F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2012-2013) – controversie allenatori – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2012-2013) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of theSingle Judgeof the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 21 January 2013, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach B, from country S as “Claimant” against the club Club N, from country C as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2012-2013) – controversie allenatori – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2012-2013) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of theSingle Judgeof the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 21 January 2013, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach B, from country S as “Claimant” against the club Club N, from country C as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 13 October 2010, Couch B, from country S (hereinafter: the Claimant) and Club N, from country C (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed a “contract of employment” (hereinafter: the contract) valid from the date of signature until 31 May 2012, under the terms of which the Claimant was entitled to receive an amount of EUR 400,000 net of tax payable “in 20 equal monthly payments of EUR 20,000, the first instalment payable on the 31/10/2010 and the following instalments in the 30th day each following month until pay off with 60 days grace”. 2. Article 6.2 of the contract stipulated that the contract “can be terminated with the mutual consent of the parties according to the agreed terms between them”. 3. Article 6.3 of the contract provided that “the present agreement [i.e. the contract] can be terminated unilaterally by the Employer [i.e. the Respondent] due to infringement of any of its substantial term which includes, without restriction, and the following: a. Conviction for any serious criminal offense. b. Behavior, declarations or actions which are offensive and/or derogatory for the Employer’s honor, dignity and history. c. Inability caused by accident so serious that the Coach [i.e. the Claimant] can not fulfil its duty. d. Continuous behavior which is a result of dinking or intoxication. e. Commission of any deceit or dishonesty or misrepresentation during the performance of his duties. f. Participation in bets or gambling. g. Use of any of the prohibited substances or prohibited methods. h. Any action or act of violence or behavior that can lead to criminal prosecution and wounds the Employer’s reputation, honor or dignity. i. The involvement in any rival occupation without the Employer’s consent”. 4. On 14 October 2010, the parties concluded an “agreement for provision of services in relation to the coach’s duties” (hereinafter: the agreement) valid from 13 October 2010 until 31 May 2012 and under the terms of which the Claimant was entitled to receive an additional amount of EUR 500,000 net of tax payable “in 20 equal monthly payments of EUR 25,000, the first instalment payable on the 31/10/2010 and the following instalments in the 30th day each following month until pay off with 60 days grace”. 5. Article 2.2 of the agreement stipulated that “the present agreement will be automatically terminated in case that the contract of employment dated 13/10/10 [i.e. the contract] is terminated for any reason”. 6. Also on 14 October 2010, the Claimant and the Respondent signed an “agreement for bonuses and other benefits” (hereinafter: the 2nd agreement) which “will last for the duration of the contract of employment dated 13/10/10 [i.e. the contract] namely from 13/10/10 until 31/05/12”. 7. According to the 2nd agreement, the Claimant was entitled to receive, inter alia, EUR 50,000 in case the Respondent would win the “Cup of CYFA for the season 2011-2012”. 8. Article 3.2 of the 2nd agreement stipulated that “the present agreement will be automatically terminated in case that the contract of employment dated 13/10/10 [i.e. the contract] is terminated for any reason”. 9. On 21 July 2011, the Claimant lodged a complaint in front of FIFA against the Respondent. In this respect, the Claimant argued that the President of the Respondent, Mr N, had informed him, on 14 April 2011, that their Board of Directors had met the previous day, i.e. 13 April 2011, and had decided to terminate their collaboration and that no reason was given to him for such termination. Furthermore, the Claimant claimed that he had not received the salaries of February and March 2011 amounting to EUR 45,000 net of tax each, which corresponded to the total amount of EUR 90,000 net of tax. 10. Moreover, since the Respondent had won the country C Cup at the end of the 2010/2011 season, the Claimant was also of the opinion that he was entitled to receive the bonus amounting to EUR 50,000 pursuant to the 2nd agreement. 11. Consequently, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the remaining value of the contract and of the agreement as compensation for breach of contract, for a sum of EUR 630,000 net of tax (i.e. fourteen salaries x EUR 45,000), EUR 90,000 net of tax representing the outstanding salaries of February and March 2011, as well as EUR 50,000 as a bonus since the Respondent had won the country C Cup 2011. All in all, the Claimant claimed a total amount of EUR 770,000, plus legal interest. 12. On 20 February 2012 and on 20 March 2012, after the closure of the investigation phase into the present matter, the Respondent rejected the claim lodged by the Claimant arguing that the parties had agreed, during a meeting that had taken place on 13 April 2012 between the Claimant and the President of the Respondent, to a mutual termination of the contract. According to the Respondent, the Claimant had agreed to terminate the contract amicably and to be paid until the end of May 2011. In this context, the Respondent alleged that it had asked the Claimant “if he would put it in writing and he said that we should take his word for it”. 13. Consequently, the Respondent explained to have sent, on 14 April 2011, a letter to the Claimant which stated that “With this letter and for the reasons that have been explained to you we [i.e. the Respondent] wish to inform you of the today’s decision of the board of directors of our club with which we terminate immediately the contract of employment between our club and you [i.e. the Claimant] as well as any other additional complementary and agreements. Our club wishes to thank you for the cooperation but also for your understanding in relation to the settlement of the financial side of our, cooperation with your acceptance to receive salaries and other entitlements Julian of May 2011 without any other claim”. 