120,000 from the player.
12. Finally, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the allegations of the
intervening party, Larissa FC, which held that it did not induce the player to terminate
the contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and affirmed that it negotiated the
employment contract with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent after having corroborated
that the latter was a free agent.
13. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue
in this dispute, considering the claim of the player and the counterclaim of the club,
was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated
with or without cause by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
14. In this respect, the DRC firstly noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent alleged that
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s termination letter remained at the “the Club’s head
office”. Moreover, the Chamber also took note that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant,
for its part, by means of its email dated 4 September 2019 (cf. point I.14. above),
acknowledged that the notice of termination dated 16 August 2019 “was sent to the
address referred in the [contract]”.
15. In this context, the DRC moved to analyse the contract of employment, according to
which the player’s address indicated in the contract was the same as the club’s
headquarters address, i.e. Avenida 25 de Abril nº 14 – 4520-161 Santa Maria da Feira.
16. In view of the aforementioned, according to the evidences provided by the parties, the
Chamber made the following considerations: (i) it cannot be considered that the
termination letter was duly notified, since it remained at the club’s headquarters; and
(ii) the club could have notified the termination letter by other means, since it was
aware of the player’s contact details, namely phone number or email address.
Consequently, bearing in mind that the club bears the burden of proof with regard to
the communication of the termination of the contract to the Claimant/Counter-
Respondent, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
failed to duly notify the player.
17. Regardless of the preceding consideration and referring to the allegations of the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant with respect to the conduct of the Claimant/ Counter-
Respondent, which were not proven as stated above, the members of the Chamber
were equally eager to emphasise that only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain
severity would justify the termination of a contract without prior warning. In other
words, only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect
a continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be
terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken
in order for an employer to assure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties,
such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature
termination of an employment contract can only be used as ultima ratio.
18. In view of the above, the Chamber was of the unanimous opinion that the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not submit substantial documentary evidence as to
the alleged termination of contract with just cause. Therefore, the Chamber concluded
that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had terminated the employment contract
without just cause. As a consequence, the DRC also deemed that the counterclaim
lodged by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
should be rejected.
19. Prior to establishing the consequences of the breach of contract without just cause by
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations,
the Chamber held that it had to address the issue of any unpaid remuneration at the
moment the contract was terminated by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
20. In this regard, the Chamber concluded that the player’s salary for July 2019, in the total
amount of EUR 12,000, was outstanding by the time the contract was unilaterally
terminated by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 16 August 2019.
21. Hence,the DRC decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta
sunt servanda, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and is to be held liable to pay the total
amount of EUR 12,000 to the player as outstanding remuneration, corresponding to the
monthly salary for July 2019.
22. In addition, taking into account the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s request as well as
the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC decided that the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant must pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent interest
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount of EUR 12,000 as from 1 August 2019 until the
date of effective payment.
23. In continuation, having established that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held
liable for the early termination of the employment contract without just cause, the
Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of such termination. In this regard,
the members of the Chamber determined that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was
not only to pay the amount of EUR 12,000 as outstanding remuneration to the
Claimant, but also to pay compensation for breach of contract in accordance with art.
17 par. 1 of the Regulations.
24. 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 Claimant/Counter-Respondent under the existing contract and/or the new contract,
the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and
depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.
25. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to
clarify 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 by the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such
compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the
matter at stake.
26. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent/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. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a nonexhaustive
enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the
amount of compensation payable. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into
account at the discretion of the deciding body.
27. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the
monies payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract as from its
date of termination without just cause by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, i.e. 16
August 2019, until the original date of expiry, i.e. 30 June 2021, and concluded that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent would have received in total EUR 366,000 as
remuneration had the contract been executed until its expiry date. Consequently, the
members of the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 366,000 serves as the basis
for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the case at hand.
28. In continuation, 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.
29. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had found
new employment with the intervening party, Larissa FC, as from 17 January 2020 until
30 June 2021, according to which the player would be entitled to receive the following:
(i) a monthly salary of EUR 626,68; (ii) the total remuneration of EUR 114,800; and (iii) a
Christmas, Easter and Holiday bonus corresponding to “half of the monthly fees of the
Player”.
30. Consequently, and bearing in mind the provision of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations
and in accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber as well
as the general obligation of the player to mitigate his damages, such remuneration
under the new employment contract(s) shall be taken into account for the calculation
of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
31. For all the above reasons, the DRC judge decided to partially accept the claim of the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent and held the Respondent/Counter-Claimant liable to pay
the player the total amount of EUR 238,666.40 (EUR 366,000 – EUR 127,333.60), as
compensation for the breach of contract without just cause.
32. In addition, taking into account the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s request, 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
from the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e. 27 September 2019, until the date of
effective payment.
33. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by
establishing that any further request filed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is
rejected.
34. Furthermore, 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 compensation for breach of
contract in due time.
35. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban 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.
36. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant/Counter-
Respondent within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant/Counter-
Respondent, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the
relevant bank details to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, 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 Respondent/
Counter-Claimant in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
37. Finally, the Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned ban 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.
*****
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Aly Ahmed Aly Mohamed, is
partially accepted.
2. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, CD Feirense, has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-
Respondent outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 12,000 plus 5%
interest p.a. as of 1 August 2019 until the date of effective payment.
3. Furthermore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-
Respondent the amount of EUR 238,666.4 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 27 September
2019 until the date of effective payment as compensation for breach of contract.
4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected.
5. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent/Counter-
Claimant, 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/Counter-Claimant must pay the amounts mentioned under points III.2.
and III.3 above.
6. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall provide evidence of payment of the due
amounts in accordance with points III.2. and 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 amounts due in accordance with points III.2. and III.3. above are
not paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant within 45 days as from the
notification by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent of the relevant bank details to the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant 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 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 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. 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
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:
__________________________________
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer