FIFA - Decisión disputa da Silva Arruda 21092023

REF. FPSD-10620

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed on 21 September 2023 regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Raphael da Silva Arruda BY: Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), member Michele COLUCCI (Italy), member

CLAIMANT:

Raphael da Silva Arruda, Brazil Represented by Breno Costa Ramos Tannuri

RESPONDENT:

Esteghlal FC, IR Iran pg. 2

REF. FPSD-10620

I. Facts of the case

1. On 7 March 2022 the Brazilian player Raphael da Silva Arruda (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant) and the Iranian club Esteghlal (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) signed an employment contract to be valid until 30 June 2022 (hereinafter: the Old Contract).

2. In July 2022, the Club and the Player concluded a new employment agreement (hereinafter: the New Contract) having validity from 3 July 2022 until 31 June 2024.

3. In accordance with art. 4 of the New Contract, the Player was entitled the following: Season 2022/2023: USD 100,000 as signing bonus within 10 days of signing of the New Contract; USD 80,000 on 30 September 2022; - USD 80,000 on 30 November 2022; - USD 80,000 on 30 January 2023; - USD 80,000 on 30 March 2023; andUSD 80,000 on 30 June 2023.

- - Season 2023/2024 USD 100,000 within 10 days of the starting of the season; USD 80,000 on 30 September 2023; -

USD 80,000 on 30 November 2023; - - USD 80,000 on 30 January 2024; - - USD 80,000 on 30 March 2024; and - USD 80,000 on 30 June 2024.

4. Additionally, under art. 5.1 of the New Contract, the Club undertook to pay the following bonuses to the Player: “Iranian Premier League Championship: $ 20,000

Iranian knock-out cup Championship: $ 15,0002023/24 ACL Championship: $ 30,0002023/24 ACL match-winning bonus: $ 400Match-Winning Bonus for Iranian Premier League Away games: $ 200Match-Winning Bonus for Iranian Premier League Home games: $ 200”. - -

5. Moreover, under art. 13 of the New Contract, the Club acknowledged an outstanding remuneration in favour of the Player of USD 20,800, which was deriving from the financial obligations set under the Old Contract.

6. Finally, under art. 6.5 of the New Contract, the Club undertook to provide the Player with “2 round business-class and 2 round Eco-class (Total 4 round tickets in each season) flight tickets to and from Brazil to Tehran in each season for the player and his family.” pg. 3

REF. FPSD-10620

7. Besides the above, art. 5.2 of the New Contract established that: “The player accepted that the club was authorized to deduct from the total contract amount in case of unjustified absence or delay (if the disciplinary code of the club does not specify a higher penalty.) In each session of training one percent of the contract and in each session of matches (official or friendly) ten percent of the contract and in each day of camp one percent of the contract and in each training class session one percent. These amounts can be summed

up.”

8. By correspondence dated 1 December 2022, the Player put the Club in default of USD 172,682 as outstanding remuneration and contextually granted 15 days to remedy the alleged default.

9. On 14 December 2022, the Player acknowledged receipt of payment of USD 58,000 by the Club and reminded the latter that an amount of USD 114,000 had remained outstanding, hence granted a further deadline of 10 days for the Club to remedy its default.

10. On 23 May 2023, the Player sent a third default notice warning the Club that the sum of USD 237,600 was still outstanding and granted once again a 15 days deadline to remedy the default.

11. On 13 June 2023, the Player notified the Club the unilateral termination of the New

Contract.

II. Proceedings before FIFA

12. On 20 June 2023 the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.

a. Position of the Player

13. In his claim, the Player stated that the Club failed to comply with its financial obligations several times during the entire contractual period, which led to multiple default notices and eventually to the termination of the New Contract as ultima ratio.

14. In particular, the Player explained that the Club did not pay due salaries and bonuses for a total of USD 237,600, while it also failed to reimburse the relevant travel expenses the pg. 4

REF. FPSD-10620

Player had incurred to cover the flights from Tehran to Dubai and from Dubai to Brazil, as stipulated under the New Contract.

15. In this context, the Player estimated that the average value of his salary was USD 41,667

(USD 500,000/12), hence the amount of USD 237,600 due by the Club at the time of the termination would correspond to more than 5 monthly salaries in arrears.

16. Accordingly, the Player was of the opinion oh having had just cause to terminate the New

Contract on 13 June 2023.

17. Accordingly, the Player also requested a compensation for the breach of contract by the Club, amounting to the residual value of the New Contract.

18. The Claimant presented the following requests for relief: “ (..) SECOND – To issue a finding that the Club breached the Employment Contract and that the Player terminated the Employment Contract unilaterally but with undisputed just cause; - THIRD – To order the Club to pay the Player USD 65,000 net due as outstanding salary due on 30 November 2022, plus default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 1 December 2022 untilthe date of effective payment; FOURTH – To order the Club to pay the Player USD 80,000 net due as outstanding salary due on 30 January 2023, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 1 February 2023 until the date ofeffective payment; FIFTH – To order the Club to pay the Player USD 80,000 net due as outstanding salary due on 30 March 2023, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 1 April 2023 until the date ofeffective payment; SIXTH – To order the Club to pay the Player USD 12,600 net due as outstanding bonuses, plus default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 14 June 2023 until the date of effective payment; - SEVENTH – To order the Club to pay the Player USD 4,817.60 net due as reimbursement of the flight tickets the latter had to afford to return from Tehran to Dubai, plus default interestat a rate of 5% p.a. as of 3 June 2023 until the date of effective payment; EIGHTH – To order the Club to pay the Player DHS 37,900.00 net due as reimbursement of the flight tickets the latter had to afford to return from Dubai to Brazil, plus default interestat a rate of 5% p.a. as of 6 June 2023 until the date of effective payment; pg. 5

REF. FPSD-10620

NINETH – To order the Club to pay the Player USD 580,000 net due as compensation, plus default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 14 June 2023 until the date of effectivepayment; (…)“ b. Position of the Club

19. In its reply, the Club first argued that the Player would have no contractual basis to claim the sum of USD 10,000 as Iranian Super Cup winner, hence this request shall be disregarded.

20. Secondly, the Club declared having paid the Player respectively USD 800 and EUR 400 as “winning bonuses” which shall be deduced from the claimed sum of USD 2,600.

21. In continuation, with regard to the demand for reimbursement of the relevant flight tickets, the Club argued having already paid the following tickets for the Player and his family: “4 business class flight tickets on the route Sao Paolo-Dubai –Tehran on July 9th, 2022, for the player and his family “Joao Gabriel Soeiro Da Silva Arruda, Raphaella Soeiro Da SilvaArruda, Amanda Soeiro Da Silva Arruda and Raphael Da Silva Arruda” -(which is equal to 2 round business class tickets already –so the club obligation regarding the business class tickets are fulfilled); 4 Economy class flight tickets on the route Dubai –Sao Paolo on June 6th, 2023, for the player and his family “Joao Gabriel Soeiro Da Silva Arruda, Raphaella Soeiro Da SilvaArruda, Amanda Soeiro Da Silva Arruda and Raphael Da Silva Arruda” -(which is equal to 2 round Economy class tickets already; 4 business class flight tickets on the route Tehran-Dubai–Tehran on September 10th, 2022,

for the player and his family “Joao Gabriel Soeiro Da Silva Arruda, Raphaella Soeiro Da SilvaArruda, Amanda Soeiro Da Silva Arruda and Raphael Da Silva Arruda” -(which is equal to 2 round business class tickets already). 4 economy class flight tickets on the route Tehran-Dubai–Tehran on November 2th, 2022, for the player and his family “Joao Gabriel Soeiro Da Silva Arruda, Raphaella Soeiro Da SilvaArruda, Amanda Soeiro Da Silva Arruda and Raphael Da Silva Arruda”- (The club as it is clear have had bought even more than the obligations as per the contract).”

22. In this context, the Club rebutted the Player's claim regarding the ticket purchase fee

(USD4,817.60 + DHS 37,900.00) as it would exceed what stipulated in the New Contract.

23. In continuation, the Club objected to the Player’s calculation regarding the outstanding salaries, arguing to have already paid a total of USD 224,000 to the Player and that the pg. 6

REF. FPSD-10620 actual value of the outstanding sum would be instead USD 196,000, hence, in the Club’s view, the amount to be awarded to the Player shall be reduced accordingly.

24. In this respect, the Club submit several receipts of payment, allegedly having paid the

following sums: (a) EUR 25,000 on 11 August 2022; (b) EUR 80,000 on 27 September 2022; (c) USD 58,000 on 11 December 2022; and (d) USD 60,000 on 1 January 2023.

25. Moreover, the Club argued that pursuant to the relevant rules of the Iranian Football Federation (IRIFF), as further recalled under art. 7 of the New Contract, a total of 2.5% of the financial value of the New Contract should suffer a deduction every season as

registration fee due by the clubs affiliated to IRIFF in order to register their players.

26. Finally, the Club rejected the request for compensation by the Player arguing that the latter’s request lacks legal basis, namely as the Player would be able to find another team before the end of the registration period and such team would offer him at least an equal amount of money, hence the damage could (and would) be likely mitigated.

27. In this respect, the Club alleged that another club from UAE has offered the Player a contract pending the present dispute in front of FIFA, and that the Player did not sign with it just to blackmail the Club in order to obtain new better financial conditions under a potential new agreement.

28. Accordingly, in the Club’s view, the Player failed to mitigate the suffered damage on purpose and acted in bad faith.

29. In conclusion, the Club’s requests for relief were the following: To reduce the amount of outstanding salaries claimed by the Player to USD 196,000 based on the payment proofs; - To reject the Player’s request for compensation (…)

- c. Player’s final comments

30. Inquired by FIFA on the payments alleged by the Club, the Player argued that the Club miscalculated the payments effectively realized in his favour, namely because of a nonaccurate conversion rate USD - EUR.

31. In this respect, the Player remarked that the currency adopted under the New Contract is US Dollars only and contextually illustrated all the respective conversion rates applicable pg. 7

REF. FPSD-10620 at the time of the payment by the Club, arguing that the actual amount paid by the latter corresponds to USD 221,088, while the entire remuneration due until May 2023 – without considering the bonuses – had been established in USD 440,800.

32. Yielding the above, the Player partially amended his claim for outstanding salaries to the amount of USD 219,712.

33. In continuation, regarding the alleged match bonuses based on art. 5.1 of the New

Contract, the Player premised that during the 2022-2023 season, the Club won 18 matches in the Iranian Premier League, thus the Club should have paid to the Player a total of USD 3,600 (i.e., USD 200 x 18).

34. In this context, the Player argued that the Club paid only USD 800 instead, hence the sums of USD 2,800 remained outstanding, while the receipt of EUR 400 submitted by the Club would have been farfetched by the latter.

35. With regard to the bonus of USD 10,000 allegedly due for the victory of the Iranian Super Cup, the Player declared having had a verbal agreement only with the Club but contextually argued that the latter never disputed the relevant Player’s request in occasion of the third default notice sent by the latter in May 2023, hence in the Player’s view the Club tacitly admitted its existence and the said bonus shall be awarded.

36. Moving to the issue of the flight tickets, the Player stated that the Club has misrepresented the reality of facts.

37. In particular, regarding the flight dated “9 July 2022”, the Player argued that the Club only paid 2 business class flight tickets and 2 economic flight tickets, while the Player himself paid for the upgrade of the 2 economic class flights tickets to business class.

38. Accordingly, the Player confirmed his request for a reimbursement of DHS 37,900.

39. In this context, however, the Player acknowledged that the Club paid for the journey Tehran

– Dubai.

40. In continuation, regarding the alleged deduction of 2.5 % of the contractual value as registration fee imposed by the IRIFF, the Player argued that the New Contract does not state anything in that respect, while on the contrary all the sums thereto stipulated are net.

Nevertheless, the Player added that if FIFA DRC considered that the Club was somehow entitled to deduct 2.5% of the total remuneration due to the Player, such 2.5% should be

calculated taking into account a remuneration of USD 500,000 since the USD 20,800 was a debt from the old contract. pg. 8

REF. FPSD-10620

41. Finally, the Player repeated his request for compensation amounting to the residual value of the New Contract and confirmed having signed no further employment contracts up to the current date.

42. Notwithstanding the above, the Player demanded an additional compensation of 6 months in case of signing a new contract during the pending proceedings, thus amounting to USD 250,002 (i.e., USD 41,677 x 6).

43. The requests of relief by the Player, as amended, were the following: - “USD 59,712 net (or subsidiarily USD 47,212 in case of 2,5 % IRIFF fee) as outstanding salary due on 30 November 2022, plus default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 1 December 2022 until the date of effective payment; - USD 80,000 net as outstanding salary due on 30 January 2023, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 1 February 2023 until the date of effective payment; - USD 80,000 net as outstanding salary due on 30 March 2023, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 31 March 2023 until the date of effective payment; - USD 12,800 net as outstanding bonuses, plus default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 14 June 2023 until the date of effective payment; - DHS 37,900 (or USD 10,317) net as reimbursement of the flight tickets the latter had to afford to return from Dubai to Brazil, plus default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 6 June 2023 until the date of effective payment; - USD 580,000 net as compensation, plus default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 14 June 2023

until the date of effective payment;” d. Club’s final submission

44. The Club did not provide any further comment on the matter, in spite of having been invited to do so by the FIFA general secretariat.

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 20 June 2023 and submitted for decision on 21 September 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the pg. 9

REF. FPSD-10620

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. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Brazilian player and an Iranian club.

47. 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 Players (May 2023 edition), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 20 June 2023, the aforementioned edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

b. Burden of proof

48. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13 par. 5 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 Chamber stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).

c. Merits of the dispute

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

1. Main legal discussion and considerations

50. 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 the justification of the early termination of the contract by the Player, based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial obligations by the Club as per the New Contract, thus in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations. pg. 10

REF. FPSD-10620

51. In particular, the DRC observed that, pursuant to the New Contract, the total remuneration

(salaries only) due by the Club until the moment of the termination would correspond to USD 440,800, while according to the Player, at the time of the termination the following amounts had remained outstanding:  USD 59,712 as partial salary due for November 2022;  USD 80,000 as salary due for January 2023;  USD 80,000 as salary due for March 2023.

52. In this context, the Chamber took note that, conversely, according to the Club, a total of USD 224,000 had been paid by the latter whereas the outstanding sums in favour of the Player would actually amount to USD 196,000, hence the Club demanded to reduce the monies to be awarded to the Player accordingly.

53. In this respect, the members of the Chamber also noted that two of the four receipts submitted by the Club in order to prove the relevant payments (respectively dated 11

August 2022 and 27 September 2022) adopt a different currency (EUR) from the one established in the New Contract (USD).

54. Accordingly, the Chamber acknowledged that in order to verify the quantity of monies effectively paid by the Club, it shall first proceed to a conversion of the relevant currencies.

55. In doing so, the DRC noted that the Player provided clear indications regarding the conversion rate adopted with respect to the respective due dates of each payment, while the Club did not provide any comment in that respect.

56. Having the Chamber verified the accuracy of the calculations submitted by the Player, it established that at the time of the termination the Club had effectively paid a total of USD 221,088 only, thus remaining outstanding salaries for a total of USD 219,712.

57. In this context, the DRC wished to emphasize that it could not welcome the request by the Club for a 2.5% deduction of the financial value of the New Contract as alleged registration fee imposed by IRIFF, namely as the amounts indicated in the New Contract are expressed as net, whereas there is no mention of the said fee thereto.

58. In continuation, the DRC moved its attention to the issue of the bonuses claimed by the Player and acknowledged that the latter claimed a total of USD 12,800, broken down as follows: - USD 10,000 as bonus for the victory of the Iranian Super Cup; - USD 2,800 as winning-match bonus stipulated under art. 5.1 of the New Contract.

59. In this respect, the DRC noted that, under the New Contract, the parties only stipulated bonuses subject to the following conditions: pg. 11

REF. FPSD-10620 - “Iranian Premier League Championship: $ 20,000 - Iranian Knock-Out Cup Championship: $ 15,000 - 2023/24 ACL Championship: $ 30,000 - 2023/24 ACL Match-Winning Bonus: $ 400 - Match-Winning Bonus for Iranian Premier League Away Games: $ 200 - Match-Winning Bonus for Iranian Premier League Home Games: $ 200”.

60. In this context, the members of the Chamber observed that there was no indication of the bonus alleged by the Player in relation to the victory of the Iranian Super Cup, while it contextually recalled the Player’s statement according to which the mentioned bonus would have been agreed verbally by the parties.

61. Furthermore, the DRC also took note of the argument adopted by the Player in support of his position, namely by referring that the Club did not reply to the Player’s default notice dated 23 May 2023, in which the Player had put the Club in default of the relevant bonus, thus acknowledging the existence of such debt.

62. In this respect, however, the DRC was not convinced by the argument held by the Player, namely that the award for winning the Iranian Super Cup shall be awarded just on the basis of the silent reaction by the Club. In particular, the Chamber observed that, as per the same Player’s admission, (i) said bonus had been allegedly agreed on a verbal way only and (ii) the Club actually failed to reply to the entire content of the default notice dated 23 May 2023 and not just to the part related to the mentioned bonus.

63. Accordingly, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Player failed to provide actual evidence of the abovementioned agreement and that his mere allegations were not enough in order to prove the existence of the alleged outstanding bonus. It accordingly rejected this request of the Claimant.

64. Moving to the amount of USD 2,800 claimed by the Player as winning-match bonus stipulated under art. 5.1 of the New Contract, the Chamber noted that the Club alleged having paid USD 800 to the Player on 20 April 2023 and further EUR 400 on a not specified date.

65. In this respect, the DRC observed that the Player acknowledged having received the amount of USD 800 on 20 April 2023 but that he had already deducted it from the sum demanded in his claim. In particular, the Chamber recalled that, having the Club won 18 matches during the season 2022/2023, the total amount originally due as bonuses for the said season would be USD 3,600 (i.e. USD 200 x 18), while after the abovementioned payment by the Club the overall outstanding had allegedly decreased to USD 2,800.

66. In this context, the Chamber also noted that, contrarily to what sustained by the Club, the Player denied having been paid the further sum of EUR 400. pg. 12

REF. FPSD-10620

67. In particular, the DRC observed that the Player challenged the authenticity of the relevant payment receipt submitted by the Club, arguing that the latter fabricated it.

68. In support of the above, the Chamber noted that the Player emphasized the different signature appointed on the mentioned document in addition to the lack of fingerprints and the adoption of a different currency than the one established under the New Contract.

69. In this respect, the members of the Chamber deemed appropriate to remind the parties that, as a general rule, FIFA’s deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the one of alleged falsified signatures of documents, and that such affairs fall into jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority. After a thorough analysis of the evidence provided by the parties, in particular, comparing the relevant signature of the Player on the payment receipt in question with the signature appointed

on the (i) New Contract and the (ii) other payment receipt dated 20 April 2023, the DRC noted that in both of them the Player stamped his thumb print, while in the document challenged by the Player said thumb print is absent. Furthermore, the Chamber assessed that, even for a layman, it appears quite evident the divergency between the signature of the Player appointed thereto and the one affixed on all the other documents submitted by the parties.

70. With the foregoing in mind, the Chamber concluded that, in spite of the documentation produced by the Club, it was not convinced to the required degree of satisfaction that such documentation was authentic. Consequently, the Chamber unanimously decided to set aside the mentioned document.

71. Finally, in reference to the Player’s request for reimbursement of the relevant flight tickets, the Chamber noted that the Player amended his claim and requested only the payment of the upgrade from Economy to Business class in relation to the flight from Dubai to Sao Paulo dated 6 June 2023.

72. In this respect, the DRC observed that (i) the Player did not contest that the Club had already covered all the flight tickets indicated in his claim while the dispute concerns only the category of two tickets in relation to a single trip, (ii) the Club submitted evidence regarding all the flight tickets allegedly bought for the Player and his family, and (iii) it is not possible to ascertain whether the class of the tickets thereto indicated was effectively

Economy or Business.

73. In facts, the members of the Chamber were not able to determine whether the Club had effectively paid only two Business class tickets - instead of 4 - for the trip from Sao Paulo to Tehran on 9 July 2022 as alleged by the Player and, in the affirmative, whether the latter had the right to claim two further Business class tickets in order to “remedy” through the subsequent trip from Dubai to Sao Paulo on 6 June 2023. pg. 13

REF. FPSD-10620

74. Accordingly, the Chamber determined that the files produced by the Player cannot be

considered as decisive and conclusive documentary evidence, on the basis of which it could be established that the Club did not comply with its financial obligations as per the New Contract in line with article 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules.

75. In light of all the above considerations, the Chamber acknowledged that, based on the evidence presented by the parties, at the moment of the termination all the claimed amounts had in fact remained unpaid by the Club, except for the bonus related to the victory of the Iranian Super Cup and the reimbursement of the flight expenses claimed by the Player.

76. Nevertheless, in consideration of the significant consistency of the outstanding sums abovementioned, the DRC ascertained that the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the Regulations had been fulfilled and the Player had just cause to terminate the New Contract on 13 June 2023. ii. Consequences

77. 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.

78. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination, coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, amount to USD 222,512.

79. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e., USD

222,512.

80. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due dates until the date of effective payment.

81. 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 pg. 14 REF. FPSD-10620 maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.

82. 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 employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.

83. As a conseq