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 the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 5 June 2013, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach T, from country B as “Claimant” against the Country Z Football Association 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 the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 5 June 2013, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach T, from country B as “Claimant” against the Country Z Football Association as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 October 2010, Coach T, from country B (hereinafter: “the Claimant”) and the country Z Football Association (hereinafter: “the Respondent”), signed a four-year employment contract (hereinafter: “the contract”) valid as from the date of signature. 2. Article 3 of the contract stated: “The contract can be terminated upon three (3) calendar months’ notice by either side. 3.1 By the Employer on grounds of misconduct by Employee or on grounds of incapacity by the EMPLOYEE to perform the duties for which he or she has been appointed or on grounds of medical reasons. 3.2 Where the Employer intends to terminate the Agreement on the grounds of misconduct or incapacity or medical reasons the Employer shall follow a fair procedure as contemplated in the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. 3.3 Where the Employer or the Employer commits or omits to act and the act or omission amounts to a breach of this Agreement (other than a breach by the Employee which amounts to an act of misconduct) the parties shall attempt to resolve the dispute by negotiations before a party is entitled to institute legal proceedings against the other party.” 3. Article 8 of the contract stated: “8.1 The Coach shall receive a net salary of US $ 8,000 (eight thousand United States of America dollars) per month. This excludes other allowances. 8.2 Apart from the aforesaid salary, the Coach shall also be using a company vehicle which will be surrendered to the Association upon termination of the contract. The employer shall be responsible for the roadworthy maintenance of the vehicle.” 4. Article 11 of the contract stated: “The Coach shall be paid the following bonuses: 11.1 The sum of US$2000,00 if the team wins a game. 11.2 The sum of US$1000.00 if the team draws any game. 11.3 Further, the Coach shall be paid back all reasonable travelling expenses incurred by him in the execution of his duties and obligation under this Agreement, subject to such expenses having been approved by the Association to their being incurred.” 5. Article 13 of the contract stated: “This agreement is governed by the Rules and Statutes of FIFA and all disputes arising from this agreement shall be settled in accordance with FIFA Rules and Statutes and solved within the FIFA family.” 6. Article 14 of the contract stated: “The Employer shall furnish the Employee (Coach) with three (3) return air tickets to Europe per year.” 7. Article 15 of the contract stated: “the Employer shall pay the Employee the sum of $12000.00 (twelve thousand United States of America dollars) into two equal instalments after tax per year for the same´s 15.1 rentals for the Coach´s apartment in country G at the start of the contract year. 15.2 Social security and pension fund. 15.3 Health Insurance Policy held with the country B Government Health Insurer at the start of the contract year.” 8. Article 16 of the contract stated: “Additional benefits offered to an accepted by the Employee are reasonable accommodation.” 9. On 8 November 2010, the country Z Immigration Department rejected the work permit application of the Claimant, stating that “discretion has not been exercised in terms of section 22(1) (a) of the Immigration Regulations S.I. 195 of 1998 and consequently a Temporary Employment Permit has not been approved. It is now necessary that the above -named should go with this letter to his/her nearest Immigration office so that departure arrangements may be made”. 10. On 1 December 2010, the country Z Immigration Department rejected an alleged appeal against the above-mentioned decision. The relevant decision stated, inter alia, that: “We have received a letter dated 18 November 2010 … Please be advised that we have noted the content of the letter and contrary to your assertions that you have noted an appeal with this office, we do conform that there were was no such appeal.” 11. On 8 March 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent stating that the latter had breached the contract without just cause on 9 December 2010, i.e. the day on which he had received an email from the Respondent “informing him that he had been denied a work permit in appeal by a decision dated the 2nd of December” 2010. In this respect, the Claimant requested payment in the total amount of USD 566,379.80, plus 5% annual interest as from 9 December 2010 and the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against the Respondent. The amount of USD 566,379.80 is composed as follows: A) USD 18,322.58 as outstanding salaries for the months of October and November 2010 (i.e. USD 16,000) as well as nine days of December 2010 (i.e. USD 2,322.58); B) USD 6,000 corresponding to the first instalment under article 15 of the contract; C) USD 3,000 as bonus for one draw (against Club X on 10 October 2010) and one victory (against Club Y on 17 November 2010) under article 11 of the contract; D) USD 25,405.9 corresponding to a payment to the country N Football Association of an alleged “buy-out clause” on behalf of the Claimant; E) USD 14,562.86 as expenses, composed as follows: (1) USD 552.60 for Hotel costs in country D (from 6 until 10 October 2010) following his “deportation” from country Z; (2) USD 1,000 as taxi fee for a trip from country D to Country N; (3) USD 12,175 as mobile phone bills; (4) USD 835.26 for a flight from country N to country Z, to sign the contract with country Z Football Association. F) USD 451,088.46 as compensation for breach, as follows: (1) Residual value of the contract: USD 365,677.42 USD 5,677.42 (USD 8,000/31 x 22 days) 9 December 2010 - 31 December 2010; USD 72,000 (USD 8,000 x 9 months) 1 January 2011 - 31 September 2011; USD 288,000 (USD 8,000 x 12 months x 3 years); (2) USD 28,800 (USD 600 per month x 12 x 4 years) as accommodation; (3) USD 42,000 (USD 6,000 for the first year + USD 36,000 for the remaining 3 years) as private health insurance and pension fund; (4) USD 14,611.04 (=EUR 10,740) representing the “average value” of 12 airplane tickets (3 tickets per year x 4 years) country Z - country B - country Z. G) USD 48,000 (USD 8,000 x 6) as additional compensation based on the “specificity of sport” and CAS jurisprudence equivalent to 6 monthly salaries. 