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 thePlayers’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 March 2013, in the following composition: Theo Zwanziger (Germany), Chairman Chuck Blazer (USA), Deputy Chairman Geoff Thompson (England), member Tai Nicholas (New Zealand), member Saeed Al Masri (Syria), member Semetey Sultanov (Kyrgyzstan), member Norman Darmanin Demajo (Malta), member Aminu Maigari (Nigeria), member Victor Cisse (Senegal), member Luis H. Bedoya (Colombia), member Decio De María (Mexico), member on the claim presented by the coach Coach L, from country B as “Claimant” against the club Club M, from country P 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 thePlayers’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 March 2013, in the following composition: Theo Zwanziger (Germany), Chairman Chuck Blazer (USA), Deputy Chairman Geoff Thompson (England), member Tai Nicholas (New Zealand), member Saeed Al Masri (Syria), member Semetey Sultanov (Kyrgyzstan), member Norman Darmanin Demajo (Malta), member Aminu Maigari (Nigeria), member Victor Cisse (Senegal), member Luis H. Bedoya (Colombia), member Decio De María (Mexico), member on the claim presented by the coach Coach L, from country B as “Claimant” against the club Club M, from country P as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 21 June 2007, Coach L, from country B (hereinafter: the Claimant) and Club M, from country P (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid from 1 July 2007 until 30 June 2008 and according to which the Claimant was entitled to receive a salary of EUR 220,000 payable in ten monthly instalments of EUR 22,000 each. 2. According to a separate agreement called “Acordo”, (hereinafter: the agreement) which was also signed on 21 June 2007 between the parties, the Claimant was also entitled to receive a bonus amounting to EUR 100,000 “if Club M [i.e. the Respondent] qualifies for the League of Champions (Liga dos Campeões)” as well as a bonus amounting to EUR 50,000 “if Club M [i.e. the Respondent] is a finalist, wins the country P Cup with the right to participate in the UEFA Cup”. 3. On 7 December 2009, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent for having allegedly failed to respect their contractual obligations. In this respect, the Claimant deemed to be entitled to receive the amount of EUR 50,000 since the condition of the agreement was fulfilled as the Respondent had allegedly obtained the qualification to the UEFA Cup by reaching the final of the 2007/2008 country P Cup. Consequently, the Claimant requested the amount of EUR 50,000 from the Respondent, plus 5% interests “as from the original date of payment established in the contract [i.e. the agreement]”. 4. In reply to the claim, the Respondent rejected it in its entirety explaining that the Claimant was not entitled to receive the requested bonus amounting to EUR 50,000 since the Respondent had not reached the final of the 2007/2008 country P Cup. In this respect, the Respondent provided a document dated 30 March 2010 from the country P Football Federation which stated as follows: “We inform you that Club M [i.e. the Respondent] finished the sporting season 2007/08 on 5th place of the country P top division. This place granted the right to take part on the UEFA Cup, on the season 2008/09, entering on the first round of the said competition”. 5. In his response to the statement of the Respondent, the Claimant reiterated his claim, admitted that the Respondent had not reached the final of the 2007/2008 country P Cup but emphasised that he had however managed to qualify the club for the UEFA Cup by finishing in the fifth position in the 2007/2008 country P championship. As a consequence, the Claimant deemed to be entitled to receive the bonus amounting to EUR 50,000 as the condition stipulated in the agreement, i.e. the qualification to the UEFA Cup, had been met. In this context, the Claimant argued that as the agreement provided for a bonus of EUR 100,000 in case the Respondent qualified for the “UEFA Champions League”, it was therefore clear that he was entitled to receive the amount of EUR 50,000 in the event that the Respondent qualified for the UEFA Cup. 6. In response to the second submission of the Claimant, the Respondent referred to its previous statement and stressed that a club can qualify for the UEFA Cup “by finishing in a not-so-high position, below the club that qualified for the UCL [i.e. Champions League] or by winning or being the runner-up if the Cup winner qualified for the UCL [i.e. Champions League] through its championship position”. The Respondent further emphasised that the clause in the agreement clearly stipulated that the bonus amounting to EUR 50,000 would be due to the Respondent “if Club M [i.e. the Respondent] is a finalist, wins the country P Cup with the right to participate in the UEFA Cup”. Finally and since the Respondent had not reached the final of the 2007/2008 country P Cup, it reiterated that the complaint of the Claimant should be rejected. II. Considerations of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Players’ Status Committee analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, it referred to art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012). Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 7 December 2009, the Players’ Status Committee 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. 2. Furthermore, the Players’ Status Committee confirmed that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 as well as art. 22 c) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, it was competent to deal with the present matter since it concerned a dispute between a coach of country B nationality and a football club from country P. 3. Subsequently, the Players’ Status Committee 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, it referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the 2012 and 2010 editions of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and, on the other hand, to the fact that the claim was lodged with FIFA on 7 December 2009. In view of this, the Players’ Status Committee concluded that the 2009 edition of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance. 4. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Players’ Status Committee started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation contained in the file. 5. In doing so, the Players’ Status Committee reverted to the content of the contract as well as to the agreement concluded between the parties on 21 June 2007 and took note, in particular, that the agreement stipulated in its translated version in English as follows: “The coach [i.e. the Claimant] will furthermore be eligible for a fixed premium of EUR 50,000 (fifty thousand Euros) if Club M [i.e. the Respondent] is a finalist, wins the country P with the right to participate in the UEFA Cup”. 6. Furthermore, the Players’ Status Committee noted again that the Claimant, in his claim to FIFA, had argued that although he had managed to qualify the Respondent for the UEFA Cup by finishing in the fifth position in the 2007/2008 country P championship, the latter had failed to proceed with the payment of the amount of EUR 50,000 agreed upon in the agreement. 7. In continuation, the Players’ Status Committee took duly note that, in response to the claim, the Respondent had emphasised that the interpretation by the Claimant of the wording of the agreement was mistaken as it was clear that the Claimant was not entitled to receive the amount of EUR 50,000 since the Respondent had not reached the final of the 2007/2008 country P Cup. 8. In view of the divergent opinions of the parties as to the correct interpretation to be given to the agreement, the Players’ Status Committee carefully analysed the content of said agreement. In doing so, the Players’ Status Committee was eager to underline that the condition which would give the right for the Claimant to the additional amount of EUR 50,000 was undoubtedly to reach the final of the 2007/2008 country P Cup with. 9. Consequently, the Players’ Status Committee held that the agreement had to be understood in the sense that if the Respondent would reach the final of the 2007/2008 country P Cup and, thus, would as a consequence qualify to the UEFA Cup, the additional amount of EUR 50,000 would be due by the Respondent to the Claimant. 10. Having established the above, the Players’ Status Committee acknowledged that, from the allegations of the parties concerned, the Respondent had not reached the final of the 2007/2008 country P Cup. 11. As a consequence, the Players’ Status Committee came to the conclusion that the condition of the agreement was not met since the Claimant had not managed to lead the Respondent to the final of the 2007/2008 country P Cup and that therefore, the Claimant would not be entitled to receive the conditional amount of EUR 50,000. 12. On account of all of the above, the Players’ Status Committee decided to reject the Claimant’s claim. 13. Lastly, the Players’ Status Committee 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, 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. 14. In respect of the above and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been rejected, the Players’ Status Committee concluded that the Claimant has 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 Players’ Status Committee held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 50,000. Consequently, the Players’ Status Committee concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 10,000. 15. In view of the circumstances of the present matter as well as the fact that the case was decided by the Players’ Status Committee in corpore, the Players’ Status Committee determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 6,000. 16. In this respect, the Players’ Status Committee took into account that the Claimant had paid the advance of costs in the amount of currency of country H 2,000 in accordance with art. 17 of the Procedural Rules. 17. In view of all of the above, the Players’ Status Committee concluded that the amount of currency of country H 4,000 has to be paid by the Claimant to cover the costs of the present proceedings. III. Decision of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Coach L, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 6,000 are to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA. Given that the Claimant, Coach L, has already paid the amount of currency of country H 2,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the latter has to pay the amount of currency of country H 4,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision to the following bank account with reference to case no.: **** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to article 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 Players’ Status Committee Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives