F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2013-2014) – controversie allenatori – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2013-2014) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 7 May 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach M, from country S as “Claimant” against the club Club D, from country R as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties.

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2013-2014) – controversie allenatori – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2013-2014) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 7 May 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach M, from country S as “Claimant” against the club Club D, from country R as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 15 January 2010, Coach M, from country S (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the Club D, from country R (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid from the date of its signature until 15 July 2014, by means of which the Claimant was hired as head coach of the Respondent as of 2 February 2010. In this respect, the Claimant was inter alia entitled to receive from the Respondent a monthly salary of EUR 2,000, payable in currency of country R at the value established by the Bank of country R on the last day of the corresponding month as well as the following additional payments: EUR 8,300 per month during the 2009-2010 season during 6 months as of January 2010; EUR 9,300 per month during the 2010-2011 season during 12 months as of August 2010; EUR 10,300 per month during the 2011-2012 season during 12 months as of July 2011; EUR 10,300 per month during the 2012-2013 season during 12 months as of July 2012; EUR 10,300 per month during the 2013-2014 season during 12 months as of July 2013. 2. In continuation, the contract specified in its art. 9.4. that, in case of its early termination without just cause by the Claimant or in case of its early termination by the Respondent due to the Claimant’s misbehaviour, the latter had to pay to the Respondent EUR 150,000 as compensation. Furthermore, according to art. 9.5. of the contract, in case the Respondent terminated the contract without just cause or in case the contract was terminated by the Claimant due to the Respondent’s misbehaviour, the latter had to pay to the Claimant the following amounts of compensation (hereinafter: the compensation clause): EUR 500,000 in case the termination took place in 2010; EUR 400,000 in 2011; EUR 300,000 in 2012; EUR 200,000 in 2013 and EUR 100,000 in 2014. 3. On 1 March 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent, requesting from the latter the payment of compensation for breach of contract in the total net amount of EUR 310,000, plus 5% interest as of 11 January 2012. 4. In this respect, the Claimant alleged having been orally dismissed by the Respondent on 11 January 2012 following the latter’s defeat against the club Z and stressed that he was immediately replaced by a new coach, Mr Y. As to that, the Claimant provided FIFA with several press articles. 5. In continuation, the Claimant alleged that, later on, the Respondent had denied having unilaterally terminated the contract and had offered him a new job as its sports director, an offer which he apparently declined. In this context, the Claimant enclosed to his claim the relevant emails exchange. 6. Thus, on 26 January 2012, the Claimant apparently provided the Respondent with an “official notification about the unilateral termination without just cause by the Club in which we informed the club that he thought Contract terminated by the tacit actions of the Cub (deprived from his work, hiring new coach, statements in mass media)”. In the same correspondence, the Claimant had requested the payment of EUR 300,000 as compensation in accordance with the compensation clause. 7. In conclusion, the Claimant was of the opinion that, by excluding him from his position as head coach and by preventing him from communicating with the players, as well as by hiring a new coach, the Respondent had “deprived” him “from his ability to be the head coach in the senior team” as of 11 January 2012. As a consequence, the Claimant considered that the Respondent had terminated the contract without just cause on 11 January 2012 and was therefore liable to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 300,000 as per the compensation clause. 8. In addition, the Claimant deemed being entitled to receive from the club USD 10,000 as “ex aequo et bono” compensation in accordance with art. 163 par. 2 and art. 337c par. 3 of the Swiss Code of Obligations “for the emotional distress suffered (..) as a result of the termination of the Contract, as well as for the irreparable damages to his commercial and public image and for the damages deriving from the missed job opportunities with other reliable clubs”. 9. By means of a correspondence dated 31 January 2013, sent after the investigation phase had already been closed by FIFA, the Respondent informed FIFA of its “desire to settle the situation between the coach (..) and the Club in case if the Coach has a lawful and reasonable demands.” Furthermore, the Respondent specified that on 1 February 2012 the Claimant’s visa had expired and that it had “gathered all the necessary documents for its prolongation, but the coach left the territory of the country R Federation and didn’t return, so we were forced to cooperate only with the coach’s representative.” In addition, the Respondent mentioned that “since the end of February 2012 all the contacts between the Club and the coach and his representative on their initiative have been cancelled.” 10. Finally, the Respondent alleged having paid EUR 62,500 to the coach in 2012 “to prove our efforts to solve the situation”. 11. In its replica, the Claimant contested the receivability of the Respondent’s response. In addition, the Claimant specified that no amicable settlement could be reached between the parties. 12. In its final statement, the Respondent denied having dismissed the Claimant and alleged being interested in continuing to cooperate with the latter “in the form suitable for both parties.” 13. In addition, the Respondent alleged having terminated its contractual relationship with the two assistant coaches of the Claimant in an amicable way and accused the coach of having “avoided the possibility to follow the example of his colleagues and compatriots – to sign the additional agreement to his labor contract which was to specify the possibility and form of further cooperation or the terms and conditions of its cancellation”. 14. Asked about his labour situation as of 12 January 2012, the Claimant informed FIFA that after having been dismissed by the Respondent, he had not worked “neither as a head coach nor as a coach in any professional football or futsal club.” II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter also referred to as: the Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, he 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 2008 and 2012). Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 1 March 2012, 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. 2. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 in combination with art. 22 lit. c) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players as well as art. 11 par. 1 and 2 of Annex 6 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players, he is competent to deal with the matter at sake which concerns an employment-related dispute of an international dimension between a country S coach and a futsal club affiliated to the Football Union of country R. 3. Furthermore, 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 2010 and 2012 editions of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged with FIFA on 1 March 2012. 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 (cf. art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations). 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started his analysis by acknowledging the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties as well as the documents contained in the file. 5. In doing so and first of all, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent had provided its response to the claim of the Claimant only after the relevant deadline given by FIFA had expired and after the investigation phase of the present matter had already been closed. Furthermore, the Single Judge took note that the receivability of said response and had been contested by the Claimant. 6. Bearing in mind the aforementioned, the Single Judge determined that the first issue to be addressed in the present proceedings was whether the response of the Respondent as well as all correspondence received by FIFA from the parties at a later stage could be taken into account at all when deciding on the dispute. 7. In this context and to begin with, the Single Judge emphasized that it falls within his scope of discretion to analyse, on a case by case basis, whether submissions from parties which were received by FIFA after the expiry of the respective time limit can be taken into account when passing a decision on a specific matter. 8. After having carefully read the whole documentation provided by the parties, the Single Judge reasoned that, considering its relevance for the outcome of the dispute, and taking into account the specificities of the present matter, it must all be taken into account when deliberating on the present matter. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the entire documentation presented by the Claimant and the Respondent in connection with the present dispute has to be considered although the first submission of the Respondent had not been sent within the original deadline given by FIFA. 9. After having established the aforementioned, the Single Judge noted that, on 15 January 2010, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract which was originally valid from the date of its signature until 15 July 2014. 10. In continuation, the Single Judge acknowledged that, in his claim to FIFA, the Claimant had accused the Respondent of having prematurely terminated their contractual relationship without just cause on 11 January 2012 and had consequently requested from the latter the payment of inter alia EUR 300,000 as compensation in accordance with the compensation clause include in the contract. Furthermore and in the same context, the Single Judge observed that, for its part, the Respondent had denied having unilaterally and prematurely terminated the contract. 11. In addition, the Single Judge recalled that no termination agreement was ever concluded between the parties to the dispute and that neither the Claimant nor the Respondent seemed to have ever issued a termination letter in order to prematurely bring an end to their contractual relationship. Nevertheless, the Single Judge remarked that it was undisputed that, on 26 January 2012, the Claimant had acknowledged the termination of the contract by the Respondent in writing. 12. In light of the above, the Single Judge deemed that he had to address the question of whether the contract was terminated by the Respondent and whether such termination had occurred with or without just cause. 13. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that the Respondent had never contested having replaced the Claimant and had never denied having offered him a new position as its sports director. 14. Considering the aforementioned and, in particular, bearing in mind that it remained undisputed that the Claimant was replaced with a new coach by the Respondent and offered a new position as sports director instead as well as taking into account that the latter had acknowledged in writing having been dismissed by the Respondent, the Single Judge resolved that, in casu, it could be safely assumed that the contractual relationship between the parties as established in the contract was de facto terminated by the Respondent on 11 January 2012. 15. Notwithstanding the above and for the sake of good order, the Single Judge found it worthwhile to mention that from his point of view, the termination of the contractual relationship between the Respondent and both assistant coaches of the Claimant was a clear indication that, at the beginning of January 2012, the Respondent had decided to change its entire coaching team and had therefore also proceeded to dismiss the Claimant. 16. In view of the above, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent had terminated the employment contract with the Claimant without just cause on 11 January 2012. 17. Having established the aforementioned, the Single Judge went on to assess the potential financial consequences of the termination of contract without just cause by the Respondent. 18. To that end, the Single Judge turned its attention to the first part of the Claimant’s claim, i.e. his request for the payment of compensation in the amount of EUR 300,000. In this respect, the Single Judge observed that the contract contained two clauses related to compensation for breach of contract which provided the following: in case of termination of contract without just cause by the Claimant or in case of early termination of the contract by the Respondent due to the Claimant’s misbehaviour, the latter had to pay to the Respondent EUR 150,000, whereas in case the Respondent terminated the contract without just cause or in case the contract was terminated by the Claimant due to the Respondent’s misbehaviour, the latter had to pay to the Claimant EUR 500,000 if the termination took place in 2010, EUR 400,000 if it took place in 2011, EUR 300,000 if it took place in 2012, EUR 200,000 if it took place in 2013 and EUR 100,000 if it took place in 2014. 19. Bearing in mind the aforementioned and in line with his well-established jurisprudence, the Single Judge was eager to emphasize that because the relevant clauses provided for disproportionate amounts of compensation to be paid depending on which one of the party was responsible for an early termination of the contract, they could not be considered as reciprocal. Hence, from the Single Judge’s point of view, the clauses in question could in casu not be applied. As a result, the Single Judge determined that the amount of compensation payable to the Claimant had to be assessed in accordance with other criteria. 20. In doing so and to begin with, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the information provided by the Claimant, he had been unemployed since 12 January 2012. 21. In continuation, the Single Judge calculated that between February 2012 and July 2014, the Claimant would have earned EUR 369,000 with the Respondent (i.e. EUR 12,300 x 6 during the 2011/2012 season, plus EUR 12,300 x 12 during the 2012/2013 season and EUR 12,300 x 12 during the 2013/2014 season). Equally, the Single Judge considered that the Claimant had never contested having received EUR 62,500 from the Respondent and determined that such amount had therefore to be taken into account when establishing the compensation payable to the latter for breach of contract. 22. Considering all the aforementioned as well as bearing in mind the general obligation of a coach to mitigate his damages, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that the sum of EUR 200,000 had in casu to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract. As a result, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 200,000 as compensation. 23. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e. as of 1 March 2012, until the date of effective payment. 24. After having ruled on the aforementioned, the Single Judge went on to deal with the second part of the Claimant’s claim, i.e. his request for payment of USD 10,000 as additional compensation. 25. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that no evidence had been submitted by the Claimant in support of the allegation that he would have suffered a further damage in the amount of USD 10,000. As a consequence and in line with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules in accordance with which any party deriving a right from an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof, the Single Judge decided that this second request of the Claimant had to be rejected due to lack of proof. 26. In view 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 compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 200,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on the said amount as from 1 March 2012 until the date of effective payment. 27. Lastly, 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 and the Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and are normally to be paid by the unsuccessful party. 28. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is only partly accepted and that the Respondent is the party at fault. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that in view of the circumstances of the present case it would be fair and reasonable that the costs of the current proceedings be proportionally borne by the Claimant and the Respondent on the basis of their respective degree of success in the present matter. 29. 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. Consequently and taking into account that the total amount at dispute in the present matter is above 200,001, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 30. In conclusion and in view of the numerous submissions that had to be analysed in the present matter as well as considering that a number of factual complexities had to be addressed but taking into account that the present decision was taken by the Single Judge and not by the Players’ Status in corpore, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 23,000. 31. Consequently, the Respondent has to pay the amount of currency of country H 18,000 and the Claimant the amount of currency of country H 5,000 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 M, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club D, has to pay to the Claimant, Coach M, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 200,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on the said amount as from 1 March 2012 until the date of effective payment. 3. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Coach M, are rejected. 4. If the aforementioned sum plus interest 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. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 23,000 are to be paid by both parties to FIFA, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1. The amount of currency of country H 18,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, Club D, to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 5.2. The amount of currency of country H 5,000 has to be paid by the Claimant, Coach M. Considering that the Claimant, Coach M, already paid the amount of currency of country H 5,000 as advance of costs, the latter is exempted from paying the abovementioned costs of the proceedings. 6. The Claimant, Coach M, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club D, 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