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 23 September 2014, by Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the heir of the coach M, from country S as “Claimant” against the club Club R, from country F as “Respondent” regarding an employment-related contractual dispute.

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 23 September 2014, by Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the heir of the coach M, from country S as “Claimant” against the club Club R, from country F as “Respondent” regarding an employment-related contractual dispute. I. Facts of the case 1. On an unknown date, the coach M from country S (hereinafter: the coach) and the Club R from country F (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded a two-year employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid from 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2013 and according to which the Respondent engaged the coach as “head coach” of its professional team. 2. According to the contract, the coach was entitled to receive a basic yearly salary of USD 500,000 as well as “Match Bonuses” which “shall be 100% of the amount of 11 starting players of the Match, and shall be paid monthly”. 3. Furthermore, article 5 of the contract stipulated that “if the Party B [i.e. the coach] had any of the following behaviours, party A [i.e. the Respondent] can terminate the contract with Party B unilaterally without any financial compensation: a) Violation of Laws of country F, sanctioned or punished by the judicial administration; b) Neglecting his duty, failure of fulfilling his duties; c) Unable to perform the contractual duties due to health reason; d) Severe violation of Contract stipulations or other administrative regulations of Party A [i.e. the Respondent]; or violation of competition disciplines; e) Severe unprofessional or unsporting behaviour, damaging the interest or the reputation of party A, seriously punished by the FFA Football Association of country F or FIFA; f) The team coached by Party B gets no more than 1 point in a consecutive 4 official league matches, Party A has the right to terminate the Party B’s contract; g) The team’s position is out of the Top 6 positions in FSL teams ranking after 15 rounds of matches played according to league schedule; h) At the end of FSL 2012 Season, the first team fails to reach top 3 positions in the League, and fails to win the FA Cup 2012 Champion; i) Winning the Champion of 2012 FA Cup, but ranks out of top 10 positions in the FSL at the end of game season”. 4. Finally, article 6 of the contract provided that “if any of the two parties breach the contract unilaterally, he should pay to the other party 50% of the salary amount remaining period of the Contract as compensation. The case related to article 5 of this Contract is excluded”. 5. On 4 April 2013, the coach lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, arguing that the latter had terminated their contractual relationship unilaterally without just cause and thus failed to respect its contractual obligations. 6. In this respect, the coach alleged having received on 28 May 2012 from the Respondent a letter entitled “Letter of Contract Termination” (hereinafter: the termination letter) informing him as follows: “(…) according to Disciplinary Decisions for the match violation of the Head Coach Mr. M of club R released by the Football Association of country F (FFA), Mr. M was severely punished by the FFA and subsequently caused a execrable influence to the club’s reputation. (…) After the serious consideration Club R hereby officially decide, from May 28, 2012, to terminate the Employment Contract of Coach with Mr. M. 7. In this context, the coach explained that “until that moment - when the termination letter was handled to him, the Claimant [i.e. the coach] did not know and was not aware that there was any kind of proceedings held against him in front of any (club’s or CFF’s) body” and that “that body never informed him about the case nor gave him a chance to defend. More so, the decision issued did not give chance to appeal it, which means further violation of the Claimant’s rights”. Furthermore, the coach pointed out that he had even “sent an appeal on that decision to Football Federation of country F, but Football Federation of country F never answered it, nor did anything in that respect”. 8. Finally, the coach alleged that since the Respondent had “started negotiations with the new coach 10 days before that game” it had “used the occasion to get rid of him [i.e. the coach] by orchestrating disciplinary measure against him”. 9. On account of the above, the coach deemed that the Respondent had breached the contract without just cause and claimed from the latter a compensation for breach of contract in the total amount of USD 1,041,000 corresponding to the “outstanding salaries and other stipulates contractual obligations (bonuses)”. 10. In this context, the coach admitted having received USD 184,000 from the Respondent and therefore requested from the latter USD 316,000 corresponding to the remaining salaries for the year 2012, as well as USD 500,000 representing the total value of salaries for the year 2013. 11. Furthermore, the coach was of the opinion, that he should also be entitled to bonuses in the amount of USD 225,000. In this respect, he explained that “the reason why he accepted relatively low amount of the basic salary was because he was confident that he could achieve performance and results that would bring the Club [i.e. the Respondent], and him – desired results. Therefore, the Claimant [i.e. the coach] requests that the respondent should pay to him the amount of bonuses as his profit loss”. 12. Consequently, the coach requested from the Respondent the total amount of USD 1,041,000 as compensation for breach of contract “within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision” as well as an interest of 5% per year “as of expiry of the fixed time limit”. 13. On 21 June 2013, FIFA was informed by the legal representative of the coach that the latter had passed away and therefore requested that “this procedure be put on hold (stayed) until the heirs of Mr. M have taken over the procedure pursuant to the estate probate”. 14. On 16 April 2014, Mrs N (hereinafter: the Claimant), the wife of the late coach stated that she had “been appointed as his legal heir” and, therefore, requested FIFA “to proceed with the case”. 15. On 21 May 2014, although the Claimant had been informed by FIFA that according to art. 6 par. 1 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, parties in front of its decision-making bodies are member associations of FIFA, clubs, players coaches or licensed match and players’ agents only and that therefore individuals do not appear to belong to one of the above-mentioned parties, she insisted on the claim being heard by FIFA. 16. In spite of having been asked to do so, the Respondent did not provide its response to the Claimant’s claim, within the deadline given, 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 simply referred to as: the Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the present matter. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules). The matter was submitted to FIFA on 4 April 2013. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 edition of the Procedural Rules was applicable to the matter in hand. 2. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, in conjunction with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 and art. 22 c) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (2012 and 2014 editions; hereinafter: the Regulations) and confirmed that he would, in principle, be competent to hear an employment-related dispute involving a coach M and a club R. 3. Subsequently, the Single Judge of the 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 to art. 26 par. 1 of the 2012 and 2014 editions of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and again to the fact that the claim was lodged with FIFA on 4 April 2013. In view of this, 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 matter as to the substance. 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee acknowledged that the present dispute is based on the employment contract concluded between the coach and the Respondent. 5. In continuation, the Single Judge sadly remarked that, during the investigation phase, on 21 June 2013, FIFA were informed by the legal representative of the coach that the latter had passed away and, therefore, requested to put the procedure on hold. Afterwards, on 16 April 2014, Mrs N, the wife of the late coach, i.e. the Claimant, informed that she was appointed as his legal heir and, therefore, requested FIFA to continue with the proceedings and to pass a decision in the matter in hand. 6. Equally, the Single Judge took note that, on 21 May 2014, FIFA administration informed the Claimant that it did not seem to be in position to intervene in the present dispute considering that the only parties entitled to be part in procedures in front of its decision-making bodies are the ones indicated in the art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules. 7. In this regard, the Single Judge was keen to refer to the content of art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules which stipulates as follows: “Parties are member associations of FIFA, clubs, players, coaches or licensed match and players’ agents”. 8. Considering the above-mentioned, the Single Judge stressed that, since only the parties indicated in art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules are entitled to act in front of FIFA decision-making bodies it is undisputable that the Claimant was not included on this list. 9. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed the submissions of the Claimant and, in particular, the document entitled “Decision of inheritance” provided by the Claimant, by means of which the Claimant was declared the legal heir of the late coach. 10. In this context, the Single Judge was eager to emphasize that the decision-making bodies of FIFA have a very strict framework limited by its own regulations and that it may not act outside the limitations established by said regulations. 11. On account of all the above, the Single Judge held that, considering that the legal heir of the late coach, i.e. the Claimant, is not a party indicated in art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, he is not in a position to deal with the present dispute. ***** III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee The claim of the Claimant, the heir of the coach M, is inadmissible. ****** 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