NEW GOOD WIN BEFORE CAS

Hence, an agreement under which the player would receive his whole salary for the year in the first six months and not receive any salary at all in the second six months would run counter any business practice in football and other sports. 

It is further indicated that it also defies logic why a club would advance money to its players, essentially giving them a free loan for six months, and why a club would voluntary assume the risk that it would have to chase a player for reimbursement in case the player fails to render due performance during the period for which the club advanced the salary.

Such an unusual arrangement would clearly require explanation, that was not provided by the club in casu. The assertion that money would be advanced to players because of anticipated liquidity problems in the second half of the year was not found credible and has not been substantiated by the club which bears the burden of proof in this respect.

The Sole Arbitrator also found no relevance in the argument that the rules stipulate that the amount of compensation cannot be more than the residual value of the contract until its expiration date, in casu one montly salary stipulated in the contract to be due in June remained after the termination, as it is undisputed that the contract was to be effective for another six months after the due date of the last salary stipulated in the contract while it has been established that the player was intended to receive a salary between 1 July 2023 and 31 December 2023.

Therefore, the Sole Arbitrator awarded a compensation in the amount of one salary that was stipulated in the contract to be due in June, but also confirmed the stance of the FIFA DRC that the compensation should be awarded for the remaining six months of the contract, for which the club stipulated no payments, in the amounts that the player was receiving in the first 6 months of the year, a fixed amount paid every two months. Hence, in case the club omits the salaries in contract, the court refers to salaries that the player was receiving to that point in time. 

Considering all the relevant facts, the FIFA DRC also concluded in the first stage of decision-making that the club, by extending the duration of the contract, actually committed itself to keep the player and use his services until the end of 2023, and in good faith cannot withdraw from such an agreement just because the team was not promoted to the first league.

It would be considered even worse to admit that the player should be tied to the club without receiving any salary. The FIFA DRC therefore concluded that the amount of compensation is calculated under the same financial conditions applicable at the time of termination of the contract, and not those that would be valid under the contract in the event that the club does not advance to the first league. According to FIFA, such an amount should be considered as reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in this case, which was also confirmed by CAS.

The Sole Arbitrator also found that the player did not breach his duty to mitigate after the termination as the club did not discharge its burden of proof in demonstrating that the player intentionally refused to sign other employment contracts or otherwise deliberately failed to reduce his damages nor that he acted in bad faith. 

It is also emphasized as an important factor that it is undisputed between the parties that the player was expelled from training with the first team, that could potentially harm the employability.