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 23 January 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Jon Newman (USA), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Todd Durbin (USA), member on the claim presented by the player Player K, from country M as Claimant against the club Club A, from country Q as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties.

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 23 January 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Jon Newman (USA), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Todd Durbin (USA), member on the claim presented by the player Player K, from country M as Claimant against the club Club A, from country Q as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 27 September 2007, Player K, from country M (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club A, from country Q (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid from the date of its signature until 31 July 2010 (cf. clause 9 par. 1 of the contract). “Extension to the contract for third year is option for two parties” (cf. clause 9 par. 2 of the contract). 2. The “Football Player’s Contract Schedule” provided for a total amount of EUR 1,050,000, as set out below: “First and second year: - Signing fee: EUR 200,000 - Salary: EUR 150,000 to be paid by 12 monthly salaries for EUR 12,500 per month Third year: - Signing fee: EUR 100,000 signing at the beginning of the season 2009/2010 - Salary: EUR 250,000 to be paid by ten months EUR 25,000 per month.” 3. Clause 9 par. 3 of the contract stipulates that “the First Party has the right to terminate the contract at any time if the Second Party violates the Clubs Rules or country Q Football Association or the country Q Olympic Committee Regulation or for bad performance. In this case the Second Party is entitled for the remaining month(s) of the season”. 4. On 16 August 2009, the Respondent remitted a letter to the Claimant, by means of which it informed him that “We refer to article IX; part 2 of the contract signed between us on 27/09/2007 which states “Extension to the contract for third year is option for two parties”. As we reached the beginning of the third season, we would like to inform you that we have willingly to terminate your contract”. 5. On 15 September 2009, the Claimant lodged a complaint before FIFA claiming that the Respondent had prematurely terminated the contract. In this respect, he made reference to the letter of the Respondent dated 16 August 2009 and, in particular, to the fact that the Respondent terminated the contract with basis on clause 9 par. 2 of the contract. 6. The Claimant held that there would be a contradiction between par. 1 and 2 of clause 9 of the contract. Par. 1 determines a contract period until 31 July 2010, whereas par. 2 stipulates the option to extend the contract for a third year. Consequently, the Claimant stated that it should not be followed par. 2 but par. 1, since the latter would represent the will of the parties. 7. As a consequence, the player claimed the payment of a total amount of EUR 350,000 composing of the remunerations until the end of the contract, i.e. until 31 July 2010. 8. In its statement of defence, the Respondent rejected the player’s claim stating that according to clause 9 of the contract, the parties agreed a period of two years with the option for a third year. Even the “Football Player’s Contract Schedule” would separate the first two years and the third year. Clause 9 par. 2 of the contract has to be understood as an option to extend the contract for a third year; otherwise, this clause would become completely pointless. 9. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that it had informed the Claimant that it did not want to use the option to extend the contract two weeks prior to the end of the second contractual year and underlined having fulfilled all its financial obligations until August 2009. Moreover, according to the Respondent, the Claimant had never expressed his will to extend the contract. 10. With regard to the employment contracts the Claimant had concluded with the country Q and the country T club, the Respondent pointed out that even if the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) should assume a breach of contract by the Respondent, the Claimant would, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the DRC and the Court of Arbitration for Sport, only be entitled to receive the difference between his current remuneration and the remuneration agreed with the Respondent. It had to be considered that the Claimant had terminated his contract with Club B Sport club, and, therefore, did not keep the loss as low as possible. Consequently, “a potential compensation, in any case, should be limited to the following calculation: EUR 350,000 minus USD 140,000 minus the amount earned by the player at Club S concerning the period from January 2010 until 31 July 2010”, so the Respondent. Finally, the Respondent asked to oblige the Claimant to pay all costs of the present proceedings. 11. With regard to his contractual situation, the Claimant informed that on 8 September 2009, he concluded an employment contract with the country Q club, Club B Sport Club, valid from 1 September 2009 until 30 June 2010 for the total remuneration of USD 200,000 payable as follows: - USD 100,000 as signing fee; - USD 100,000 as salary to be paid in instalments of USD 10,000 each between 1 September 2009 and 30 June 2010. On 9 January 2010, the Claimant informed Club B Sport Club that he would terminate the contract. 12. On 21 January 2010, the Claimant and Club S, from country T, concluded an employment agreement valid from the date of its signature until 31 May 2012. Clause 3 of the contract provided for the following payments until 31 July 2010: - EUR 10,000, payable 3 days after the registration of the contract; - EUR 100,000, payable in 5 equal instalments amounting to EUR 20,000 between 1 February and 1 June 2010. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 15 September 2009. Consequently, the edition 2008 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 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 in combination with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2008), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country M player and a country Q club. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2008), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 15 September 2009, the 2008 version of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. It started by acknowledging that the player, in his claim, alleged having signed a three-year contract whereas the Respondent insisted having concluded a two-year contract only. 5. In view of this dissent between the parties in respect of the basic question as to whether a two-year or a three-year contract had been concluded, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the pertinent employment contract and its interpretation. 6. In that regard, the DRC observed that according to clause 9 par. 1 of the pertinent contract, the latter was valid from the date of its signature, i.e. 27 September 2007, until 31 July 2010. However, clause 9 par. 2 of the contract stipulated an option to extend the contract for a third year for which the agreement of both parties was needed. 7. In continuation, the members of the DRC took into account that the Respondent had informed the Claimant in writing on 16 August 2009, i.e. by the end of the second year, that it would not wish to continue their employment relationship. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the parties had not found an agreement to extend the contract. 8. As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that, since the parties did not extend their employment relationship and therefore, no valid contract was existing at the time of the alleged breach of contract, there was no possibility for the Chamber to enter into the question whether or not such alleged employment contract had been breached. 9. All the above led the Dispute Resolution Chamber to conclude that the claim of the player has to be rejected. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber The claim of the Claimant, Player K, is rejected. ***** 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives