F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2020-2021) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 18 February 2021

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed on 18 February 2021

regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Tony-Markos Kanalos

COMPOSITION:

Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairman

Stijn Boeykens (Belgium), member

Elvis Chetty (Seychelles), member

CLAIMANT:

Tony-Markos Kanalos, Romania

Represented by Andre Oliveira Teodoro Lopes

RESPONDENT:

KBSC F.C., Hungary

I. FACTS OF THE CASE

1. On 1 July 2017, the Romanian player, Tony-Markos Kanalos (hereinafter: Claimant or the player), and the Hungarian club, KBSC FC (hereinafter: Respondent or the club) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from date of signature until 30 June 2021.

2. Point 8.a) of the Contract reads as follows: “The Employee’s obligations are the following: a) To take part in team or individual trainings, preparations, training camps, matches organized by the Employer and assigned for him, as well as to participate in other events, programs determined by the Employer, to subject himself to trainings and other occupations, individual or group physical fitness programs defined by the professional staff of the Employer, to execute the instructions of the professional management relating to his sports activities with the condition that ordering of individual trainings are only allowed in cases and to the extent which are justified from sports professional and/or from medical point of view”.

3. Point 10 of the Contract states the following: “The professional management or the management of the Employer may determine in his sole discretion at what team – or in line with the content of sub-point 8.a) – individually, or otherwise shall the Employee perform his training work, or in the matches of what team he is obliged to participate”.

4. By means of point 15 of the Contract, the club undertook to pay the player’s personal “base wage until the date of the month following the given month […] – but the latest until the 20th day of the month – by bank transfer”.

5. According to the Annex “Personal Conditions” of the Contract, the parties agreed on a monthly salary amounting to Hungarian Florin (HUF) 318,000 gross.

6. Pursuant to point 18 of the Contract, the player is “informed that after the part of the remuneration corresponding to the minimum wage both himself [and the club] are paying obligations according to the general tax and contribution payment rules, and concerning the part exceeding the minimum wage the [player] shall pay 15% and the [club] 20% tax and contribution according to the cited statutory provisions”.

7. Point 38 of the Contract stipulates the following: “The [club] or the [player] may terminate the employment relationship with immediate effect, if the other party breaches its obligations in connection with the employment contract intentionally, or with gross negligence and seriously or otherwise is showing a behaviour which makes the maintenance of the employment relationship impossible”.

8. Point 39 of the Contract states, inter alia, that: “with respect to the termination with immediate effect the non-fulfillment by the [club] of obligations […], the [player] may exercise the right for immediate termination of contract only after that the [club] is in min. 1,5 month (45 days) delay with the payment of the [player’s] wage, and the [player] called upon the [club] to fulfill the contract within 15 (fifteen) days deadline and this date has expired without success”.

9. In accordance with point 47 of the Contract, the player “acknowledges that if he is not included in the first team of the [club], or based on the decision of the professional management he is transferred to the second or further teams of the [club], his base wage will be reduced to the percentage determined in the Personal Conditions of the amount given […] – but to max. its 50 % - from the 15th day of the month following the decision”.

10. Point. 49 of the Contract reads as follows: “The Parties agree that they shall make efforts to settle their possible dispute in amicable way by negotiations. If these efforts fail – in cases determined by the rules of MLSZ and FIFA – the Parties may turn to the organizational units with MLSZ or FIFA scope of authority, in case of labour dispute to the Administrative and Labour Court having competence and scope of authority, and in all other disputes arising out of their legal relationship the Parties stipulate the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sports Standing Arbitration Court based on the Article 47 of the Sports Law. The number of arbitrators is three; the procedure is determined by the Procedural Rules of the Arbitration Court”.

11. Point 50 of the Contract reads as follows: “The Parties apply the rules of the Hungarian law to their legal relationship. Matters not regulated by this employment contract shall be governed by the Labour Code, the Sports Law and other relevant legislative rules, as well as by the rules of the Employer, MLSZ, UEFA and FIFA”.

12. On 31 January 2019, the parties signed an “Amendment of Employment Contract” (hereinafter: the Amendment), by means of which the parties extended the duration of their employment relationship until 30 June 2023.

