F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2014-2015) – controversie allenatori – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2014-2015) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 August 2014, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach V, from country S as “Claimant” against the club Club I, from country A as “Respondent” regarding an employment-related contractual dispute arisen between the parties.

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2014-2015) – controversie allenatori – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2014-2015) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 August 2014, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach V, from country S as “Claimant” against the club Club I, from country A as “Respondent” regarding an employment-related contractual dispute arisen between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 August 2012, Coach V, from country S (hereinafter: “the Claimant”) and Club I, from country A (hereinafter: “the Respondent”) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: “the contract”) valid until 30 June 2014. 2. On 25 February 2013, the Respondent informed the Claimant in writing that it had decided to terminate the contract with immediate effect. 3. On 28 March 2013, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded a settlement agreement (hereinafter: “the agreement”). 4. Point I of the agreement established that “By means of the present Agreement, the PARTIES acknowledge that the FIRST PARTY [i.e. the Respondent] has unilaterally terminated their employment contract dated 1 August 2012 without just cause, having officially notified the SECOND PARTY [i.e. the Claimant] about such contractual termination on 25 February 2013. Also, the PARTIES hereby agree to waive their eventual rights to claim any further financial compensation beyond the one provided in this Agreement”. 5. Point II of the agreement established that “As compensation for its previously-mentioned unilateral contractual termination, the FIRST PARTY [i.e. the Respondent] hereby freely and consciously agrees to pay to the SECOND PARTY [i.e. the Claimant], the total amount of USD 200,022”. The cited amount would be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant in two instalments as follows: (1) USD 100,011 on 15 May 2013; (2) USD 100,011 on 15 November 2013. 6. On 2 October 2013 and on 23 May 2014, the Claimant lodged a complaint with FIFA alleging that the Respondent had failed to fulfil its financial obligations as established in the agreement and requested from the Respondent the total amount of USD 200,022 plus interest and costs. 7. In this respect, the Claimant stated that the Respondent had clearly recognised its debt towards him and, although he had tried to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute with the Respondent, the latter had failed to pay any of the amounts agreed upon in the agreement. 8. In spite of being provided an opportunity to do so by FIFA, the Respondent did not submit any statement, although it was informed that, in absence of a reply, a decision would be taken on the basis of the information and evidence at disposal. 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 which procedural rules are applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 of the 2012 and 2014 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: “the Procedural Rules”). Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 2 October 2013, thus after 1 December 2012 and before 1 August 2014, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand. 2. 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 2014 and 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 originally lodged with FIFA on 2 October 2013. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 edition of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance. 3. Furthermore and with regard to his competence, the Single Judge confirmed that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 as well as art. 22 c) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he was competent to deal with the present matter since it concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country S coach and a country A club. 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge entered into the substance of the matter and started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments provided by the parties and the documentation contained in the file. 5. In this respect and first of all, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent had never submitted its position to the claim lodged against it by the Claimant, despite having been asked to do so by FIFA. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that, in this way, the Respondent had renounced to its right of defence and, thus, it had to be assumed that it had accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 6. Bearing in mind the aforementioned, the Single Judge referred to art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and pointed out that in the present matter a decision shall be taken upon the basis of the documents on file, in other words, upon the allegations and documents submitted by the Claimant. 7. To start with, the Single Judge took note that on 1 August 2012 the Claimant and the Respondent concluded the contract valid until 30 June 2014. 8. Equally, the Single Judge noted that on 28 March 2013 the Claimant and the Respondent concluded the agreement, under the terms of which the Respondent admitted having unilaterally terminated the contract on 25 February 2013 and confirmed owing to the Claimant compensation for breach of contract for a total amount of USD 200,022 payable in two instalments. 9. In this respect, the Single Judge focussed his attention to the content of the agreement and emphasised that the Respondent and the Claimant contractually agreed (cf. point II of the agreement) that the latter would receive from the Respondent an amount of USD 200,022 payable in two instalments. 10. In continuation, the Single Judge pointed out that the Claimant had originally lodged a complaint with FIFA against the Respondent on 2 October 2013 claiming the payment of the first instalment agreed in the agreement. Moreover and since the Respondent allegedly did not comply with its contractual obligations, the Single Judge duly took note that the Claimant had decided to amend his initial claim on 23 May 2014 requesting the payment of the total amount provided in the agreement, i.e. USD 200,022. 11. In this context, the Single Judge deemed appropriate to reiterate that, during the investigation of the matter at stake, the Respondent did not provide with its position to the claim lodged against it and, therefore, it has to be assumed that it did not contest any of the allegations or documentary evidence provided by the Claimant. 12. In view of all of the above, the Single Judge decided that, in accordance with the general principle of pacta sunt servanda which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Respondent must fulfil the obligation it voluntarily entered into with the Claimant by means of the agreement signed between the parties, and therefore, the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the compensation agreed upon in the agreement. 13. In addition, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant had requested interest over the outstanding amounts. In this regard, the Single Judge deemed appropriate to grant interest at a rate of 5% per annum over the first instalment (i.e. USD 100,011) as from the date of the initial claim, i.e. from 2 October 2013, until the effective date of payment as well as at a rate of 5% per annum over the last instalment (USD 100,011) from the date of the amended claim, i.e. from 23 May 2014, until the effective date of payment. 14. In view of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is accepted and that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the total amount of USD 200,022 as compensation, plus interest at a rate of 5% per annum over the amount of USD 100,011 as from 2 October 2013 until the effective date of payment as well as at a rate of 5% per annum over the amount of USD 100,011 as from 23 May 2014 until the effective date of payment. 15. 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. 16. 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 200,022. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 20,000. 17. Considering that, in the case at hand, the responsibility of the failure to comply with the agreement can entirely 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 20,000 and held that such costs have to be borne by the Respondent. 18. In conclusion, the amount of currency of country H 20,000 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 V, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club I, has to pay to the Claimant, Coach V, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, the total amount of USD 200,022, plus interest as follows: • 5% per annum over the amount of USD 100,011 as from 2 October 2013 until the effective date of payment; • 5% per annum over the amount of USD 100,011 as from 23 May 2014 until the effective date of payment. 3. If the aforementioned sum, plus interest as established above, is not paid within the abovementioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country I 20,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club I, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 4.1 The amount of currency of country H 4,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant, Coach V. 4.2 The amount of currency of country H 16,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. : 5. The Claimant, Coach V, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club I, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2 and 4.1 above are 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