F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of theDispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 December 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Philippe Diallo (France), member on the claim presented by the player Player A, country B as Claimant against the club Club C, country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties Player A,

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of theDispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 December 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Philippe Diallo (France), member on the claim presented by the player Player A, country B as Claimant against the club Club C, country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties Player A, I. Facts of the case 1. On 16 July 2007, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 1 July 2007 until 30 June 2009. 2. Clause 2 of the contract provided for a monthly remuneration of EUR 74,294 net amounting to a total of EUR 891,528 per season. 3. On the same day, the parties signed an “amendment to the employment contract” (hereinafter: the amendment), according to which “the wages salaries established on the labour contract were calculated taking into account that was agreed the following net amounts: Season 2007/2008: EUR 600,000 […], for the whole season; Season 2008/2009: EUR 600,000 […], for the whole season. As a consequence of the agreement established in the previous number, [the Respondent] will pay the necessary taxes in order to guarantee the amounts foreseen, also in case of changing the taxation system” (cf. clause 2 of the amendment). 4. On 3 June 2008, the parties agreed to terminate their employment relationship with immediate effect by signing the “agreement for rescission of contract” (hereinafter: the termination agreement). Pursuant to clause 2 of said agreement, the Claimant was entitled to receive a global compensation in the amount of EUR 58,776.90 net to be paid on 5 July 2008. 5. Clause 3 of the termination agreement stipulates that “the above mentioned compensation includes all labour credits and bonuses of the player due and establishes on the contract that was signed and its now rescinded as well as all the amendments and agreements related with the mentioned contracts. Therefore, the player herewith declares that, with the payment of the compensation established on the previous clause, he does not have any other amount to receive or to claim”. 6. On 26 June 2012, the Claimant lodged a complaint before FIFA claiming that the Respondent has not fulfilled its contractual obligations. In particular, the Claimant requests the amount of EUR 80,906.55 from the Respondent pursuant to the contract and the amendment, which oblige the Respondent to pay the mandatory taxes in order to guarantee the net remuneration. 7. In his arguments, the Claimant stated that his and the Respondent’s representative had explicitly confirmed in writing that any mandatory taxes regarding the remuneration of the Claimant have to be paid by the Respondent. Equally, the Claimant underlined that the parties had agreed in the contract that all tax payments to the country D tax authorities should be made by the Respondent. According to the Claimant, the Respondent was not only obliged to pay any and all mandatory taxes in connection with the employment contract, it even guaranteed the net remuneration (cf. clause 2 of the amendment). 8. On 8 February 2012, the Claimant apparently received a “tax assessment notice from the country B tax authority” requesting him to pay the sum of EUR 83,228.55 until 27 February 2012 to the country D tax authorities in connection with payments received from the Respondent for his registration period between 1 July 2007 and 30 June 2008. After the country B tax authorities had allegedly announced enforcement measures regarding the amount of EUR 80,906.55, the Claimant decided to pay said amount in order to avoid further damage for any party involved. 9. The Claimant further indicated that since he allegedly became aware of the matter only on 8 February 2012, the present matter is not be time-barred. 10. The Claimant concluded that the Respondent must pay the taxes even if the contract has expired in the meantime, since the tax payments clearly refer to the time the Claimant was registered for the Respondent. In addition, the Claimant highlighted that he has only partially settled the tax payments and therefore claims the reimbursement of the amount of EUR 80,906.55 and requests that the Respondent shall be obliged to indemnify and/or reimburse the Claimant with respect to any and all legally undisputed tax-related payments or claims for such payments in the future. 11. In its reply, the Respondent rejected the claim and affirmed that it does not have any debt towards the Claimant. In this regard, it explained that in accordance with the termination agreement concluded by the parties it had agreed to pay a global compensation of EUR 58,776.90 to the Claimant and that the latter would not be entitled to receive or claim any other amount. 12. Finally, the Respondent added that the only reason why it had agreed to terminate the contract “was the fact that the Player would not claim any other amounts from Club C, beyond the established in the termination agreement”. 13. In his replica, the Claimant underlined that the compensation agreed in the termination agreement was not to cover the tax debts, since he had not been and could not be aware of any tax debts when the termination agreement had been signed, since it was common procedure between the parties that any tax payments in relation to the Claimant had to be made directly by the Respondent, and, secondly, clause 3 of the termination agreement only includes debts between the Respondent and the Claimant, but not between the Respondent and the country D tax authorities. 14. In its final position, the Respondent maintained its previous position stating that the Claimant at least should have been aware that a tax related issue for the years 2007 and 2008 would be opened as it is common in all EU countries that the taxes are calculated at the end of the fiscal year. Finally, according to the Respondent, the Claimant’s claim is time-barred as the termination agreement was signed on 3 June 2008 and the taxes “were charged to the player […] on 2008 and 2009”. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter referred to as the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 26 June 2012. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter in hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012; hereinafter: the Regulations), the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on employment-related disputes between a club and a player that have an international dimension. 3. In this context, however, the Chamber was eager to point out that the Claimant is requesting the reimbursement of the amount of EUR 80,906.55 in front of FIFA based on a “tax assessment notice from the country B tax authority” he received on 8 February 2012 requesting him to pay the amount of EUR 83,228.55 to the country D tax authorities in connection with payments received from the Respondent between July 2007 and June 2008. 4. In view of the above, the Chamber started their analysis of the present matter by closely examining the Claimant’s request in front of FIFA in order to determine whether the present matter was to be considered as an employment-related dispute in light of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations. 5. In this regard, the DRC first of all recalled that the parties had concluded an employment contract on 16 July 2007 valid as from 1 July 2007 until 30 June 2009 as well as an amendment, according to which “(…) As a consequence of the agreement established in the previous number, [the Respondent] will pay the necessary taxes in order to guarantee the amounts foreseen, also in case of changing the taxation system”. 6. In continuation, the Chamber acknowledged that the parties terminated their employment relationship on 3 June 2008 with the conclusion of a termination agreement, according to which “(…) the player herewith declares that, with the payment of the compensation established on the previous clause, he does not have any other amount to receive or to claim”. 7. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber took into account that the Claimant received the “tax assessment notice” from the country B tax authority on 8 February 2012, i.e. long after the employment relationship was terminated by and between the parties on 3 June 2008. 8. In view of the above, the DRC established that the issue at stake in the present matter is the impact of the termination agreement signed by and between the parties towards the national tax authorities, and that, as such, the dispute cannot be considered as an employment-related dispute between a player and a club in the sense of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations. In other words, the present dispute did not concern the relation between the two parties, i.e. between the Claimant and Respondent, but more the relation between the parties and the national tax authorities. 9. In this context, the Chamber wished to emphasise that any objections with respect to the payment of the relevant amounts to the tax authorities should have been raised with said tax authorities. Indeed, the DRC established that, as a general rule, FIFA is not competent to decide upon matters of tax law, but that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the competent national tax authority. 10. In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the competence of FIFA has to be rejected and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is not competent to hear the present matter as to its substance. 11. The DRC concluded its deliberations by establishing that the claim of the Claimant is not admissible. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is not admissible. ***** 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives