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 2 October 2013, by Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach S, from country X as “Claimant” against the club Club H, from country W as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen 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 2 October 2013, by Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach S, from country X as “Claimant” against the club Club H, from country W as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties.I. Facts of the case 1. On 15 December 2011, the coach S from country X (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the club H from country W (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid from 15 December 2011 until 31 May 2012, and according to which the Respondent engaged the Claimant as the “Head Coach” of its first team. 2. Clause 3 of the contract provided the following: “- Total value of contract 200.000 $ Paid as a follows: - Advance payment upon 100,000$ Contract signature. - Basic Salary (18,181) $ - Whereas the advance payment (100,000$) is part of total amount of the contract (200,000$)”. 3. Additionally, Clause 4 C of the contract mentioned that the Claimant was entitled to “2 ticket economy class for him and his wife and 2 ticket economy class to his children under 18 years. Annually, provided that […] The Second party [i.e. the Claimant] and his family should actually travel outside country W either on leave or at the end of the contract”. 4. Furthermore, Clause 8 of the contract stipulated the following: “During the term of the contract if the First party [i.e. the Respondent] decides not to complete the contract’s term, the Second party [i.e. the Claimant] shall compensated with either an amount equivalent to Two months’ salary or total salary of the due period of contract’s term, whichever the less”. 5. Finally, Clause 16 B of the contract provided as follows: “Awards of winning and draw games shall be 100% the same awards determinate for the players”. 6. On 26 December 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, arguing that on 10 February 2012 the latter had terminated their contractual relationship unilaterally and without just cause and thus had failed to respect its contractual obligations. 7. In this respect, the Claimant alleged that according to Clause 8 of the contract, he should in fact be entitled to receive a compensation of USD 36,362 corresponding to two monthly salaries of USD 18,181 each, which had become due on 10 February 2012. 8. Furthermore, the Claimant deemed that the Respondent had also failed to pay him the outstanding salary corresponding to the month of January 2012 in the amount of USD 18,181 as well as “the fraction of his salary of February 2012 corresponding to 10 (ten) days of effective work performed at the Respondent’s service, in the amount of USD 6,060.33”, and that these two amounts had also become due on 10 February 2012. 9. The Claimant further alleged having only received USD 50,000 as signing–on fee and that the remaining amount of USD 50,000 according to Clause 3 of the contract was still outstanding and “due on 15 December 2011”. 10. In addition, the Claimant alleged that in accordance with Clause 16 B of the contract, he should also be entitled to receive a total match bonus in the amount of USD 13,500 for “2 (two) victories and 1 (one) draw”. In this respect, he alleged that “the awards were USD 5,500 […] per victory and USD 2,500 […] per draw” and that they became due on the days of the games. 11. Furthermore, the Claimant deemed that he should also be “entitled to the reimbursement of the flight expenses that he has incurred after the early termination of the Contract, for him, his wife and his child, as foreseen in Clause 4 of the Contract, in the total amount USD 2,768.49”. The Claimant further claimed that the Respondent had also failed to pay him the costs of a flight ticket to Dubai for his assistant coach in the amount of EUR 888.86 corresponding to USD 1,137.77, which had apparently been paid by the Claimant on the basis of an alleged oral confirmation of Mr U, a member of the Respondent’s Executive Board. 12. Finally, the Claimant explained to have made several attempts to contact the Respondent in order to amicably settle the present dispute which had all remained fruitless. 13. Consequently, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the total amount of USD 128,009.59 (i.e. USD 36,362 as compensation for the breach of contract + USD 24,241.33 as outstanding salary + USD 50,000 as outstanding signing-on fee + USD 13,500 as outstanding match bonuses + USD 3,906.26 as travel expenses), plus “interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from the established payment dates until the date of their effective payment”. 14. On 7 March 2013, the Respondent responded to the Claimant’s claim and, first of all, stated that “During the 1st month of the contract, namely from 22.12.2011 till 20.01.2011 the coach [i.e. the Claimant] did nothing to the team more than failure” and that “these bad results lead the team to deteriorate and be relegated to the 2nd division despite the fact that the Club H [i.e. the Respondent] administration asked the claimant to improve his performance with the team and pay more attention to his work, but he did not”. 15. On account of the above, the Respondent confirmed that it had therefore “decided to rescind the contract with the coach [i.e. the Claimant] and informed him by a letter dated 05.02.2012”. On the other hand, the Respondent alleged that it had, in accordance with Clause 8 of the contract, “prepared a financial settlement to the claimant”, taking into account that “advance payment 100,000$ is part of total amount of the contract and must be distributed on all actual working days of the claimant” but further emphasised that the Claimant had “switched off his mobile preventing any contacts with him”. 16. In view of the above, the Respondent deemed that it had fully respected the contract it had signed with the Claimant and had “made ready a financial settlement of all the claimant dues who refused and barred all the efforts of the defendant [i.e. the Respondent] to contract him”. As evidence of its allegations, the Respondent provided FIFA with a financial settlement according to which the “Difference due for coach” was “US$ 53,267”. 17. On 28 March 2013, in response to the Respondent’s allegations, the Claimant reiterated his first position and asked FIFA “to close the investigation-phase and submit the file to the attention and consideration of the Players’ Status Committee or its Single Judge for a formal decision”. 18. In spite of having been asked to do so, the Respondent did not submit any further comments. 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 simply referred to as: 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 2012 edition 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 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 coach S and a club affiliated to the Football Association of country W. 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 2012 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 26 December 2012, thus after the aforementioned rules entered into force (1 December 2012), the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 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 26 December 2012. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 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. 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 above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties throughout the proceedings. 5. In doing so and first of all, the Single Judge noted that, on 15 December 2011, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) which was valid from the date of its signature until 31 May 2012 and according to which the Claimant was entitled to “a Basic Salary (18,181) $” as well as an “Advance payment upon 100,000$ Contract signature”. 6. In continuation, the Single Judge acknowledged that, in his claim to FIFA, the Claimant had inter alia accused the Respondent of having prematurely terminated their contractual relationship without just cause on 10 February 2012 and had consequently requested from the latter the payment of a compensation of two months’ salary in accordance with Clause 8 of the contract. Furthermore and in the same context, the Single Judge observed that, for its part, the Respondent had not denied having prematurely terminated the contract. 7. In addition, the Single Judge recalled that no termination agreement was ever concluded between the parties to the dispute but that the Respondent seemed to have “prepared a financial settlement to the claimant”, taking into account that the “advance payment 100,000$ is part of total amount of the contract and must be distributed on all actual working days of the claimant”. 8. Consequently, and having established that it was undisputed by the parties that the Respondent had terminated the contract on the basis of Clause 8 of the contract, the Single Judge deemed that the Claimant should be entitled to a compensation as established in said provision. 9. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that clause 8 of the contract provided that in case the Respondent decided to terminate the contract, the Claimant would be “compensated with either an amount equivalent to Two months’ salary or total salary of the due period of contract’s term, whichever the less”. 10. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Single Judge proceeded to the calculation of the compensation and turned his attention to the submissions of the parties and, in particular, noted that the Claimant was claiming from the Respondent the amount of 36,362 (i.e. USD 18,181 x 2 months) as compensation for the early termination of the contract. Furthermore, the Single Judge emphasised that the Claimant had stated that the Respondent had only paid him the amount of USD 50,000 as part of the “advance payment” according to Clause 3 of the contract. 11. In light of the above, the Single Judge deemed that the first question to be addressed in the present matter was whether the amount of USD 100,000 named “advance payment” stipulated in Clause 3 of the contract had to be considered a “signing-on fee” or a payment made in advance but which represented part of the monthly salaries to be paid to the Claimant under the contract. 12. In this respect, the Single Judge carefully analysed the content of Clause 3 of the contract which stated the following: “Total value of contract 200.000 $ Paid as a follows: “Advance payment upon 100,000$ Contract signature. - Basic Salary (18,181) $ - Whereas the advance payment (100,000$) is part of total amount of the contract (200,000$)”. 13. In view of the content of said provision, the Single Judge concluded that the “advance payment” of USD 100,000 was indeed to be considered an advance payment on the Claimant’s monthly salaries for the total duration of his employment contract with the Respondent and not a “signing-on fee”. Therefore, the Single Judge was eager to underline that although the contract provided under Clause 3 for a monthly salary in the amount of USD 18,181, the advance payment in the amount of USD 100,000 had also to be taken into consideration in order to assess the compensation according to Clause 8 of the contract in the event of termination of the contract by the Respondent. 14. On that basis, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that the amount of USD 18,181 corresponding to the pro rata amount of the advance payment (i.e. USD 100,000 / 5.5 months), had to be added to the monthly salary as established under Clause 3 of the contract i.e. USD 18,181. 15. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent two monthly salaries including the pro rata amount of the advance payment due amounting to the total sum of USD 72,724 (i.e. USD 36,362 [USD 18,181 + USD 18,181] as monthly salary * 2 months), as compensation for the early termination of the contract by the Respondent, in accordance with Clause 8 of the contract. 16. After having established 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 his alleged outstanding salary plus the remaining part of the advance payment under Clause 3 of the contract. In this respect, he turned his attention to the submissions of the parties and, in particular, noted that the Claimant was claiming from the Respondent the amount of USD 74,241.33. 17. On that basis, the Single Judge underlined that it was not clear how exactly the claimed amount of USD 74,241.33 had been calculated by the Claimant but took note that the Claimant’s intention must have been to request inter alia the payment of his salary until the early termination of his contractual relationship with the Respondent, i.e. until 10 February 2012 as well as USD 50,000 corresponding to the remaining part of the advance payment under Clause 3 of the contract. 18. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Single Judge proceeded to the calculation of the outstanding salary and, first of all, recalled that the advance payment of USD 100,000 at the beginning of the contract was part of the total value of the contract. In light of the above, the Single Judge underlined that the Claimant had worked for the Respondent for about two months, i.e. from 15 December 2011 until 10 February 2012. In this respect, and taking into account that the contract was concluded for a total period of 5.5 months, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant should have been entitled to receive from the Respondent a salary amounting to USD 72,727, which represented the pro rata amount from the “total value of the contract” of USD 200,000 (i.e. USD 200,000 / 5.5 months * 2 months). 19. Furthermore, the Single Judge remarked that, according to the submissions of the Claimant, the Respondent had only paid USD 50,000 as part of the advance payment as well as USD 9,090 as part of his salary corresponding to the month of December 2011 and that such a fact had not been questioned by the Respondent. Consequently, the Single Judge held that the amount of USD 59,090 (i.e. USD 50,000 + USD 9,090) the Claimant had received from the Respondent should be deducted from the pro rata amount established above, i.e. USD 72,727. 20. In view of all of the above and bearing in mind the statements of the parties, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent should pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 13,637 (i.e. USD 72,727 - USD 50,000 - USD 9,090) as outstanding salary. 21. As to the amount of USD 2,768.49 requested by the Claimant as “flight expenses that he has incurred after the early termination of the Contract, for him, his wife and his child” under Clause 4 C of the contract, and in view of the fact that such a request had not been challenged by the Respondent, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant should be entitled to the aforementioned amount. 22. Having established the above, the Single Judge went on to assess whether the Claimant should also be entitled to the claimed “match bonuses” amounting to USD 13,500 as well as to the reimbursement of the flight ticket to Dubai for his assistant coach in the amount of EUR 888.86 corresponding to USD 1,137.77. 23. 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. 24. The Single Judge then reverted to the allegations of the Claimant according to which the latter should be entitled to receive a total match bonus in the amount of USD 13,500 for “2 (two) victories and 1 (one) draw” on the basis of Clause 16 B of the contract since, according to the Claimant, “the awards were USD 5,500 […] per victory and USD 2,500 […] per draw”. In this respect, the Single Judge was keen to stress that the Claimant had not provided any evidence confirming the alleged achieved results or establishing how much such “awards” should amount to. 25. With regard to the claimed amount for the assistant coach’s flight ticket, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Claimant requested such amount on the basis of an alleged oral confirmation of Mr U from the Respondent’s Executive Board and took note that the Claimant had provided a receipt of the flight ticket but no evidence about the Respondent’s confirmation. 26. In light of the above, and while noting that the Claimant had not provided any evidence in support of his allegations, the Single Judge expressed the view that the Claimant had failed to demonstrate that he should be entitled to the claimed match bonuses and the costs for the flight ticket of his assistant coach and therefore decided to reject this part of the claim. 27. Additionally and with respect to the claimed “interest at the rate of 5% p.a.”, the Single Judge recalled that no interest seemed to have been contractually agreed between the parties. Therefore and also taking into account the Claimant’s request in this regard, the Single Judge decided, in accordance with the long standing and well-established jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee concerning the payment of interest, that the Claimant should receive from the Respondent, on the amount due as outstanding salary (i.e. USD 13,637), an interest rate of 5% per year as from the day after the date on which the contract was terminated by the Respondent. Furthermore and as to the interest requested in relation to the compensation for breach of contract (i.e. USD 72,724) and the costs of flight tickets (i.e. USD 2,768.49), the Single Judge held that an interest of 5% per year should also be granted on the aforementioned amounts as from the date of the present decision. 28. In view of all of the above, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant’s claim against the Respondent is partially accepted and that, consequently, the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the total amount of USD 89,129 (i.e. USD 72,724 as compensation for breach of contract on the basis of Clause 8 of the contract, USD 13,637 as outstanding salary and USD 2,768.49 as costs of flight tickets), together with an interest at a rate of 5% per year on the respective amounts as established above. 29. The Single Judge concluded his deliberations by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected. 30. 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 CHF 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 and are normally to be paid by the unsuccessful party. 31. 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 USD 128,009.59. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 15,000. 32. 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 CHF 10,000. Consequently and since the claim has been partially accepted, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of CHF 2,500 has to be paid by the Claimant and the amount of CHF 7,500 by the Respondent in order to cover the costs of the proceeding. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, coach S, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club H, has to pay to the Claimant, coach F, the amount of USD 13,637 as outstanding salary, the amount of USD 72,724 as compensation for breach of contract as well as the amount of USD 2,768.49 as costs of flight tickets, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. Within the same time limit, the Respondent, Club H, has to pay to the Claimant, coach F, default interest at a rate of 5% per year on the following partial amounts, as follows: - On USD 13,637 from 11 February 2012 until the effective date of payment; - On USD 75,492.49 from 2 October 2013 until the effective date of payment. 4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, coach F, are rejected. 5. If the aforementioned amounts of USD 13,637, USD 72,724 and USD 2,768.49, plus interest as established 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. 6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 10,000 are to be paid to FIFA by both parties as follows: 6.1 The amount of CHF 7,500 has to be paid by the Respondent, Club H, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 6.1.1 The amount of CHF 7,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. xxxxxx: 6.1.2 The amount of CHF 500 has to be paid directly to the Claimant, coach F. 6.2 The amount of CHF 2,500 has to be paid by the Claimant, coach F. Given that the latter already paid an advance of costs in the amount of CHF 3,000 at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant, coach F, is exempted from paying the abovementioned costs of the proceedings. 7. The Claimant, coach F, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club H, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under points 2, 3 and 6.1.2 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 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 Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives