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 25 February 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach P, from country N as “Claimant” against the club Club C, 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 25 February 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach P, from country N as “Claimant” against the club Club C, from country R as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 15 January 2010, Coach P, from country N (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the Club C, from country R (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an “Individual Labour Contract” (hereinafter: the contract) valid from 15 January 2010 until 31 May 2010, by means of which the Claimant was entitled to “17,536 currency of country R/month (the equivalent in currency of country R of the net amount of 3,000-tenthousand-Euro/month). […] The date on which the wage shall be paid is 15 of the next month and the employer [i.e. the Respondent] has the right to make any payment in advance”. 2. According to letter L.I. of the contract, “the employee [i.e. the Claimant] shall benefit from a bonus of 25% of the win and draw bonuses granted to the head coach”. 3. Letter L.IV. of the contract stipulated that “this individual labour contract [i.e. the contract] shall terminate under the following terms: a) Upon expiry of the term for which it was concluded; b) As a result of the parties’ agreement, on the date agreed upon by the parties”. 4. According to letter O. of the contract, “the disputes arising in connection with the conclusion, performance, alteration, suspension or termination of this individual labour contract shall be settled by the court having material and territorial jurisdiction, according to law, by the courts of the country R Football Federation with appropriate jurisdiction and by FIFA rules and regulation and the CAS”. 5. On 12 May 2010 as well as on 27 January 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract arguing that he had “not received EUR 9,000 net of his salary for March, April, May 2010”. 6. The Claimant further alleged that on 6 May 2010, he was informed by Mr M, chairman of the Respondent, that the latter “did not need his services until further notice and that the club [i.e. the Respondent] would not pay any salary or back salary to him for at least another 60 days” and that he was requested to “go home”. Thereupon, the Claimant informed the Respondent, by means of a fax dated 7 May 2010, that “until further notice he would not attend training or other activities, but of course would be available for work should the club require his services”. 7. As a result, the Claimant explained to have sent two letters to the Respondent asking for his outstanding salaries. 8. Consequently, the coach requested FIFA to condemn the club to pay him the sum of EUR 9,000 as outstanding salaries, corresponding to the salaries of March, April and May 2010. 9. On 14 February 2011, the Respondent provided FIFA with its position. First of all, the Respondent deemed that FIFA did not have the competence to hear the present matter, as letter O. of the contract (cf. par. 4), stipulated that the competence for settling dispute in connection with the contract belonged to “the legal courts with material and territorial competence”. 10. The Respondent further argued that the Claimant had “unilaterally breached the contract by refusing to report to the work place and fulfil his contractual obligations as early as 1 June 2010, date on which only the head coach of the team, Mr W, was suspended”. 11. Furthermore, and although the Respondent deemed to have duly paid the Claimant’s salaries up until 1 May 2010, the Respondent stated that they “do not owe Coach P [i.e. the Claimant] any fee, since he refused to report, without reasons, to work, considering that only the head coach, Mr W, was suspended”. 12. In his last comments in the present dispute, the Claimant reiterated his previous statements. The Claimant further explained that the Respondent “did not in any way contest that it did not pay Coach P [i.e. the Claimant] his wages”. 13. In its last position dated 25 April 2013, the Respondent reiterated its previous allegations of defence and added that the Respondent “was excluded from the Federation in 2011 and in insolvency”. 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 as: the Single Judge) analysed which Procedural Rules were applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he acknowledged that the present dispute was submitted to FIFA on 12 May 2010, thus after 1 July 2008. Consequently, 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) was applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the Single Judge of 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, he referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the 2009, 2010 and 2012 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 12 May 2010. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2009 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. 3. The applicable regulations having been established, the Singe Judge went on to assess whether he was competent to hear the present matter and recalled that the Respondent had argued in its submissions that FIFA was not competent to deal with the dispute as a specific jurisdiction clause had been agreed upon between the parties in the contract and which allegedly gave the competence to hear the present matter to “the legal courts with material and territorial competence”. 4. In order to determine the aforementioned as well as to establish whether he was competent to hear the present matter, the Single Judge analysed the contract and, more specifically, the content of letter O. which stated that “the disputes arising in connection with the conclusion, performance, alteration, suspension or termination of this individual labour contract shall be settled by the court having material and territorial jurisdiction, according to law, by the courts of the country R Football Federation with appropriate jurisdiction and by FIFA rules and regulation and the CAS”. In this respect, the Single Judge was keen to underline that said provision amounted in fact to a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause allowing FIFA’s competent deciding body to hear the matter at stake. 5. Consequently, based on art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules in conjunction with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 and art. 22 c) of the Regulations and in view of the non-exclusive jurisdiction clause contained in letter O. of the contract concluded between the parties, the Single Judge concluded that he was competent to deal with the present matter since it concerned a dispute between a country N coach and a country R club. 6. 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 of the present matter. In this respect and first of all, the Single Judge acknowledged that, on 15 January 2010, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract valid from the date of signature until 31 May 2010. 7. Furthermore, the Single Judge underlined that according to the contract the Claimant was entitled to receive, inter alia, from the Respondent the sum of EUR 3,000 as monthly salary for the period between 15 January 2010 and 31 May 2010. 8. With these considerations in mind, the Single Judge went on to consider the arguments raised by the parties during the present proceedings. Starting with the Claimant, the Single Judge acknowledged that he had argued that the Respondent had failed to comply with its contractual obligations. Consequently, the Claimant deemed that the Respondent should be requested to pay him a total amount of EUR 9,000 in the form of outstanding salaries. 9. As for the Respondent, the Single Judge underlined that it had claimed to have paid the outstanding remuneration to the Claimant up until 1 May 2010 and therefore that it did not owe anything to the Claimant. 10. In continuation, the Single Judge went on to consider the documentary evidence that the parties had submitted in support of their allegations. Before doing so, the Single Judge was keen to recall the content of art. 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. 11. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that, on the one hand, the Claimant had explained that the Respondent had not paid the entire monthly salaries of March, April and May 2010 for a total amount of EUR 9,000 whereas, on the other hand, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Respondent had argued having paid all the Claimant’s salaries up until 1 May 2010. 12. In view of the above and concerning the payments apparently made by the Respondent, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee was keen to underline that, according to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Respondent had not provided any clear and convincing documentary evidence which would have indicated that the Respondent had fully complied with its contractual obligations towards the Claimant and paid at the outstanding remuneration requested by the Claimant. 13. Consequently, and taking into account that the Respondent had not been able to prove to have paid the outstanding remuneration requested by the Claimant, the Single Judge reached the conclusion that the latter was still entitled to receive from the Respondent his entire monthly salaries of March, April and May 2010. The Single Judge added that these amounts were therefore still outstanding at the time the contract ended, i.e. on 31 May 2010. 14. In this context, the Single Judge was also keen to stress that, contrary to the allegations brought by the Respondent, the Claimant had not refused to resume working as of 1 June 2010 since his contract was already terminated at that time, i.e. on 31 May 2010. 15. Bearing in mind the foregoing and in accordance with the basic legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Single Judge held that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent the amount of EUR 9,000 as outstanding salaries according to the contract. 16. In view of all the above, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee concluded that the Claimant’s claim against the Respondent is accepted and that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant an amount of EUR 9,000. 17. Finally and for the sake of good order, the Single Judge pointed out that the argument raised by the Respondent, according to which it was allegedly “excluded from the Federation in 2011 and in insolvency”, should not be considered at all since the Respondent had not provided any documentary evidence in support of such allegations. 18. Lastly, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players 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. 19. On account of the above and considering that the claim of the Claimant has been fully accepted, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the entire 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 EUR 9,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 5,000. 20. In conclusion, and in view of the circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 5,000. Consequently, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of currency of country H 5,000 has to be paid by the 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 P, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant, Coach P, is accepted. 3. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, Coach P, the amount of EUR 9,000 as outstanding salary, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 4. If the aforementioned amount is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, an interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of the expiry of the fixed time limit and 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 5,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club C, within 30 days as from the date notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1 The amount of currency of country H 4,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 5.2 The amount of currency of country H 1,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant, Coach P. 6. The Claimant, Coach P, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club C, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under points 3 and 5.2 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