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” against the club Club C, from county D 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 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” against the club Club C, from county D as “Respondent” regarding an employment-related contractual dispute arisen between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. According to the allegations of the coach from country B, Coach A (hereinafter: “the Claimant”), on 28 or on 29 January 2012, the latter and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: “the Respondent”) allegedly concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: “the contract”), valid until “the end of the 2014 season” and according to which he was hired as an assistant coach. 2. Pursuant to the contract, the coach was allegedly entitled to receive a monthly salary of USD 6,000 plus “bonuses, apartment rental fees, etc.”. 3. On 10 April 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, arguing that the latter had unilaterally terminated their contractual relationship without just cause. 4. First of all, the Claimant alleged that, although he had “performed his contractual obligations”, the Respondent had failed to hand him over a copy of the contract. 5. In this context and in order to provide evidence about his contractual relationship with the Respondent, the Claimant provided a document entitled “Notification” (hereinafter: “the notification”) issued by the Respondent on 3 April 2012, which stipulated, inter alia, that the Respondent had “issued Decision of Penalty on Coach A (Assistant Coach of Professional Team) on April 1st, 2012” as well as that the Claimant “should square your [i.e. his] salary and hand over your [i.e. his] work before April 6th, 2012 and complete the relevant separation procedures therewith”. 6. In view of the above, the Claimant deemed that the “necessity of a separation procedure” as mentioned in the notification “means there was a bond between the Club [i.e. the Respondent] and the Coach [i.e. the Claimant] at that moment” and that “by this document [i.e. the notification] officially produced by the Club, the Club confirms existence of the Agreement” [i.e. the contract]. 7. Furthermore, the Claimant alleged that “the Club [i.e. the Respondent] notified my client [i.e. the Claimant] they he was not honouring his contractual obligation, in particular, that he did not start coaching the Team B, as allegedly orally told to do, that he thereby committed a grave violation of his duties, wherefore he was ordered by 6 April 2012 to settle his salaries and to hand the his duties over” and 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” and further pointed out that the Respondent had “deprived him of all the contracted rights and never paid to him any money”. 8. In this respect, the Claimant further alleged that the Respondent had “with no reason and explanation deprived him of his status of the Assistant Coach, (…) aimed to forcing him to request termination of the Contract”. 9. In addition, the Claimant stated that according to the contract, “the Club [i.e. the Respondent] was to provide him with the Permit of Stay till 2014, which the Club has not done” and further emphasised that he has a “Permit of Stay valid till 24 April 2012, which means that the Club [i.e. the Respondent] is waiting for Coach A [i.e. the Claimant] to be forced to leave county D by that date” 10. Finally, the Claimant alleged having tried to reach an amicable solution with the Respondent, but that the latter had failed to respond. In support of his allegations, the Claimant provided a letter dated 30 March 2012 and addressed to the Respondent confirming the aforementioned. 11. Consequently, and in view of the previously mentioned, the Claimant was of the opinion that it is “obvious that the Club [i.e. the Respondent] by their acting, and with no written traces of it, is trying to unilaterally terminate the Contract and, in doing that, to avoid paying the compensations resulting from their such acting”. 12. On account of the above, the Claimant deemed that he had “violated none of his contractual obligations, and that none of the reasons for a sport-justified termination of the Contract has occurred” and that, therefore, “because of this very intolerable acting by the Club [i.e. the Respondent]”, the latter had breached the contract without just cause and, consequently, he claimed from the Respondent a compensation for breach of contract corresponding to the remaining value of the contract in the amount of USD 216,000. 13. In this context, the Claimant explained that the claimed amount of USD 216,000 “makes the total value of the Contract as resulting from the contracted basic salary that the Club [i.e. the Respondent] should have paid to its Assistant Coach [i.e. the Claimant] till the end of the year 2014”. 14. Consequently, the Claimant requested from the Respondent a “payment of complete contracted salaries and all other contracted benefits belonging to the Assistant Coach [i.e. the Claimant], totalling to USD 216,000”. 15. On 17 April 2013, the Respondent, in its response to the Claimant’s demand, rejected it in its entirety. The Respondent alleged that it had not signed any employment contract with the Claimant. 16. Moreover, the Respondent argued that it had only signed an employment contract with the Claimant’s father and alleged that the Claimant had come to the city of Club C with his father “without notice our club”. 17. The Respondent further stated that the Claimant’s father had “requested our club [i.e. the Respondent] to employ his son Coach A [i.e. the Claimant] as the team’s assist coach, but our club refused his request” and that afterwards, since the Claimant’s father had “requested one more time, to keep his son as his private assist which can help his son to live in the city of Club C”, it had “agreed his request, therefore, Coach A [i.e. the Claimant] as the coach’s [i.e. the Claimant’s father] private assist to live in the city of Club C” but also stated that “about the salary issue, our club also did not agree with his explain”. 18. On account of the above, the Respondent emphasised that it “did not sign the contract with him [i.e. the coach]” and consequently requested FIFA to reject the claim lodged against it by 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 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. 5. First and foremost, the Single Judge took note that the first question to be addressed in the present dispute was whether an employment relationship existed between the Claimant and the Respondent. 6. In this regard, the Single Judge observed that, on the one hand, the Claimant alleged that the contract was concluded with the Respondent but the latter failed to provide him with a copy of such contract, whereas, on the other hand, the Respondent maintained that it never concluded any employment contract whatsoever with the Claimant. 7. In this context, the Single Judge referred to the legal principle of the burden of proof, which is a basic principle in every legal system, according to which a party deriving a right from an asserted fact has the obligation to prove the relevant fact (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). 8. Equally, the Single Judge was eager to emphasise that under the general principle of law essentialia negotii, a contract is reputed legally binding and effective if certain minimum essential contractual conditions are met. 9. In continuation, the Single Judge pointed out that, in casu, the Claimant had not provided such evidence and that the essential elements of a contract had not been demonstrated by the latter. Therefore, in the absence of a contract containing the essential elements required to establish a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent, the Single Judge concluded that it is impossible to establish with certainty that a binding contractual relationship existed between the parties. 10. The Single Judge then continued its deliberation by stating that the notification issued by the Respondent is not sufficient to determine that a contractual relationship existed between the Claimant and the Respondent. 11. In view of the above, the Single Judge concluded that no contractual obligation can be established between the parties and that, therefore, the Claimant is not entitled to any financial compensation from the Respondent. 12. In conclusion, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is rejected as such claim lacks legal basis. 13. Lastly, 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 costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. 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. 14. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is rejected. Therefore, Single Judge concluded that the Claimant has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 15. According to Annex 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 216,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 16. 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 7,000. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players´ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Coach A, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 7,000 are to be paid within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, by the Claimant, Coach A. Given that the Claimant already paid an advance of costs in the amount of CHF 4,000 during the present proceedings, the latter has to pay the remaining amount of CHF 3,000 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 ***** 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