14. The Respondent explained that the decision to mutually terminate the contract was motivated by the facts that the Respondent had “serious problems with the qualifications” of the Claimant as a professional coach as the latter “did not possess UEFA Pro qualification”. In this respect, the Respondent explained that it had received a letter from the country C Football Association in which it was informed that, as the Claimant did not possess “a coaching diploma UEFA Pro”, he would not be allowed to coach the club as “head coach”. As evidence, the Respondent provided a letter from the country C Football Association dated 10 October 2010 as well as a press article dated 12 October 2010 which narrated this issue. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the contractual relationship was also terminated because the Claimant “did not improve the performance of the team”. 15. The Respondent further argued that, as allegedly requested by the Claimant, it had paid to the latter his salaries up until the end of May 2011 and that no additional compensation was due to the Claimant since the contract was mutually terminated by the parties. 16. On 10 January 2012, the Claimant informed FIFA that he had not signed any employment contract with any club during the period from 13 April 2011 until 31 May 2012. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players´ Status Committee (hereinafter: “the Single Judge”) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Single Judge confirmed that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 of the 2008 edition the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 as well as art. 22 lit. c) of the 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he was competent to deal with the matter at stake which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country S coach and a club affiliated to the country C Football Association. 2. Furthermore, the Single Judge analysed which Procedural Rules are applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the 2008 edition of the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 21 July 2011, the Single Judge concluded that the 2008 edition of the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: “the Procedural Rules”) is applicable to the matter at hand. 3. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 21 July 2011. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance. 4. As a preliminary remark, the Single Judge took note that the Respondent’s comments were submitted after the time limit set by the FIFA Administration had expired. 5. In this regard, the Single Judge pointed out that it is at his discretion to determine whether the Respondent’s position should be taken into account. Consequently, considering that the Respondent’s statement was not remitted to FIFA unreasonably late and in view of its content, the Singe Judge decided to accept the statement of the Respondent. 6. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the present matter, the Single Judge started by acknowledging the abovementioned facts and the arguments of the parties as well as the documentation contained in the file. 7. In this respect and first of all, the Single Judge underlined that on 13 October 2010 the Claimant and the Respondent had signed a contract valid from the date of its signature until 31 May 2012 and under the terms of which the Claimant was entitled to receive a monthly salary of EUR 20,000 net payable on every 30th of the month. 8. Equally, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent had also concluded an agreement dated 14 October 2010 valid from 13 October 2010 until 31 May 2012 and under the terms of which the Claimant was entitled to receive a monthly salary of EUR 25,000 net payable on every 30th of the month. 9. The Single Judge further took note that the Claimant and the Respondent had signed a 2nd agreement according to which the Respondent would pay the Claimant EUR 50,000 in case the team would win the “Cup of CYFA for the season 2010-2011”. 10. Furthermore, the Single Judge observed that, on 14 April 2011, the Respondent had terminated its contractual relationship with the Claimant in writing. 11. With these considerations in mind, the Single Judge went on to consider the arguments raised by the parties during the present proceedings. Starting with the Claimant, the Single Judge acknowledged that he had argued that the Respondent had failed to comply with its contractual obligations. Consequently, the Claimant deemed that the Respondent should be requested to pay him a total amount of EUR 770,000 in the form of outstanding salaries, compensation and bonus, plus legal interest. 12. As for the Respondent, the Single Judge underlined that it deemed that the request for compensation should be rejected since the contract had been terminated by mutual consent. 13. The Single Judge further acknowledged that the Respondent argued to have reached an amicable settlement with the Claimant according to which the latter had allegedly agreed to be paid until the end of May 2011. 14. Starting with the issue regarding the outstanding salaries, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee recalled that, on the one hand, the Claimant argued that the Respondent should pay him the amount of EUR 90,000 representing his monthly salaries of February and March 2011 whereas, on the other hand, the Respondent deemed that it had paid to the Claimant his salaries until the end of May 2011. 15. Based on the above, the Single Judge went on to consider the documentary evidence that the parties had submitted in support of their allegations. Before doing so, the Single Judge was keen to recall the content of article 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules according to which “any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”. In other words, only allegations supported by clear evidence can be taken into consideration by the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee. 16. In this context, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent based its allegation on the letter of termination dated 14 April 2011 which was only signed by the President of the Respondent and not by the Claimant himself. In view of the above and in the absence of any other documentary evidence demonstrating the contrary, the Single Judge held that it had to be assumed that the Respondent had not been able to establish that the Claimant had been paid until end of May 2011. 17. Consequently, the Single Judge reached the conclusion that the Respondent has to pay the amount of EUR 90,000 as outstanding salary to the Claimant, i.e. EUR 45,000 for the month of February 2011 and EUR 45,000 for the month of March 2011. 18. Secondly and entering into the issue of compensation, the Single Judge pointed out that the Respondent had not provided any evidence pursuant to article 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which would have proved that the parties ended their contractual relationship by mutual consent. 19. Furthermore, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Respondent had argued to have terminated the contractual relationship for the reasons that it had “serious problems with the qualifications” of the Claimant since he did not possess “a coaching diploma UEFA Pro” and that the latter “did not improve the performance of the team”. 20. In continuation, the Single Judge pointed out that article 6.3 of the contract stipulated the reasons which would have permitted the unilateral termination of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent. In this respect, the Single Judge was keen to underline that the two reasons of termination mentioned by the Respondent were not provided in article 6.3 of the contract. Furthermore, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee was eager to recall the well-established jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee according to which the absence of sporting results cannot, as a general rule, constitute per se a reason to terminate a contractual relationship with just cause. 21. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the agreement had been unilaterally terminated without just cause by the Respondent on 14 April 2011 and the Claimant was thus entitled to compensation for termination of his employment contract without just cause. 22. Bearing that in mind, the Single Judge proceeded to the calculation of the aforementioned compensation and established that the residual value of the contract amounted to EUR 630,000, i.e. fourteen monthly salaries of EUR 45,000 for the period from April 2011 until May 2012. 23. Furthermore, the Single Judge observed that, the Claimant did not work for any other club during the aforementioned period. 24. In view of the above and, in particular, considering the original duration of the contract as well as the Claimant’s financial claim and taking into account the general obligation of the Claimant to mitigate his damages, the Single Judge concluded that in casu the amount of EUR 160,000, as compensation for breach of contract had to be considered reasonable and justified. 25. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 160,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause. 26. Having established the above, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee went on to assess whether the Claimant should also be entitled to the “bonus” amounting to EUR 50,000 for the victory in the country C Cup at the end of the 2010/2011 season he was also claiming pursuant to the 2nd agreement. In this respect, the Single Judge was keen to stress that such bonus would have been paid to the Claimant, had he remained with the Respondent until the end of the 2010/2011. In this context, the Single Judge pointed out that the Claimant was no longer working for Respondent at the time the latter won the country C Cup in May 2011. Therefore, the Single Judge decided to reject this part of the claim. 27. In light of all of the above, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the total amount of EUR 250,000 as follows: the amount of EUR 45,000 as outstanding salary, plus an interest at a rate of 5% per year on the said amount from 1 March 2011 until the date of effective payment, the amount of EUR 45,000 as outstanding salary, plus an interest at a rate of 5% per year on the said amount from 1 April 2011 until the date of effective payment as well as the amount of EUR 160,000 as compensation for breach of contract, plus an interest at a rate of 5% per year on the said amount from 21 January 2013 until the date of effective payment. 28. Finally, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee, including its Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25,000 are levied. The relevant provision further states that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings. 29. In respect of the above and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been partially accepted, the Single Judge concluded that both parties have to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. Furthermore and according to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. On that basis, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is over currency of country H 200,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 30. In conclusion, in view of the circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 20,000. Consequently and since the claim has been partially accepted, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of currency of country H 5,000 has to be paid by the Claimant and the amount of currency of country H 15,000 by the Respondent in order to cover the costs of the proceedings. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Coach B, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club N, has to pay to the Claimant, Coach B, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, the following amounts: a. EUR EUR 45,000 as outstanding salary, plus an interest at a rate of 5% per year on the said amount from 1 March 2011 until the date of effective payment; b. EUR 45,000 as outstanding salary, plus an interest at a rate of 5% per year on the said amount from 1 April 2011 until the date of effective payment; 3. Furthermore, the Respondent, Club N, has to pay to the Claimant, Coach B, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, the amount of EUR 160,000 as compensation for breach of contract, plus an interest at a rate of 5% per year on the said amount from 21 January 2013 until the date of effective payment. 4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Coach B, are rejected. 5. If the aforementioned total amount of EUR 250,000, plus interest as provided above, is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 20,000 are to be paid within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 6.1 The amount of currency of country H 5,000 has to be paid by the Claimant, Coach B. Given that the latter already paid an advance of costs in the amount of currency of country H 5,000 at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant, Coach B is exempted from paying the abovementioned costs of the proceedings. 6.2 The amount of currency of country H 15,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, Club N, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. : 7. The Claimant, Coach B, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club N, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under points 2 and 3 above is to be made and to notify the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 67 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives). The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following: Court of Arbitration for Sport Avenue de Beaumont 2 1012 Lausanne - Switzerland Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 / Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org / www.tas-cas.org For the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives