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 Mr Geoff Thompson (England), Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach A, from country B as “Claimant/Counter-Respondent” against the club Club C, from country D as “Respondent/Counter-Claimant” 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 23 September 2014, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England), Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach A, from country B as “Claimant/Counter-Respondent” against the club Club C, from country D as “Respondent/Counter-Claimant” regarding an employment-related contractual dispute arisen between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 19 January 2012, the coach from country B, Coach A (hereinafter: the Claimant/Counter-Respondent or simply: the Claimant) and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent / Counter-Claimant or simply: the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: “the contract”), valid from 20 January 2012 until “the end of country D Super League Season 2014” and according to which the Respondent hired the Claimant as “head coach of Professional team”. 2. The contract stated “If Party B [i.e. the Claimant] don´t complete club´s season objective (make sure ranking top 8, compete for top 6), party A [i.e. the Respondent] is entitled to terminate the contract, unilaterally without any financial compensation”. 3. The contract stipulated that “The salary for Party B [i.e. the Claimant] consists of 2 items. (After tax). The basic salary is 200,000 USD and should be paid monthly in accordance. Bonus of each match: If the team of Party A [i.e. the Respondent] wins the official league match, Party B [i.e. the Claimant] will gain 3,000 USD as win bonus from Party A, when the match result is draw, Party A will get 1,000 USD as draw bonus. The bonus pay monthly”. 4. The contract stated that within the Respondent´s obligations that the Claimant was entitled to receive an apartment, a telephone, “a car for daily usage” as well as a “personal accident insurance”. 5. The contract stated within the coach´s obligations: “2. Party B [i.e. the Claimant] must maintain good professional virtue, be involved in all the training and games with full exertion… 4. Party B has the obligation to attend all the matches, trainings, conferences and other collective activities…”. 6. The contract stipulated that “if Party B [i.e. the Claimant] has any of the following behaviours, party A [i.e. the Respondent] can terminate the contract unilaterally without any financial compensation: 1. Against the law in country D and punished by the judicial administration; 2. Neglecting his obligation, does not fulfil his obligation;…4. Disobeying the agreement of his contract, the regulation of Party A or match rules; 5. Violating the professional virtue or sportsmanship spirit, damaging the benefit or the reputation of Party A, seriously punished by the Football Association from country D of FIFA…”. 7. The contract provided that “if any of the two parties breach this contract, the other party will get 50% salary of the rest period of execution of the Contract as compensation. The case related to article 5 of this Contract is not included here”. 8. On 10 April 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, arguing that he had unilaterally terminated their contractual relationship with just cause due to the Respondent´s failure to respect its contractual obligations. The Claimant requested from the Respondent “complete contracted salaries and all other contracted benefits belonging to the Coach [i.e. the Claimant], totalling to USD 600,000” plus procedural and legal costs. 9. In this respect, the Claimant alleged that “after the first day match that was played”, he had been told orally that “he would remain the Head Coach but only on the paper, whereas in fact he was banned coaching and contacting the team, etc.” but that in spite of the aforementioned “he had continued attending every training and requested to be enabled to implement the Contract, to which the Club [i.e. the Respondent] remained silent”. 10. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that the Respondent had “deprived him of all the contracted rights, such as the use of car and driver, as well as their obligations related to his apartment and insurance” as well as he had been “prevented to perform his duties of a coach, as stipulated in the Contract, although he had violated none of the Contract clauses”. 11. In addition, the Claimant stated that it was the Respondent´s obligation to provide the Claimant with a working permit before the expiry of his visa. However, according to the Claimant, the Respondent did not fulfil such contractual obligation. Moreover, the Claimant added that the Respondent did not pay his salaries and other contractually obligations and that such situation affected his health. Therefore, the Claimant had no other choice than to leave country D. 12. Finally, the Claimant alleged having tried to reach in vain an amicable solution with the Respondent. The Claimant enclosed two letters dated 20 and 30 March 2012 as well as an email dated 5 April 2012 both addressed to the Respondent, in which he had requested his monthly salaries of February and March 2012. 13. On 17 April 2013, the Respondent in its response to the Claimant’s claim rejected it in its entirety and lodged a counterclaim requesting from the Claimant the payment of the total amount of USD 306,000 as compensation due to the alleged “unilateral termination of the contract” by the latter. The Respondent specified that such amount was composed of USD 300,000 as compensation, plus an additional amount of USD 6,000 corresponding to two “penalty decisions”. 14. In this regard, the Respondent alleged that the Claimant was absent from training as from 17 April 2012 afternoon and that he eventually left country D on 19 April 2012. The Respondent enclosed a letter dated 20 April 2012 allegedly sent to the Claimant informing that due to the fact that the Claimant breached the contract, the Respondent´s regulations and quit his job without permission, the Respondent rescinded the contract with the Claimant and reserved its right to pursue his liability for its breach. 15. The Respondent alleged that, after the signature of the contract, upon the Claimant´s request, the Respondent accepted to pay him an advance payment of USD 30,000 corresponding to the salaries of January 2012 and part of February 2012 and offered him to pay the remaining outstanding amount. 16. Moreover, the Respondent alleged that, on 12 April 2012, the Claimant “did a contumelious one-finger action towards to the team translator, which is a seriously action…and seriously infringed the ethic and sportsmanship”. In support of its allegations, the Respondent provided four witness statements [i.e. of Mr U, the translator; Mr V, the assistant coach; Mr W, the team doctor and Mr X, the Russian translator], by means of which they all confirmed the aforementioned. The Respondent further argued that due to the said “action” and based on the Respondent’s regulations, they decided to impose a disciplinary sanction of USD 5,000 to the Claimant. 17. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that, although it had requested the Claimant by letter dated 12 April 2012 to send trainings´ reports in order to improve the team performance, the Claimant did not fulfil such request. The Respondent provided a copy of a decision dated 17 April 2012 stipulating that since the Claimant had “failed to submit the Pre-match Analysis Report and Post-match Review for the league match”, he had therefore “violated the Employment Contract” and was consequently “given a severe disciplinary warning and fined USD 1000 which is taken from his salary of this month…hereby gives him a warning on this matter: if Coach A [i.e. the Claimant] have one more violation of club rules…the club [i.e. the Respondent] will terminate the employment contract…”. 18. With regard to the allegation of the Claimant that “he had been deprived him from his status as a Head Coach”, the Respondent explained that “in each team of the Super league in country D, the reserve team is a part of the club professional team” and thus the Respondent had the right to change the Claimant´s working position. The Respondent provided an employment contract signed between the Respondent and a player, according to which, the Respondent “may at its sole discretion reassign Party B [i.e. the player] to different position between the Senior Team and the Reserves Team of the Club to meet the needs of the Club”. 19. Moreover, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s allegation that it had failed to provide him with accommodation according to the contract and alleged that it had rented an apartment for him but that he had “refused to move in” and that after having found a new apartment for him, the Claimant had “refused to move in again”. In this respect, the Respondent provided a notification dated 6 April 2012, which was allegedly sent to the coach. 20. As to the car, the Respondent argued that it had arranged a vehicle with a driver but the Claimant went to the trainings by taxi as well as personal insurance for him. 21. Finally, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s allegation that it had not provided him the visa and stated that “our staff Mr U, Mr Y and Mr Z asked him to provide his passport on 15, 16, 18 April”, but the Claimant refused without reason. Therefore, the fact that the visa expired was an excuse for the Claimant to leave country D. The Respondent enclosed a statement of the translator Mr U, confirming the aforementioned. 22. On 22 August 2013, the Claimant presented his comments rejecting the Respondent’s allegations and reiterating his previous statements. 23. In particular, the Claimant requested FIFA to reject the Respondent´s counterclaim and further alleged that it was untrue that on 17 and 18 April 2012 the Claimant refused handling his passport to the Respondent´s officials since he was already out of the country. The Claimant enclosed a copy of his passport, which showed that his visa was valid until 24 April 2012 and that on 17 April 2012 he left country D. 24. In addition, the Claimant contested the validity of all the documentary evidence provided by the Respondent since some of them were not translated into one of the official FIFA languages. The Respondent further stated that the Respondent did not prove having sent such documentary evidence to the Claimant.. Besides, the Claimant stated that the Respondent never provided him with a copy of the Respondent´s regulations. 25. The Claimant further challenged the validity of the penalty decisions presented by the Respondent which, according to him, “contain no information on the persons present when they were adopted and what body adopted them” and were “dated the same date as the alleged incident […]”. The Claimant provided two written statements of the Respondent’s former goalkeepers coach and the Respondent’s former player, Mr O and Mr P, respectively, by means of which they both confirmed that at any time the Claimant did any unacceptable gesture to the translator. 26. The Claimant alleged that he had submitted the weekly and daily training reports to the Respondent through the agent Mr Q via email and that the latter forwarded them to the Respondent. 27. In addition, the Claimant emphasised that he was employed as “the head coach of the Club’s [i.e. the Respondent] professional team” and that the contract did not authorise the Respondent to request him to coach the reserve team. According to the Claimant, the Respondent had prevented him from doing his job from 13 March 2012 since the Respondent had appointed Mr R (previous assistant from country D) as its new head coach. The Claimant provided three witness statements [i.e. of Mr O, the goalkeeper’s coach; Mr S, the fitness coach and Mr P, a former player of the Respondent], dated 2 August 2013, by means of which they confirmed the aforementioned allegations. 28. Furthermore, the Claimant contested the Respondent’s allegation that he had refused to move into the apartment and stated that the only flat offered to him by the Respondent was inadequate. Therefore, the Claimant stayed in a hotel owned by the Respondent’s president until 9 April 2012. 29. With regard to the possibility to use a driver to go to the trainings, the Claimant stated that he was deprived from such service since 17 March 2012. The Claimant further explained that, after that date, he was obliged to come to trainings by taxi at his own costs. 30. On 25 November 2013, the Respondent reiterated its previous statements and rejected the allegations of the Claimant. 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 2008, 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 10 April 2012, thus after 1 July 2008 and before 30 November 2012, the Single Judge concluded that the 2008 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, 2012 and 2010 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 with FIFA on 10 April 2012. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2010 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 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he was competent to deal with the present matter since it concerned an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a coach from country B and a club from country D. 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. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. In this respect ant to start with, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: ¨”the contract”) on 19 January 2012, valid from 20 January 2012 until the end of the Super League in country D 2014 which, according to the information provided by the Football Association from country D, ended on 2 November 2014, and under the terms of which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent an annual salary of USD 200,000. 6. The Single Judge further noted that during the course of the investigation, both parties confirmed that the contract stipulated an annual salary of USD 200,000, which would be paid by the Respondent in the amount of USD 20,000 every month. In particular, the Single Judge noted that there were 10 monthly salaries to be paid per year of contract from January until October. 7. In continuation, the Single Judge observed that the Claimant decided to unilaterally terminate the contract with the Respondent and to leave country D on 17 April 2012 invoking just cause and accusing the Respondent of having breached several provisions included in the contract, in particular, having failed to pay his salaries, having prevented him from working as a Head coach of the team, having appointed a new Head coach to replace him and having not renewed his visa. 8. Equally, the Single Judge took note that, in his claim to FIFA, the Claimant had accused the Respondent of having breached the contract without just cause and had therefore requested from the latter the payment of USD 600,000 as outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of the contract as well as legal fees. Moreover and in the same context, the Single Judge remarked that, for its part, the Respondent had insisted that the coach had terminated the contract without just cause by having been absent to one training session, having left country D without formal permission, having breached the Respondent´s regulations. Therefore, the Single Judge took note that the Respondent had decided to lodge a counter-claim against the Claimant for the total amount of USD 306,000, which represented compensation and disciplinary sanctions. 9. In view of all the above, the Single Judge deemed that the first question to be addressed in the present matter was whether the Claimant had terminated his contractual relationship with the Respondent with or without just cause. 10. In this connexion, the Single Judge first of all recalled that the Claimant had rendered his services to the Respondent until 17 April 2012, when he left country D to get back to his country, while the Respondent had failed to comply with its contractual obligations by not paying him, up to that moment, any of the salaries agreed upon in the contract. 11. In continuation, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent prevented the Claimant to perform his duty as the Head Coach of the team as he had been replaced by another new coach, Mr R, on 13 March 2012. 12. In this respect, the Single Judge was keen to emphasise that it was clear from the wording of the contract that the coach was hired as Head Coach of the Professional team and that it remained uncontested by the parties during the investigation that the Respondent appointed a new coach, Mr R, on 13 March 2012. 13. Moreover, the Single Judge remarked that the Respondent did not renew the Claimant’s visa although it was the exclusive responsibility of the employer, i.e. the Respondent, to secure the relevant work permit or visa for its employee, i.e. the Claimant. 14. Equally, The Single Judge noted that the Claimant had sent to the Respondent two different letters dated 20 and 30 March 2012, respectively, as well as one email on 5 April 2012 in order to settle the present matter amicably requesting the fulfilment of its contractual obligations, i.e. the payment of his outstanding salaries. 15. With regard to the disciplinary sanctions imposed on the Claimant for his alleged misbehavior, the Single Judge held that such alleged disciplinary sanctions reproached to the latter could not anyway justify per se a termination of contract without notice. 16. As a consequence of the above and considering that Respondent had seriously failed to comply with its contractual obligations towards the Claimant in a continuous and constant manner, by failing to secure the Claimant’s work permit, by not remunerating the Claimant for three months and by preventing him from performing his duties as the Head Coach of the team, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Claimant had just cause to bring to an end his contractual relationship with the Respondent. 17. On account of all the above, the Single Judge resolved that the Claimant had terminated the contract with just cause on 17 April 2012. 18. Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Single Judge went on to deal with the potential financial consequences of the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant. 19. In doing so and first of all, the Single Judge concurred that the Respondent must fulfill its obligations as per employment contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith. 20. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the contract as well as to the parties, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent an annual salary amounting to USD 200,000 payable in ten installments from January to October of each calendar year, i.e. USD 20,000 per month. 21. Equally, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent did not provide any evidence according to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which would have indicated that it had paid any salaries to the Claimant. 22. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that, when the Claimant terminated the contractual relationship with the Respondent with just cause, i.e. on 17 April 2012, three months of salary were not paid for a total amount of USD 60,000. 23. In view of the above, bearing in mind that the Respondent had not been able to prove to have paid any salaries to the Claimant at the time he left the Respondent, i.e. on 17 April 2012, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent the outstanding remuneration of USD 60,000. 24. In continuation, the Single Judge turned his attention to the Claimant’s request for compensation for breach of contract corresponding to the remaining value of the contract, i.e. 27 monthly salaries for a total amount of USD 540,000. 25. In this respect, the Single Judge referred to the content of the contract and, in particular, to the termination clause which stated that “if any of the two parties breach this contract, the other party will get 50% salary of the rest period of execution of the Contract as compensation”. 26. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of compensation to be paid in case of breach of contract was contractually agreed by the parties in the contract, i.e. 50% of the remaining value of the contract. 27. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Single Judge proceeded to the calculation of the monies payable under the terms of the contract. In this respect, the Single Judge established that the residual value of the contract amounted to USD 540,000, i.e. USD 20,000 x 27 months. 28. Moreover, the Single Judge observed that the Claimant had apparently not worked for any other team within the duration of the contract with the Respondent. 29. In view of the above and in particular considering the duration of the contract as well as the Claimant’s financial claim, the Single Judge concluded that in casu the amount of USD 270,000, i.e. 50% of USD 540,000, had to be considered justified as compensation for breach of contract. 30. In continuation and with regard to the Claimant’s claim related to the reimbursement of an indefinite amount of legal expenses, the Single Judge referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules in accordance with which “no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings of the Players’ Status Committee and the DRC”. Therefore, the Single Judge ruled that the relevant request of the Claimant has to be rejected because it lacked legal basis. 31. In view of all the above, the Single Judge decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim against the Respondent, to reject the counter-claim lodged by the Respondent and held that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant a sum of USD 60,000 as outstanding remuneration as well as the amount of USD 270,000 as compensation for breach of contract. 32. 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 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. 33. 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 600,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 34. Considering that, in the case in hand, the responsibility of the failure to comply with the employment contract 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 CHF 20,000 and held that such costs have to be borne by both parties. 35. In conclusion, the Single Judge decided that the amount of CHF 6,000 has to be paid by the Claimant and the amount of CHF 14,000 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/Counter-Respondent, Coach A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Coach A, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, the following amounts: • USD 60,000 as outstanding salaries and • USD 270,000 as compensation for breach of contract. 3. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Coach A, are rejected. 4. The counter-claim lodged by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club C, is rejected. 5. If the aforementioned sums are 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. 6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 20,000 are to be paid within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 6.1 The amount of CHF 6,000 has to be paid by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Coach A. Given that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent already paid an advance of costs in the amount of CHF 5,000 during the present proceedings, the latter has to pay the remaining amount of CHF 1,000. 6.2 The amount of CHF 14,000 has to be paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club C. 6.3 The aforementioned two amounts have to be paid directly to FIFA, to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 7. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Coach A, is directed to inform the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club C, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under point 2. 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