13. In accordance with the Amendment, the parties agreed on a monthly gross salary amounting HUF 620,000 as of 1 January 2019.

14. In addition, pursuant the Amendment, the player was entitled to “gross” HUF 1,412,000 as a sign-on fee “on the day of the amendment of the contract”.

15. On 9 January 2020, the club informed the player that “starting as of January 15, 2020, you have been left out of [the club’s] first team for an indefinite period. From this day forward your salary categorization has been changed to HUF 276,831 gross per month in accordance with the conditions of Article 47 of your employment contract”.

16. On 15 January 2020, the player informed the club in writing, that the total amount of HUF 470,000 “net” was still outstanding to him, corresponding to the following:

a. HUF 50,000 due on “10 August 2019”;

b. HUF 70,000 due on “10 September 2019”;

c. HUF 150,000 due on “10 October 2019”;

d. HUF 200,000 due on “10 November 2019”.

17. In the aforementioned letter, the player referred to points 38 and 39 of the Contract and held that the amounts were outstanding for more than 45 days. In addition, the player requested the club to pay him the outstanding amounts within 15 days.

18. On 31 January 2020, the Respondent replied to the player in writing, stating that the player had been “unjustifiably” absent for 3 days in July 2019 and 3 days in August 2019. The club further stated “Therefore, unjustified unpaid absences of 3-3 days are recorded in the working time records […] the value of which is gross HUF 80,870 for July and HUF 59,048 for August”. As per the club, “a total gross wage claim of HUF 139,918 is unfounded”. Consequently, the club determined that it would “settle the arrears of wages due […] for the gross fulfilment of HUF 410,435”. Finally, in said letter, the club reaffirmed its decision to reduce the player’s wages by 50% in accordance with point 47 of the Contract by 15 February 2020.

19. On 7 February 2020, the player sent a termination letter to the club (hereinafter: the First Termination), by means of which, the player held that he had received his salaries “incompletely” as from August 2019, and that the total amount outstanding was HUF 470,000. The player thus maintained that he was entitled to terminate the Contract in accordance with point 39 of the Contract, given that the club failed to remedy the situation following his correspondence of 15 January 2020.

20. On 12 February 2020, the club provided the player with a new training schedule.

21. On the same day, the club replied to the player’s First Termination letter holding that it had never been in “arrears with payment of 45 days’ wage”, because it transferred an amount of HUF 410,435 to the player on 7 February 2020. Thus, as per the club’s allegations, the player’s termination was “unlawful”.

22. According to the player, on 3 March 2020, he “submitted the official termination request to the FA. The FA consequently, officially terminated the contract on March 5, 2020, but reinstated the contract on March 6, 2020 due to a dispute between the Parties raised by the [club]”.

23. On 21 May 2020, the player informed the club in writing that the amount of “HUF 1,223,364” was outstanding to him “gross equaling to 59 days’ worth of salary”. Furthermore, the player held that club reduced his salary by 50%, thereby breaching point 47 of the contract. As such, the player requested the payment of “the overdue salaries equaling to HUF 1,182,993 gross, and raising my client’s salary to at least 50%”, within 15 days.

24. On 4 June 2020, the Respondent informed the Claimant’s representative in writing that “the claim for outstanding salaries is without basis or evidence”, and that it had reduced the player’s salary in accordance with point 47 of the Contract.

25. On 10 June 2020, the player terminated the employment contract in writing “in accordance with [points] 38 and 39 of the employment contract, just cause as determined by FIFA [Regulations] Article 14 and 14bis” (hereinafter: the Second Termination).

26. On 3 July 2020, the Respondent sent an email to the Claimant stating inter alia: “I reject the immediate termination of the Employment Contract between Tony received on 19/06/2020, as the reasons indicated in the dismissal notice does not hold true, as I informed you in my mail on 4 June 2020”.

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA

27. On 18 June 2020, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.

a. The claim of the Claimant

28. According to the Claimant, the outstanding amount of HUF 1,182,992.85 “gross” was due to him.

29. In particular, the player held that following his default letter of 15 January 2020 in which he requested HUF 470,000 “net”, the club only paid him “HUF 348,870 net”.

30. With regard to the club’s unilateral decision to reduce his salary by 50% to “HUF 276,831 gross” per month, the player held that, in accordance with the Amendment, 50% of his salary would correspond to HUF 310,000.

31. Furthermore, the player underlined that “between August 31, 2019 and January 9, 2020, from the first match of the [player] with the [club’s] second team, until the notification of reduced salary due to being placed in the second team, the [player] did not hear anything about his training schedule”.

32. In this light, given that no explanation was given to him regarding the club’s decision to drop him to the second team, the player cannot explain the club’s incomplete payments prior to 9 January 2020.

33. In this context, the player held that the club’s decision to drop him to the 2nd team “was entirely unexpected and arbitrary, and completely unrelated to his performance, since the [player] was a starting player for most of the season” .

34. As per the player, given that he has been playing in the second team of the Respondent which competed in an “amateur league” since September 2019, as well as the fact that the club “has shown both the persistence of a single violation over a long time in the overdue salaries […] it is clear that the [player] had reached a point where he was unable to reasonably maintain the employment relationship”.

35. According to the player, on 9 June 2020, the club drafted a “Labor Law Agreement” by means of which it proposed to, inter alia, agree on the following:

a. “The Parties acknowledge that the [club] acknowledges in writing the unilateral action of the Employer dated 9 January 2020, based on Clause 47 of the Employment Contract;

b. From 15 February 2020, [the player’s] salary was changed by 50% to HUF 310,000 per month;

c. The [club] helps the [player] to play in a league with a higher level than the county class I in the next championship season 2020/21;

d. [The player] declares that […] there is no legal basis for continuing the labor dispute, the parties have settled all outstanding issues arising from the amendment of the employment contract pursuant to point 47”.

36. The requests for relief of the Claimant, were the following:

1. “The present claim is deemed admissible.

2. The present claim is accepted.

3. The Claimant is granted the termination of his employment agreement with just cause.

4. The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant the amount of HUF 1,182,992.85 gross plus interest at 5 % p.a. as of the date of effective payment as overdue payables.

5. The Respondent is, under Article 17 of the FIFA RSTP (…) ordered to pay the remaining amount of the Contract i.e. the monthly salary from June 1, 2020 until June 30, 2023 at HUF 620,000 gross per month, in total which comes out to HUF 21,700,000 gross for a period of 35 months, with interest of 5 % p.a. as from the date of effective payment as a compensation for breach of contract,”

b. The position of the Respondent

37. According to the Respondent, the Club had settled the player’s salaries in accordance with the Contract.

38. The Respondent argues that all salaries after the reduction reach the HUF 310,000, which is 50% of the original salary.

39. The Respondent further states that after the notice received: “the Club settled the player’s salary even for the days on which it was unsure if he was working at all. The Club did not enforce economic difficulties deriving from the consequences of COVID 19 in the salary of the club’s player, although it was made possible by Hungarian laws and regulations”.

40. According to the Respondent, on 3 July 2020, the Club informed the player as well as his representatives that the termination of the employment contract by the Claimant was unlawful, and they would not accept it.

41. The Respondent states that it rejects “all initiatives that aims to gain ungrounded financial profit for the player - and presumably for his manager – and is not about re-establishing the connection between him and the Club”.

42. The requests for relief of the Respondent were the following:

a. Reject all player’s claims.

b. Conclude that the Player breached his duties prescribed in the employment contract so the Club can lawfully terminate the employment contract.

c. Request and initiate the Parties’ mutual agreement on the employment contract.

d. Stay the rule pending until the competent Labour Court decision to lawfully terminate the Employment Contract

c. The position of the Claimant as to the alleged payments made

43. With regard to the alleged payments made by the Respondent on 7 February 2020, the Claimant was given the opportunity to comment and stated, inter alia:

a. “In Respondent Annex 7, the payroll of February 2020, claims a net amount of HUF 714,335.00 was paid, as shown in Claimant Annex 21 the Respondent paid a separate net amount of HUF 348,870.00 besides the net salary. The Claimant did not dispute this. The Claimant merely would like to show that due to a lack of official communication, warnings, and notices, his salary was paid in the amounts felt by the Respondent.”

b. “Regarding the late payment of remuneration or incomplete payment (non-payment) the ‘only relevant criteria is, whether the breach of obligation is such that it causes the confidence, which the party has in future performance in accordance with the contract, lost. Hence, the above facts and the submission by the Claimant, shows that over a period of a year and a half, his confidence was marginalized due to the club’s inconsistent payment of salaries and due reasoning”.