12. As to the facts of the case, the Claimant stated that: a) The Respondent had promised him that it would pay to the coach’s former employer, i.e. the country N Football Association, two monthly salaries for the termination of his previous employment contract; b) After the conclusion of the contract (1 October 2010), the Claimant had led several training sessions as preparation for the “AFCON 2012” qualification match against Club X on 10 October 2010; c) On 5 October 2010, the Claimant was informed by the Respondent that the country Z Football Association ordered him to leave the country on that same day or otherwise he would be arrested and deported from country Z. Before his departure from country Z, the Respondent reassured him that the issuance of his work permit was a matter of hours and that he would lead the team on 10 October 2010; d) On 6 October 2010, the Claimant arrived in country D and contacted the Respondent in order to provide his contact details where he could be reached. Having not received any reply from the Respondent, on 10 October 2010, the Claimant moved to country N where he had a flat and informed again the Respondent where he could be reached; e) On 14 October 2010, the Claimant contacted the Respondent by fax giving the latter 48 hours to clarify his situation; f) On 29 October 2010, the Claimant informed the Respondent that he wished to submit a list of players for a match which would take place on 17 November 2010 in country M and since this match was outside country Z, the Claimant would not need a work permit. Moreover, the Claimant requested from the Respondent his monthly salary. On 2 November 2010, despite not having received any answer from the Respondent, the Claimant sent the relevant list of players to the latter; g) On 11 November 2010, the Respondent informed the Claimant by email that his work permit application was rejected by the country Z Immigration Department. The Claimant alleged that the decision of country Z Immigration Department proved that the coach was under no obligation to abruptly leave the country on 5 October 2010; h) On 17 November 2010, the Respondent played in country M without the presence of the Claimant as it had failed to arrange his travel to country M; i) On 9 December 2010, the Respondent informed the Claimant by email that the appeal it had lodged against the decision of country Z Immigration Department not to grant him a work permit was rejected. The Claimant deemed that the appeal was “insufficient” and made with bad faith and that in fact the Respondent had no intention to have him back; j) The contract was binding between the parties since its conclusion regardless of the granting of the work permit and was not subject to any condition. In this respect, the Claimant referred to a decision passed by the Players´ Status Committee on 28 October 2009 in which it was decided that an employment contract cannot be subject to the issuance of a work permit. 13. In conclusion, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent had not honoured its contractual obligations towards him and had showed no interest whatsoever in reinstating him in his position. 14. On 23 May 2011, the Respondent rejected categorically the present claim and, in particular, alleged that: a) Contrary to the Claimant´s allegations, the country Z Immigration Department had advised the Respondent that the Claimant should be out of country Z while the work permit was being processed, based on “S.22(3) of the Immigration Regulations which state as follows: A temporary employment permit may be issued, with the consent of the Minister to a person who is in country Z”. Since no such consent had been obtained, the Claimant had to leave the country in accordance with the national immigration laws; b) The Claimant could not render his services before his work permit was approved regardless of the place where the team would play; c) The Respondent started on 5 October 2010 the work permit procedure since it took some time to collect all the documents and, as a general rule, the employee is the one who should apply for the work permit and the employer simply confirms its intention to appoint that person in a certain position; d) The Respondent acted correctly as it had done all it could to secure the Claimant´s work permit. However, the Respondent could not allow the Claimant to start working without the relevant permit as this constituted a “crime” under national law; e) The Respondent did not breach the contract but it became null and void “ab initio”. Therefore the Respondent does not have to pay any compensation; f) The request for outstanding salaries has no legal basis as it could not pay salaries until the Claimant’s work permit was approved, otherwise the Respondent would be in violation of national law; g) In the event that FIFA would decide that the Respondent is responsible to pay compensation to the Claimant, the latter should not be entitled to receive any compensation since he was immediately employed in country F, country J and country E. 15. On 19 January 2012, the Claimant rejected the Respondent´s position, reiterated his previous allegations and stated that the Respondent’s claim according to which it had to respect certain provisions of country Z’s national law should not be taken into account as the latter had not provided any evidence whatsoever. Furthermore, and as for the bonuses claimed, the Claimant stated that he had not been able to coach the team during the relevant matches as he was not authorised by the Respondent to travel with the team. Finally, and with regard to the “damages” he was claiming from the Respondent, the Claimant referred to the award “CAS/2007/A/XXXX S v. Club L” which stated that “Neither the FIFA´s statues nor its Regulations, nor the laws of country S, provide grounds for mitigating the residual value of the contract where this is a clear breach of contract without cause”. 16. On 17 August 2012, the Respondent presented its final position and stated that in accordance with “the Immigration Act”, the country Z Immigration Department was not obliged to disclose the reasons for denying the Claimant’s work permit. 17. The Respondent further alleged that its president had been in court several times and prosecuted for having employed a coach without a work permit. In this respect, the Respondent referred to an extract of the alleged applicable national legislation which stated that: “In terms of section 36 (l) and (j) of the Immigration Act 402 as read with section 10(l) of the Immigration Statutory Instrument. Number 195/99 creates this offence. The Immigration Act Chapter 4.0.2 states that it is an offence to employ a foreigner without a work permit consequently it becomes an offence to then pay an individual whose application had been denied.” 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 in hand. In this respect, the Single Judge confirmed that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 of the 2012 and 2008 editions of 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 2012 and 2010 editions 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 B coach and the country Z Football Association. 2. Furthermore, the Single Judge analysed which Procedural Rules are applicable to the matter in hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the 2012 and 2008 editions 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 8 March 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 in 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 8 March 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 in hand as to the substance. 4. Having established his competence, the Single Judge turned his attention to the substance of the present matter and carefully considered and analysed the arguments and documents presented by the parties during the investigation. 5. In this respect and first of all, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant and the Respondent concluded a four-year contract valid as from 1 October 2010 and that four days later, i.e. on 5 October 2010, the dispute at stake had arisen in connection with the issuance of the Claimant´s work permit. 6. The Single Judge went on to acknowledge the diverging positions of the parties as to who should be held responsible for the termination of the contract. On the one hand, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent had terminated the contract due to its failure to obtain his work permit on time and had thus made it impossible for him to carry out his activities as coach. On the other hand, the Single Judge took note that the Respondent alleged that the contract had become null and void “ab initio” as the relevant governmental authorities had refused to issue a work permit for the Claimant. 7. In light of the above-mentioned positions and first of all, the Single Judge was keen to emphasise that, as a general rule, as soon as an employment contract is signed between a coach and a club or an association, the relevant contract starts to produce legal effects for both parties without being subject to any particular conditions. 8. With regard to the matter at stake, the Single Judge remarked that after the signature of the contract, the first obvious obligation for the Claimant was to start performing his duties as a coach of the national team of country Z in accordance with what had been agreed between the parties in the contract. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant had indeed fully started executing his side of the contract on the day it was concluded and until he was asked by the Respondent to leave the country, i.e. on 5 October 2010. 9. Moreover, the Single Judge deemed appropriate to underline that if the presence of the Claimant in country Z would generate a legal issue between the local authorities and the Respondent, the latter should have considered this issue before signing the contract and should have make sure that the relevant work permit could be delivered on time for the Claimant to start performing his activities as per the contract. In this respect, the Single Judge pointed out that it is the duty and responsibility of the employer to make sure that the relevant application for a work permit is complete and submitted to the relevant authorities in due course so as to ensure that all the necessary steps in order to obtain the work permit in question are fulfilled. 10. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that it was the exclusive responsibility of the Respondent to secure the relevant work permit for the Claimant. 11. In continuation, the Single Judge focussed his attention on the Respondent´s allegation that the Claimant had to leave country Z on 5 October 2010 in order for his work permit application to be processed by the relevant governmental authorities. 12. In this respect, the Single Judge reverted to the decision of the country Z Immigration Department dated 8 November 2010 which stated “[…] It is now necessary that the above-named [i.e. the Claimant] should go with this letter to his/her nearest Immigration office so that departure arrangements may be made […]”. 13. Based on the above, the Single Judge stated that, contrary to the Respondent´s allegation that the Claimant was obliged by the country Z Immigration Department to leave the country on 5 October 2010, it appears that the Claimant was actually only obliged to leave country Z as from 8 November 2010 in accordance with the above-mentioned decision. 14. Furthermore, the Single Judge outlined the content of the letter dated 1 December 2010 sent by the country Z Football Association by means of which the latter informed the Respondent that the letter submitted by its legal representatives did not constitute an appeal and confirmed that the work permit application for the Claimant had been declined by the country Z Football Association as it had failed to meet its requirements. 15. In continuation, the Single Judge took note that on 9 December 2010 the Respondent notified the Claimant that the application for his work permit had definitely been rejected by the competent authorities. 16. In view of all the above, the Single Judge held that the Respondent, by failing to secure the Claimant´s work permit, had in fact made it impossible for the Claimant to comply with his side of the contract and had therefore terminated without just cause the contractual relationship it had entered into with the Claimant on 9 December 2010, i.e. the day on which the Respondent had informed the Claimant that no work permit would be delivered to the latter. 17. Consequently, the Single Judge entered into the analysis of the consequences of such unjustified breach of the contract by the Respondent and started by acknowledging the financial demands of the Claimant. 18. In this respect, the Single judge focussed his attention on the Claimant´s request for outstanding salaries. The Single Judge then pointed out that the execution of the contract had started upon its signature, i.e. 1 October 2010, and that said contract, as established above, was terminated by the Respondent on 9 December 2010. Consequently, the Single Judge established that the Respondent owed the Claimant two-monthly salaries corresponding to the months of October and November 2010 for a total amount of USD 16,000 (i.e. 2 x USD 8,000). 19. With regard to the Claimant´s request for USD 6,000 as first instalment in accordance with article 15 of the contract, the Single Judge referred to the content of the relevant clause which stated that “the Employer shall pay the Employee the sum of $12000.00 (twelve thousand United States of America dollars) into two equal instalments after tax per year for the same´s […].” 20. Having read the above-mentioned clause, the Single Judge deemed that it was not clear when the relevant instalments (two of USD 6,000 each) were effectively due. Therefore, the Single Judge decided to reject this particular request. 21. In continuation, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Claimant was asking for a bonus of USD 3,000 for a victory against Club X on 10 October 2010 and a draw against Club Y on 17 November 2010 on the basis of article 11 of the contract. 22. In this respect, the Single Judge emphasised that although the Claimant could not be present during these matches as he had been requested by the Respondent to leave the country, he had nevertheless acted with good will and had tried his best to perform his duties as coach. In particular, the Single Judge was eager to underline that after his departure from country Z, the Claimant had contacted the Respondent on several occasions and had even prepared and sent to the latter a list of players for the match to be played on 17 November 2010. 23. In view of the above, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent the requested amount of USD 3,000 as bonuses. 24. Moreover, the Single Judge focussed his attention on the Claimant´s request for USD 25,405.9 as a so-called “buy-out clause” allegedly owed to the country N Football Association. In this respect, and in the absence of clear documentary evidence demonstrating that such amount should be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant, the Single Judge held that such a request should be rejected. 25. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant was also requesting the payment of certain expenses for a total amount of USD 14,562.86. In this respect, the Single Judge focussed his attention on the documentary evidence at disposal provided by the Claimant and the contractual obligations assumed by the Respondent. 26. The Single Judge started by taking note of the Claimant´s request for USD 552.60 as accommodation and acknowledged that article 16 of the contract stipulated that the Respondent should provide the Claimant with a “reasonable accommodation”. 27. In this respect, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Claimant paid the amount of currency of country D 3,811.44 (allegedly equivalent to USD 552.60) as accommodation during his stay from 6 to 10 October 2010 in country D. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to pay the amount of USD 552.60 to the Claimant. 28. Furthermore, the Single Judge analysed the Claimant´s request for expenses for his journey in taxi from country D to country N and concluded that this request should be rejected since it did not constitute a contractual obligation to be assumed by the Respondent. 29. With regard to the mobile phone expenses (USD 12,175) requested by the Claimant, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant had sent to FIFA during the course of the relevant proceedings two invoices dated 1 July 2010 and 31 August 2010. The Single Judge decided that this request should be rejected as the invoices paid by the Claimant corresponded to periods prior to the conclusion of the contract, i.e. 1 October 2010. 30. Finally, the Single Judge analysed the Claimant´s last request for expenses in connection with a flight from country N to country Z in order to sign the contract with the Respondent. In this respect, the Single Judge concluded that this request should be rejected since it did not constitute a contractual obligation to be assumed by the Respondent. 31. In continuation, the Single Judge entered into the analysis of the Claimant´s request for USD 451,088.46 as compensation for breach of contract and allegedly equivalent to the residual value of the contract. 