REF FPSD-5911

Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 6 September 2022

regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Marko

Simic

BY:

Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairperson

Daan de Jong (the Netherlands), member
Stijn Boeykens (Belgium), member

CLAIMANT:

Marko Simic, Croatia

Represented by Ivan Ostojic

RESPONDENT:

Persija Jakarta, Indonesia

Represented by Vitus Derungs

Page 2
 REF FPSD-5911

I. Facts of the case

1. On 28 December 2017, the Croatian player Marko Simic (hereinafter: the Claimant), and
the Indonesian club Persija Jakarta (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed an employment
contract valid from 1 January 2018 until 31 December 2019.

2. On 18 December 2019 the same parties signed a new employment agreement to be valid
from 10 January 2020 until 9 January 2023 (hereinafter: the Contract).

3. According to Clause 6 of the “Schedule” enclosed to the Contract, the Respondent

undertook to pay the Claimant a monthly salary of USD 26,000 (US Dollars) in addition to
a down payment of USD 264,000.

4. Furthermore, the same document provided for the following benefits and bonuses in
favour of the Claimant:

“Clause 8
i. …an overall housing allowance of 500.000.000 IDR (Indonesian Rupees)
ii. family car Mercedes-Benz (not convertible in cash)
iii. three-return air tickets business class from Jakarta to Croatia or otherwise
iv. …
v. Match bonuses as stipulated by the approval letter of the Board of Directors (..)

“Clause 11
i. Goal bonus – 10.000.000 IDR
ii. Assist bonus – 10.000.000 IDR
iii. Champion bonus (Liga 1, AFC Cup, AFC Champions Liga, ASEAN Cup) – 5x monthly salary
iv. Bonus for 2nd or 3rd place, Best Player or Top Scorer – 2x monthly salary (..)”

5. In addition to the above, Article 2 par. 7 of the Contract stipulated an “Extension Clause” of
two additional years which would automatically be triggered in case of Claimant scoring
at least 15 goals in all competitions or becoming champion of Indonesian Liga 1.

6. In this context, pursuant to the Contract, all the aforementioned remuneration and
bonuses would be equally due in case of employment contract extension.

7. Finally, Art. 18 of the Contract stated the following:

“Art. 18 – Dispute Resolution

Any disagreement, dispute, lawsuit, interpretation of terms of this Contract, which cannot be
resolved by deliberation to reach consensus, shall and must be submitted to be examined and
decided by the National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Indonesia, whose decision is

Page 3
 REF FPSD-5911

binding on the conflicting parties as final and binding decision. If the above mentioned cannot
resolve the dispute, the Parties agree to solve the dispute through the FIFA DRC and/or CAS.”

8. During the period of validity of the Contract, the Claimant scored 17 goals, namely 1
during the 2020 season, 12 goals during the 2021 season and 4 during the season 2022.

9. On 4 March 2022, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent communicating that the
Extension Clause had been triggered once the Claimant had scored his 15th goal during
the match held on 6 January 2022.

10. Contextually, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of USD 580,500.00 and IDR
944,950,000.00 plus interest as outstanding remuneration, giving 15 days to remedy the
breach before terminating the Contract.

11. On 16 March 2022, the Respondent replied to the Claimant arguing it had implemented
a reduction of salaries based on several decisions passed by the Indonesian Football
Association (hereinafter: PSSI or Indonesian FA) between March 2020 and January 2021,
which had thus become the “legal basis for a collective agreement that applies to all members
of the Indonesian Liga 1 and their players”, allegedly for reasons related to Covid-19.

12. Furthermore, by means of the same correspondence, the Respondent remarked that the
Claimant had signed on 20 April 2020 an “Addendum” to the Contract due to supervening
force majeure (Covid-19) by means of which the Claimant had agreed to reduce his salary
to 25% from March 2020 to June 2020 and/or until the cause of force majeure would
persists during the terms of the employment contract and provided that the Respondent
had notified in due time the Claimant about the new event generating the force majeure.

13. On the same above premises, the Respondent justified the reduction of the Claimant’s
salary to 25% of the original amount until January 2021 and contextually argued that the
relevant car rental expenses, rental allowances and flight tickets expenses could not be
reimbursed to the Claimant in cash.

14. Contextually, the Respondent objected to the Claimant’s communication regarding the
activation of the extension clause, arguing that a misunderstanding had occurred with
regard to the interpretation of art. 2 par. 7 of the Contract.