44. Furthermore, the Claimant acknowledges having received from the Respondent the amounts stated in the Respondent’s submissions.

III. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER

a. Competence and applicable legal framework

45. 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 presented to FIFA on 18 June 2020 and submitted for decision on 18 February 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the January 2021 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.

46. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed 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 February 2021), 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 Hungarian club.

47. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber noted the allegations put forward by the Respondent regarding lis pendens in the Hungarian local court. However, considering the lack of any supporting evidence in this regard, the Chamber decided to reject this argument on the basis of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules. Hence, the Chamber affirmed its competence to hear the dispute.

48. Subsequently, 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 Player (edition February 2021), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 18 June 2020, the June 2020 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

b. Burden of proof

49. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the DRC stressed the wording of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider evidence not filed by the parties.

50. In this respect, the Chamber also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in TMS.

c. Merits of the dispute

51. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the DRC started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. 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.

a. Main legal discussion and considerations

52. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute whether the Contract was terminated with or without just cause.

53. To this end, the Chamber scrutinised the evidence on file regarding the First and the Second Termination.

54. Regarding the First Termination and giving weight to the parties’ behaviour thereafter, the Chamber deemed clear that the First Termination did not materialised. On the other hand, the DRC was convinced and clarified that the Claimant indeed terminated the Contract on 10 June 2020 (i.e. the Second Termination).

55. On the other hand, the Club has not terminated the Contract but conversely, is requesting in its prayers for relief that “the Club can lawfully terminate the [Contract]”.

56. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to determine if the player had just cause to terminate the Contract and, subsequently, what consequences shall arise.

57. In continuation, the Chamber analysed as to whether the termination made by the Claimant was made with or without just cause. In this respect, the Claimant had stated as reasons for termination that: (a) the club failed to pay his remuneration on time; and, (b) that the club had failed to pay his full remuneration (salaries as of February 2020, i.e. after the Club’s unilateral decision to reduce his salaries).

58. As for the amounts regarding the time before the salary reduction (i.e. salaries before February 2020), the Claimant admits that the amounts have been received and the only remaining claim against the Respondent would be the “lack of confidence/trust” stating: “[the player’s] confidence was marginalized due to the club’s inconsistent payment of salaries and due reasoning”.

59. Therefore, the DRC concluded that according to the evidence provided and the parties’ allegations, the Respondent does not owe any outstanding remuneration to the Claimant until 31 January 2020.

60. Subsequently, the Chamber turned to the reduction of the Claimant’s salary made by the Respondent, and deemed that it was first necessary to evaluate if the said reduction made by the Club in January 2020 (effective in February) was lawful. For this, the Chamber analysed carefully clause 47 of the Contract.

61. In this context, the members of the Chamber highlighted that, in general, potestative clauses, i.e. clauses that contain obligations which fulfilment are conditional upon an event that one party entirely controls, can in general not be applied, since they limit the rights of the other contractual party in an excessive manner and lead to an unjustified disadvantage of the latter towards the other.

62. From the wording of the clause 47 of the Contract, the Chamber deem that the clause was potestative as it unilaterally provides all the power to the Respondent to decide in which of its teams the Claimant should play, including the possibility to play in an amateur team as in the case at hand.

63. In addition, the DRC noted that this change of team would imply a modification on the player’s remuneration with a maximum of 50% reduction. Hence, the Chamber understood that the reduction of the player’s salary was at the absolute discretion of the Respondent. Furthermore, the Chamber confirmed that this structure was further established under clauses 10 and 8.a) of the Contract.

64. Furthermore, the DRC deemed important to note that the player was sent out to the second team already in August 2019 and only as of 1 February 2020 his salary was reduced by the Club. Therefore, even if it could be considered that both parties mutually agreed in the Contract to the possible reduction in the salary, the DRC considered clause 47 of the Contract as unilateral and potestative. Hence, the DRC concluded that the referred clause shall not have legal effect in the relevant employment relationship.

65. Once the above had been established, the Chamber confirmed that the reduction of the salaries made by the Respondent was deemed unlawful.

66. Having so found, the Chamber then turned to the issue of the termination of the Contract by the Claimant on 10 June 2020, and observed that at such moment in time, 50% of the salaries corresponding to the salaries between February and May 2020 had remained unpaid by the club.

67. Moreover, the Chamber duly noted that the player put the club in default on 21 May 2020, requesting payment of HUF 1,223,364, to no avail, and that subsequently the player terminated the Contract for a second time on 10 June 2020.

68. Having said that, the Chamber reiterated that until the date of the Second Termination, an amount of HUF 1,240,000, which corresponds to two monthly salaries, remained outstanding.

69. On account of the aforementioned, the Chamber decided that, considering that the Respondent had unlawfully reduced the player’s salaries and been in breach of its obligations for a significant period of time, the player had just cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract. As a result, the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant.

b. Consequences

70. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.

71. In this regard, the DRC found proven from the allegations presented by the parties that the Respondent paid the reduced salary between February and May 2020 and that the termination was effective as of 10 June 2020, therefore the salary of June was not yet due. Put differently, it stood clear that 50% of the player’s salaries between February and May 2020 were duly paid by the club.

72. Based on the above, the Chamber decided on the basis of the principle pacta sund servanda that the Respondent shall pay to the Claimant the outstanding remuneration at the moment of termination, consisting on the 50% of the gross salaries for February, March, April, and May 2020 (i.e. HUF 310,000 x 4 = 1,240,000) as the month of June 2020 was not yet due at the time of termination.

73. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.

74. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained 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 contract at the basis of the matter at stake.

75. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the club to the player 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 taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.

76. The DRC then proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the Contract as from its date of termination and at the salary enjoyed at the time of termination i.e. 10 June 2020 until 30 June 2023, and considering the aforementioned remarks on the unlawful reduction made by the Respondent, and concluded that the player would have received in total HUF 22,940,000.

77. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player 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 as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, 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.

78. In the matter at hand the DRC confirmed that the Claimant has not found new employment. Therefore, no mitigation is to be considered.

79. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club would be liable to pay HUF 22,940,000 to the player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter. However, in strict application of the principle ne ultra petita, and considering that the Claimant solely requested the amount of HUF 21,700,000 as compensation for breach of contract, the Chamber concluded that this latter amount shall be awarded.

80. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount aforementioned amount from the date of claim until the date of effective payment.

c. Compliance with monetary decisions

81. Finally, taking into account the considerations 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.

82. In this regard, the DRC highlighted 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.

83. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent, provided that the decision is final and binding, 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 in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

84. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned bans 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.

85. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any of the parties.

d. Costs

86. The Chamber referred to article 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “DRC proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in relation to the maintenance of contractual stability as well as international employment related disputes between a club and a player are free of charge”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed on the parties.

87. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in these proceedings.

20-00875

Page 15 of 17

IV. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER

1. The claim of the Claimant, Tony Markos Kanalos, is admissible.

2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.

3. The Respondent, KSBC FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amounts:

- Hungarian Florint (“HUF”) 1,240,000 gross as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:

o on HUF 310,000 gross from 1 March 2020 until the date of effective payment.

o on HUF 310,000 gross from 1 April 2020 until the date of effective payment.

o on HUF 310,000 gross from 1 May 2020 until the date of effective payment.

o on HUF 310,000 gross from 1 June 2020 until the date of effective payment.

- HUF 21,700,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest p.a. as from 18 June 2020 until the date of effective payment.

4. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.

5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly, preferably to the email addresses as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the amounts mentioned under point 3 above.

6. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts in accordance with point 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 plus interest in accordance with point 3 above are 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 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.

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer

NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:

According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.

NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:

FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, 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 Procedural Rules).

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Fédération Internationale de Football Association

FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland

www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777