32. In this respect, the Single Judge went on to calculate the residual value of the contract and concluded that it amounted to USD 176,000, i.e. twenty two monthly salaries of USD 8,000 for the period from December 2010 until September 2012. 33. Moreover, the Single Judge observed that, between 1 January 2011 and 15 March 2011, the Claimant had worked for the Club S from country J, and based on the documentation provided, was entitled to a total amount of USD 10,500 from the latter club during the aforementioned period. 34. Furthermore, the Single Judge observed that, between 6 June 2011 and 8 October 2011, the Claimant had worked for the country E Football Federation and, based on the documentation provided, was entitled to a total amount of USD 20,000 from the latter association during the aforementioned period. 35. In addition, the Single Judge observed that, between 5 July 2012 and 26 September 2012, the Claimant had worked for club Y, and based on the documentation provided, was entitled to a total amount of USD 28,000 from the latter club during the aforementioned period. 36. In this regard, the Single Judge pointed out that, as a general rule, a party suffering from a breach of contract has an obligation to mitigate damages and that any amount of money earned by that party after said termination and up until the date on which the original contract was supposed to end, has to be taken into account in the calculation of the overall amount of compensation for breach. 37. On account of the above and considering the constant practice of the Players’ Status Committee in similar cases, the Single Judge decided to take into account in the calculation of the amount due by the Respondent as compensation for breach of contract the remuneration that the Claimant was entitled to receive from his new employers. 38. Moreover, the Single Judge observed that the Claimant was also claiming an amount of USD 42,000 in accordance with article 15 of the contract. In this respect, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant was entitled to receive an amount of USD 12,000 per year to cover the payment of different services and that the relevant amount was due at the beginning of each contractual year. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant was entitled to receive the amount of USD 24,000 for two years of contract as per article 15. 39. In view of all the above and, in particular, considering the original duration of the contract as well as the Claimant’s financial claims and taking into account the general obligation of the Claimant to mitigate his damages, the Single Judge concluded that in casu the amount of USD 141,500 (i.e. USD 200,000 [USD 176,000 + USD 24,000] - USD 58,500) as compensation for breach of contract had to be considered reasonable and justified. 40. To conclude, the Single Judge stated that any further claims made by the Claimant are rejected. 41. 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 USD 161,052.60 as follows: the amount of USD 19,552.60 as outstanding remuneration and accommodation expenses, plus an interest at a rate of 5% per year on the said amount from 9 December 2010 until the effective date of payment, as well as the amount of USD 141,500 as compensation for breach of contract, plus an interest at a rate of 5% per year on the said amount from 5 June 2013 until the effective date of payment. 42. 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 the proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee, including the 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. 43. 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. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is USD 566,379.80. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 44. Considering that, in the case in hand, the responsibility of the failure to comply with the employment contract can be attributed to the Respondent and taking into account the particular circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 18,000 and held that such costs have to be borne by both parties. 45. In conclusion, the amount of currency of country H 10,000 has to be paid by the Claimant and the amount of currency of country H 8,000 by the Respondent in order to cover the costs of the present proceedings. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players´ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Coach T, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, the country Z Football Association, has to pay to the Claimant, Coach T, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the following amounts: • USD 19,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest per year from 9 December 2010 until the effective date of payment; • USD 552.60 as hotel expenses, plus 5% interest per year from 9 December 2010 until the effective date of payment; • USD 141,500 as compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interest per year from 5 June 2013 until the effective date of payment. 3. If the aforementioned sums, plus interest as provided above, are 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. 4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Coach T, are rejected. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 18,000 are to be paid within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1 The amount of currency of country H 10,000 has to be paid by the Claimant, Coach T. 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 has to pay the remaining amount of currency of country H 5,000 to FIFA. 5.2 The amount of currency of country H 8,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, the country Z Football Association, to FIFA. 5.3 The above-mentioned payments has to be done to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XX-XXXX: 6. The Claimant, Coach T, is directed to inform the Respondent, the country Z Football Association, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 2 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