15. Finally, in the same letter, the Respondent acknowledged owe the Claimant as of February
2020 for the total amount of USD 254,500, including the sum of USD 40,000 as bonus Top
Scorer for the season 2019.

16. On 8 April 2022, the Claimant sent another letter to the Respondent rejecting the latter’s
objections, arguing inter alia that he had never signed any Addendum to the Contract and
that the Respondent’s interpretation of the Extension Clause was completely averse to its

Page 4
 REF FPSD-5911

literal content, hence the labour relationship between the parties had already been
automatically extended until 9 January 2025.

17. On 26 April 2022, the Claimant notified the unilateral termination of the Contract to the
Respondent.

II. Proceedings before FIFA

18. On 30 April 2022, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.

a. Position of the Claimant

19. First of all, the Claimant objected to the validity of the 75% reduction of the Claimant’s
salary realized upon discretion of the sole Respondent between March 2020 and January
2021.

20. In fact, according to the Claimant, such unilateral reduction would be unlawful and in
breach of FIFA Regulations and Guidelines on Covid-19.

21. In this context, the Claimant also disputed the authenticity of the “Addendum” to the
Contract that, according to the Respondent, had been allegedly signed by both parties on
20 April 2020.

22. Subsidiarily, the Claimant argued that even in the case that the mentioned Addendum
was to be considered valid, said document originally foresaw a reduction of the Claimant’
salary between March 2020 and June 2020 only, whereas the Respondent should have
notified in due time the Claimant of the supervening protraction of the status of force
majeure in order to justify an extension of such reductive measure, which however did
not occur as the same Respondent failed to provide any communication in that regard.

23. In support of the above, the Claimant pointed out that, while the Indonesian Liga 1 2020
was cancelled by the PSSI after being suspended until 29 May 2020, nevertheless on 27
June 2020 the same PSSI issued a decree to start the new season, i.e. 2021, as from
October 2020.

24. Therefore, according to the Claimant, the Respondent would remain in all cases financially
liable towards its players since at least July 2020, when the cause of force majeure alleged
by the Respondent did not exist any longer.

25. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that the same Respondent acknowledged in its letter
dated 16 March 2022 to have paid only USD 221,000 to the Claimant as of February 2020,

Page 5
 REF FPSD-5911

and that since the aforementioned Addendum to the employment contract is not valid,
then the Respondent had remained liable toward the Claimant for the remaining 75% of
the salaries due between March 2020 and January 2021.

26. Finally, with regard to the other amounts indicated as outstanding, the Claimant referred
to the exhaustive list of information publicly available on the internet in order to justify
the legitimacy of the claimed bonuses (i.e. goals and assists), and provided two invoice
receipts related to the flight expenses allegedly incurred.

27. In continuation, for what concerns the validity of the extension clause stipulated under
Art. 2 par. 7 of the Contract, the Claimant reiterated his position as per the previous
correspondence with the Respondent, insisting on the fact that the Extension Clause had
been triggered automatically once the Claimant had scored his 15th goal during the match
held on 6 January 2022.

28. In this context, the Claimant referred to the wording of the mentioned provision as
explicit, hence he invoked the principle of “In claris non fit interpretation” and pointed out
that the Respondent committed to pay the Claimant further USD 1,200,000 plus bonuses
for two additional seasons, i.e. until 9 January 2025 as already foreseen by the
employment contract.

29. As a consequence of all the above premises, the Claimant stated to have had just cause
to terminate the contract on 26 April 2022 due to the consistency of the relevant overdue
payables by the Respondent and submitted the following prayers for relief:

“ i. outstanding remuneration in net total of USD 589,033.00, broken-down as follows:

• February 2020 salary of net USD 6,500.00, which matured on 1/3/2020, and
• March 2020 salary of net USD 19,500.00, which matured on 1/4/2020, and
• April 2020 salary of net USD 19,500.00, which matured on 1/5/2020, and
• May 2020 salary of net USD 19,500.00, which matured on 1/6/2020, and
• June 2020 salary of net USD 19,500.00, which matured on 1/7/2020, and
• July 2020 salary of net USD 19,500.00, which matured on 1/8/2020, and
• August 2020 salary of net USD 19,500.00, which matured on 1/9/2020, and
• September 2020 salary of net USD 19,500.00, which matured on 1/10/2020, and
• October 2020 salary of net USD 19,500.00, which matured on 1/11/2020, and
• November 2020 salary of net USD 19,500.00, which matured on 1/12/2020, and
• December 2020 salary of net USD 19,500.00, which matured on 1/1/2021, and
• January 2021 salary of net USD 19,500.00, which matured on 1/2/2021, and
• February 2021 salary of net USD 19,500.00, which matured on 1/3/2021, and
• March 2021 salary of net USD 19,500.00, which matured on 1/4/2021, and
• April 2021 salary of net USD 19,500.00, which matured on 1/5/2021, and
• May 2021 salary of net USD 19,500.00, which matured on 1/6/2021, and
• June 2021 salary of net USD 19,500.00, which matured on 1/7/2021, and

Page 6
 REF FPSD-5911

• July 2021 salary of net USD 19,500.00, which matured on 1/8/2021, and
• August 2021 salary of net USD 19,500.00, which matured on 1/9/2021, and
• September 2021 salary of net USD 6,500.00, which matured on 1/10/2021, and
• October 2021 salary of net USD 6,500.00, which matured on 1/11/2021, and
• November 2021 salary of net USD 6,500.00, which matured on 1/12/2021, and
• December 2021 salary of net USD 6,500.00, which matured on 1/1/2022, and
• January 2022 salary of net USD 26,000.00, which matured on 1/2/2022, and
• February 2022 salary of net USD 26,000.00, which matured on 1/3/2022, and
• Mercedes Benz family car rent price for three years of net USD 105,000.00, which
matured on 4/3/2022, and
• March 2022 salary of net USD 26,000.00, which matured on 1/4/2022, and
• Pro-rata salary for the period from 1/4/2022 until 26/4/2022 of net USD 22,533.00,
which matured on 26/4/2022;

ii. outstanding remuneration (bonuses) in the net total amount of 922.950.000 IDR, broken down
as follows:

• Goal Bonus 1 for season 2019 in net total of 140,000,000.00 IDR (total of bonuses for
each scored goal for the Club in season 2019 of net 5,000,000.00 IDR per goal), which
matured on 31/5/2020, and
• Goal Bonus 2 for seasons 2020, 2021 and 2022 in net total of 170,000,000.00 IDR (total
of bonuses for each scored goal for the Club in seasons 2020, 2021 and 2022 of net
10,000,000.00 IDR per goal), which matured on 26/4/2022, and
• Assist Bonus for season 2021 in net total of 10,000,000.00 IDR (total of bonuses for
each assist made for the Club in season 2021 of net 5,000,000.00 IDR per assist), which
matured on 26/4/2022;

iii. 2 (two) return business class flight tickets of net IDR 102,950,000.00, which matured on
26/4/2022;

iv. yearly rental allowance for the period from March 2022 until February 2023 of net
500,000,000.00 IDR, which matured on 26/4/2022;

v. compensation in the sense of article 17. of the FIFA RSTP in total of net USD 1,542,467.00 and
total of net 1,617,700,000.00 IDR, consisting of:

• net USD 1,437,467.00, as a residual value of down payments and salaries according to the
Employment Contract, for the period from 27 April 2022 until 9 January 2025, and
• net 1,000,000,000.00 IDR, as a residual value of rental allowances according to the
Employment Contract; and
• net USD 105,000.00, as a residual value of car rental expense for another three seasons, i.e.
2022/2023, 2023/2024 and 2024/2024, in accordance with the Employment Contract;

Page 7
 REF FPSD-5911

• residual value of airplane tickets of net 617,700,000.0029 IDR, for the cost of 12 round
airplane tickets route Jakarta-Croatia-Jakarta, for seasons 2021/2022, 2022/2023,
2023/2024 and 2024/2025, in accordance with the Employment Contract (hereinafter:
Residual Value of Airplane Tickets);

vi. at the same time the Respondent also has to pay all the relevant taxes and provide the Claimant
with the corresponding tax certificates concerning the payment of taxes on top of all the
above specified net amounts alongside all the net amounts paid to the Player during season
2019/2020 and season 2020/2021, respectively.

vii. to condemn the Respondent to pay in favour of the Claimant default interest of 5% per year on
all the aforementioned amounts starting from the respective date of maturity until the
effective date of the payment.”

b. Position of the Respondent

30. In its reply, the Respondent disputed, as a preliminary matter, FIFA’s competence over
the present case.

31. In this respect, according to the Respondent, Art. 18 of the Contract makes a clear and
unequivocal reference to the jurisdiction of the Indonesian National Dispute Resolution
Chamber (NDRC), as this was established “with equal representation of players and clubs
and guaranteed rights for a fair procedure under the auspices of the Indonesian Football
Federation (PSSI)”.

32. Therefore, the Respondent argued that FIFA shall declare the entire claim inadmissible.

33. In a subsidiary way, with regard to the sums demanded by the Claimant as outstanding,
the Respondent argued that the FIFA does not have competence to hear the demands
regarding the salaries due for February, March and April 2020 as well as for the bonus of
140.000.000 IDR referred to by the Claimant as “Goal Bonus 1 for season 2019”, namely as
more than 2 years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute over such
amounts.

34. In particular, with regard to the salary of April 2020, which according to the Claimant
would be due on 1 May 2020, the Respondent argued that the Contract does not contain
any rule about the effective due date, which therefore should be established “by making
reference to Swiss law, i.e. Art. 323 Para. 1 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, according to which
the monthly salary is due on the last day of each month of service, unless another agreement
exists”, hence in casu the relevant due date would be 30 April 2020.

35. Finally, in respect to the bonus for goal scored related to the season 2019, the Respondent
stated that said bonus had been established under the former employment contract

Page 8
 REF FPSD-5911

signed by the parties on 28 December 2017, which expired on 31 December 2019, hence
it must be assumed that said bonus eventually matured on or before 31 December 2019,
i.e. more than 2 years before the present claim.

36. Moving to the merits of the case, the Respondent confirmed the content of its letter dated
16 March 2022, alleging that the Claimant signed an Addendum to the Contract on 20
April 2020 and so accepted a reduction of his salary up to 25% of the original amount for
the period initially fixed between March 2020 and June 2020 but subsequently extended
to January 2021 by virtue of the Indonesian FA decision to suspend the relevant
competition until the abovementioned date due to force majeure, namely Covid-19.

37. Therefore, according to the Respondent, the Claimant is not entitled to claim further sums
as long as he was perfectly aware of the consequences of the Addendum he had agreed
to sign on 20 April 2020.

38. Moreover, concerning the authenticity of the said document and the allegations of forgery
presented by the Claimant, the Respondent argued that “when the Addendum was signed,
everybody was at home due to the pandemic. Therefore, the Addendum was signed and
exchanged via e-mail. Therefore, a mutually signed original version of the Addendum cannot
be delivered, as it does not exist on hardcopy, but only in digital form”.

39. Conversely, with regard to the salaries due to the Claimant between February 2021 and
April 2022, the Respondent acknowledged the existence of outstanding sums in the
amount of USD 256,533, coherently with what indicated in its letter dated 16 March 2022.

40. In reference to the Claimant’s demand for reimbursement of the car rental expenses, the
Respondent objected that the Claimant did not provide any evidence that he had
effectively incurred in such costs. Moreover, according to the Respondent, the same
Contract would exclude such possibility of reimbursement as Clause 8 par. 2 of the
Schedule explicitly states that “the entitlement to a Family Car Mercedes Benz cannot be
converted into cash”.

41. In continuation, the Respondent alleged also that the amount of IDR 170,000,000 claimed
by the Claimant as bonuses for having scored 17 goals in between the 3 seasons
contractually covered (2020 – 2021 - 2022) shall be reduced to IDR 140,000,000 since 14
goals only were scored in official competitions, namely referring to Indonesian Liga 1.

42. In this context, the Respondent stated that 3 goals had to be deducted from the final
computation because:

• 1 goal was scored on 3 January 2020, i.e. before the most recent employment contract
had entered into force, so it cannot be included;

Page 9
 REF FPSD-5911

• 2 goals were scored in tournament “Piala Menpora”, that according to the Respondent
was “just an ad-hoc friendly match pre-season tournament organised by some Indonesian
Clubs with the intention to fill a period between the cancellation of the 2020 season and the
start of the new 2021 season with friendly matches.”

43. As a consequence of the above, the Respondent objected also to the automatic extension
of the Contract alleged by the Claimant, namely as, in the Respondent’s view, the
minimum contractual quote of 15 goals in official competitions had not been reached by
the Claimant.

44. Furthermore, with regard to the alleged breach of the Contract and termination by the
Claimant, the Respondent argued that, even admitting that at the time of the termination
there were overdue payables towards the Claimant, the latter shall not be awarded
compensation due to his misconduct, in particular “his departure from the Club even before
starting the official default procedure in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the FIFA
RSTP.“

45. In particular, the Respondent accused the Claimant to have not conceded enough time in
order to remedy the alleged breach, namely because the Claimant left his duties on 2
April 2022 without responding to the Respondent’s letter dated 16 March 2022 and
without granting a term of 15 days before leaving but rather afterwards.

46. In conclusion, the Respondent declared that both the parties were in breach at the time
of the termination.

47. Subsidiarily, the Respondent argued that if any compensation has to be awarded to the
Claimant, the Contract was not extended, hence the relevant compensation shall amount
to “the monthly salary of USD 26’000 pro rata from 27 April 2022 until 9 January 2023, i.e. USD
3’466 from 27 to 30 April 2022, USD 208’000 from May to December 2022 and USD 7’548 from
1 to 9 January 2023, thus in total USD 219’014”.

48. As a further alternative, the Respondent stressed out that in case the Contract was to be
considered extended by FIFA, Art. 2 par. 7 of the Contract shall apply, hence it submitted
the following requests for relief:

“the Claimant shall be entitled to the sum of bonuses and remuneration as defined in the
Schedule. According to Art. 6 of the Schedule, the monthly salary amounts to USD 26’000. For
the period from 27 April 2022 until 9 January 2025, the remaining value of the contract
amounts thus to USD 3’466 from 27 to 30 April 2022, USD 832’000 from May 2022 to December
2024 and USD 7’548 from 1 to 9 January 2025, thus in total USD 843’014”.

49. Subsequently, the Respondent requested to exclude from the compensation all the
bonuses and benefits that yet have not been accrued in favour of the Claimant.

Page 10
 REF FPSD-5911

III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

a. Competence and applicable legal framework

50. 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 30 April 2022 and submitted
for decision on 6 September 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 29 of the edition
of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules),
the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.

51. 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 (July 2022 edition), 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
Croatian player and an Indonesian club.

52. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber noted that the Respondent contested the
competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies in favour of the National Dispute Resolution
Chamber of Indonesia (hereinafter: the NDRC of Indonesia), alleging that the latter is
competent to deal with any dispute deriving from the relevant employment contract, in
accordance with its article 18.

53. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art.
22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, FIFA is, in principle,
competent to hear an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an
international dimension. Nevertheless, the parties may explicitly opt in writing for such
dispute to be decided by an independent arbitration tribunal that has been established
at national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining
agreement. Any such arbitration clause must be included either directly in the contract or
in a collective bargaining agreement applicable on the parties. The independent national
arbitration tribunal must guarantee fair proceedings and respect the principle of equal
representation of players and clubs. Equally, the Chamber referred to the principles
contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations,
which came into force on 1 January 2008.

54. In this context, Chamber pointed out that it should first analyse whether the employment
contract at the basis of the present dispute contained a clear and exclusive jurisdiction
clause in favour of the NDRC of Indonesia.

Page 11
 REF FPSD-5911

55. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 18 of the Contract, according to which: “Any
disagreement, dispute, lawsuit, interpretation of terms of this Contract, which cannot be
resolved by deliberation to reach consensus, shall and must be submitted to be examined and
decided by the National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Indonesia, whose decision is
binding on the conflicting parties as final and binding decision. If the above mentioned cannot
resolve the dispute, the Parties agree to solve the dispute through the FIFA DRC and/or CAS.”

56. The Chamber, after analysing the wording of the jurisdiction clause, concluded that such
clause did not clearly and exclusively establish the competence of the NDRC of Indonesia,
in accordance with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations.

57. As a consequence, the Chamber was of the opinion that the first pre-requisite for
establishing the competence of an NDRC was not met, and therefore, without the need
to enter the analysis of any further requirement, it established that the Respondent’s
objection to the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected
and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit.
b) of the Regulations, to consider the present matter as to the substance.

58. At this point, the Chamber referred to art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations (edition July 2022),
which stipulates that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more
than two years have elapsed since the facts leading to the dispute arose. The application
of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in each individual case. Nonetheless, the DRC
noted that the Respondent raised objections on the admissibility of the claim in this
regard.

59. In this context, the Chamber recalled that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA
on 30 April 2022. Therefore, in line with art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations, any amounts
fallen due before 30 April 2020 are affected by the statute of limitations.

60. The Chamber noted that, in the present case, the Claimant inter alia requested the
payment of the salaries due for the months of February 2020 and March 2020,
respectively matured on 28 February 2020 and 31 March 2020, in addition to the “Goal
Bonus 1 for season 2019”, which was stipulated under a previous employment agreement
stipulated by the same parties but expired on 31 December 2019. Accordingly, the
Chamber concluded that the Claimant’s request for the cited concepts is partially time-
barred. Consequently, the specific part of the Claimant’s claim related to the payment of
the amounts above mentioned is inadmissible.

61. 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 (July 2022 edition) and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 30 April 2022, the March 2022 edition

Page 12
 REF FPSD-5911

of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to

the substance.

b. Burden of proof

62. 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

63. 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.

i. Main legal discussion and considerations

64. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that firstly the parties dispute whether the Respondent
had the right to reduce the Claimant’ salary between March 2020 and January 2021.

65. In this context, the Chamber took due note of the Respondent’s argumentation regarding
the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic in Indonesia, in particular as this event allegedly led
to the Addendum signed by the parties on 20 April 2020.

66. Moreover, the Chamber noted that according to the Respondent, the suspensive
measures adopted by the Indonesian Government and, thus, by the Indonesian FA were
allegedly due to the Covid-19 being considered as supervening force majeure and by
means of the Addendum the Claimant had expressly agreed to reduce his salary to 25%
from March 2020 to June 2020 and/or until said cause of force majeure would persists
during the terms of the employment contract and provided that the Respondent had
notified in due time the Claimant about the new event generating the force majeure.

67. In this context, the Chamber, first of all, wished to highlight that FIFA issued a set of
guidelines, the COVID-19 Guidelines, which aim at providing appropriate guidance and
recommendations to member associations and their stakeholders, to both mitigate the
consequences of disruptions caused by COVID-19 and ensure that any response is
harmonised in the common interest. Moreover, on 11 June 2020, FIFA has issued an

Page 13
 REF FPSD-5911

additional document, referred to as FIFA COVID-19 FAQ, which provides clarifications on

the most relevant questions in connection with the regulatory consequences of the
COVID-19 outbreak and identifies solutions for new regulatory matters.

68. As to the concept of a situation of force majeure, the Chamber also noted that, based on
the contents of the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines and the FIFA COVID-19 FAQ, FIFA did not
declare that the COVID-19 outbreak was a force majeure situation in any specific country
or territory, or that any specific employment or transfer agreement was impacted by the
concept of force majeure.

69. Following these general observations, the Chamber observed that the Claimant strongly
disputed the authenticity of the mentioned “Addendum”, alleging in particular to have
never received such document from the Respondent.

70. Accordingly, the Chamber remarked that the assessment of the validity of the above-
mentioned Addendum to the Contract shall have the priority over any further analysis of
whether its content is line with the aforementioned Guidelines or not.

71. In this respect, the Chamber observed that, as per admission of the Respondent, the
Addendum exists only in a digital form and that it was allegedly signed by exchange of
emails between the parties.

72. Nevertheless, the Chamber observed that the Claimant declared to be completely
unaware about the existence of said agreement, whereas the Respondent failed to
provide evidence that any exchange of emails has ever occurred, nor it has submitted any
proof of delivery in that regard.

73. As a consequence, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Respondent failed to meet
its burden of proof and that in spite of presenting the signature of both parties, the
document in question shall be disregarded as the Chamber was not persuaded that it was
authentic, or at least that the Respondent could not established to the required degree
of satisfaction that the Claimant manifested its consent to said document.

74. As a consequence of all the above considerations, the Chamber determined that between
May 2020 and January 2021 the Respondent failed to pay 75% of the Claimant monthly
remuneration, which therefore remained outstanding and amounts to USD 175,500.

75. Furthermore, the Chamber observed that both parties agreed on the existence of the
outstanding salaries related to the period running from February 2021 until the date of
termination (i.e. 26 April 2022) solely diverging on the amount due as salary for August
2021.

Page 14
 REF FPSD-5911

76. In particular, the Chamber noted that the Respondent submitted a receipt of payment
indicating the amount of USD 13,000 as 50% of the salary due for the month of August
2021.

77. In this respect, the Chamber declared to be satisfied with the evidence provided by the
Respondent and decided to deduct the mentioned amount from the total outstanding in
relation to the abovementioned period, which therefore corresponds to USD 260,000.

78. In continuation, the Chamber moved to the other requests for relief presented by the
Claimant, in particular with regard to the contractual bonuses stipulated under Clause 11
of the Schedule enclosed to the Contract.

79. In particular, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant demanded the payment of IDR
170,000,000 from the Respondent as “Goal Bonus 2 for seasons 2020, 2021 and 2022”,
namely for having scored a total of 17 goals while the Contract was in force.

80. Contextually, the DRC observed that the Claimed based on the same event the activation
of the Extension Clause inserted under Article 2 par. 7 of the Contract, as this conditioned
the protraction of the labour relationship for further two years in case the Claimant would
have scored at least 15 goals in official competitions (or he become Liga 1 champion with
the Respondent).

81. In this respect, the DRC noted that according to the Respondent, the claimed sum shall
be reduced to IDR 140,000,000 since 14 goals only were scored in official competitions
(i.e. Liga 1), whereas two were scored in non-official competitions (“Piala Menpora”
tournament) and one scored on 3 January 2020, i.e. before the entry into force of the
Contract.

82. As a consequence of the above, the Chamber noted that the Respondent contextually
objected to the automatic extension of the Contract alleged by the Claimant, namely
because by deducting the controverted goals abovementioned the minimum contractual
quote of 15 goals in official competitions would not be deemed as reached by the
Claimant and Article 2 par. 7 of the Contract would not be applicable.

83. In this context, on the basis of the evidence on file, the Chamber determined that, in spite
of the Respondent’s objection regarding the tournament entitled “Piala Menpora”, said
competition appears to be indeed officially sanctioned by the Indonesian FA, hence the
two goals scored by the Claimant during said tournament shall be validly computed for
the purposes of the bonus indicated under Clause 11 of the Schedule enclosed to the
Contract.

Page 15
 REF FPSD-5911

84. Vice versa, the Chamber decided to exclude the goal scored by the Claimant on 3 January
2020, hence the respective bonus shall not be awarded, namely because the relevant
Contract forming basis of the present claim was not yet in force at the time.

85. Accordingly, the Chamber determined that the Claimant scored a total of 16 goals valid
for the purposes of the Contract, hence it established that the conditions for the
activation of the Extension Clause were completed; therefore, the Contract had been
extended until 9 January 2025.

86. In continuation, for what concern the sum of IDR 10,000,000 claimed as “Assist bonus for
season 2021”, the Chamber observed that this has been not disputed by the Respondent,
hence it shall be awarded to the Claimant as outstanding.

87. Accordingly, the Chamber established that a total of IDR 170,000,000 shall be awarded to
the Claimant as outstanding bonuses.

88. Furthermore, the Chamber observed that under Clause 8 of the Contract the Respondent
undertook to pay a specific amount to the Claimant as housing allowance for the entire
duration of the labour relationship, namely in the amount of IDR 500,000,000.

89. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the relevant Claimant’s request remained
uncontroverted by the Respondent and conversely it was substantiated by the Claimant,
hence the Chamber decided to award it to the Claimant, partially as outstanding, for the
amount of IDR 13,888,888.88.

90. Equally, the Chamber deemed as sufficient the documentation provided by the Claimant
in relation to his claim for reimbursement of flight tickets and decided to award the latter
the amount of IDR 102,950,000, in line with the content of the invoice submitted by the
Claimant.

91. Conversely, with regard to the Claimant’s request for a reimbursement of USD 105,000 as
car rental expenses, the Chamber was of the opinion that Claimant failed to provide
sufficient evidence and that on the basis of the sole Contract was not possible to establish
the relevant value in cash, hence the said amount shall not be awarded.

92. Having established the overall sums outstanding, the Chamber turned its attention to the
event of the unilateral termination of the Contract by initiative of the Claimant on 26 April
2022 and observed that the Respondent expressly admitted being in breach of the
Contract in said occasion, but contextually argued that the Claimant was equally in breach
for having not conceded enough time to the Respondent to remedy the alleged breach.

93. In this respect, the Chamber wished to remark that the thesis of the Respondent cannot
be upheld. In fact, as the Chamber observed, at the moment of the termination the

Page 16
 REF FPSD-5911

Respondent carried overdue payables towards the Claimant for the equivalent of over 16
monthly salaries, hence the Claimant had de facto already conceded a significant lapse of
time to the Respondent to remedy its breach, but clearly to no avail. On this basis, the
Chamber was comfortable to establish that such prolonged and unjustified breach of the
Respondent’s main obligation could reasonably justify the Claimant’s termination on the
grounds that it was unreasonable for the latter to expect the continuation of the
employment relationship.

94. Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that on 26 April 2022 the Claimant had just cause to
terminate the Contract because of the Respondent’s breach, hence compensation shall
be awarded.

ii. Consequences

95. 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.

96. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to 16.75 salaries
under the contract, amounting to USD 435,500.

97. Furthermore, as clarified here above (cf. 88.,90. and 91. supra), at the moment of the
termination the Claimant resulted entitled to outstanding bonuses for a total of IDR
170,000,000, outstanding housing allowances for IDR 13,888,888 and IDR 102,950,000 a
reimbursement of the flight tickets bought by the same Claimant.

98. 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 435,500 plus IDR 170,000,000 plus IDR 13,888,888 plus IDR 102,950,000.

99. 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 relevant due dates until
the date of effective payment.

100. 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

Page 17
 REF FPSD-5911

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.

101. 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.

102. 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.

103. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of USD 843,014 + IDR 458,333,333 (i.e. salaries + housing
allowance = the residual value of the Contract) serves as the basis for the determination
of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.

104. 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.

105. Indeed, the player remained unemployed after the termination of the Contract, hence he
was not able to mitigate his loss.

106. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the

specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount
of USD 843,014 + IDR 458,333,333 to the player [i.e. USD 3,467 (pro-rata salary April 2022)
+ USD 26,000 x 32 months (salaries due between May 2022 and December 2022) + USD
7,548 (pro-rata salary January 2025) + housing allowance until 9 January 2025], which was
to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of
contract in the present matter.

Page 18
 REF FPSD-5911

107. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 30 April 2022 until the date of effective payment.

iii. Compliance with monetary decisions

108. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24
par. 1 and 2 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.

109. 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. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.

110. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the 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 immediately
effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.

111. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is
attached to the present decision.

112. The DRC 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. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.

d. Costs

113. The Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football
agent, or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were
to be imposed on the parties.

Page 19
 REF FPSD-5911

114. Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 25
par. 8 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.

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

Page 20
 REF FPSD-5911

IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant, Marko Simic, is partially accepted insofar it is admissible.

2. The Respondent, Persija Jakarta, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:

 USD (US Dollars) 19,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1
May 2020 until the date of effective payment;

 USD 19,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2020
until the date of effective payment;

 USD 19,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2020 until
the date of effective payment;

 USD19,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2020

until the date of effective payment;

 USD 19,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September

2020 until the date of effective payment;

 USD 19,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 October 2020
until the date of effective payment;

 USD 19,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 November

2020 until the date of effective payment;

 USD 19,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December

2020 until the date of effective payment;

 USD 19,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January 2021
until the date of effective payment;

 USD 19,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2021
until the date of effective payment;

 USD 19,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2021
until the date of effective payment;

 USD 19,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2021
until the date of effective payment;

Page 21
REF FPSD-5911

 USD 19,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2021 until
the date of effective payment;

 USD 19,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2021
until the date of effective payment;

 USD 19,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2021 until
the date of effective payment;

 USD 19,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2021
until the date of effective payment;

 USD 19,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September

2021 until the date of effective payment;

 USD 6,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 October 2021
until the date of effective payment;

 USD 6,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 November 2021
until the date of effective payment;

 USD 6,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December 2021
until the date of effective payment;

 USD 6,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January 2022
until the date of effective payment;

 USD 26,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2022
until the date of effective payment;

 USD 26,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2022
until the date of effective payment;

 USD 26,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2022
until the date of effective payment;

 IDR (Indonesian Rupees) 170,000,000 as outstanding bonuses plus 5% interest p.a. as

from 1 April 2022 until the date of effective payment;

 IDR 102,950,000 a reimbursement of the flight tickets plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26
April 2022 until the date of effective payment;

Page 22
 REF FPSD-5911

 IDR 13,888,888.88 as outstanding accommodation allowance plus 5% interest p.a. as

from 26 April 2022 until the date of effective payment;

 USD 865,548.38 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus
5%interest p.a. as from 30 April 2022 until the date of effective payment.

 IDR 458,333,333 as compensation (accommodation allowance) for breach of contract

without just cause plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 April 2022 until the date of effective
payment.

3. Furthermore, the Respondent is ordered to provide the Claimant with the relevant
certificate attesting the payment of taxes to the competent authorities in the amounts
under point 2 above.

4. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.

5. Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account
indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.

6. Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this
decision, the following consequences shall apply:

1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration the ban
shall be of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still
not made by the end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.

7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with article 24 par. 7 and 8 art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.

8. This decision is rendered without costs.

For the Football Tribunal:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer

Page 23
 REF FPSD-5911

NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:

According to article 57 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 17 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

Page 24