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 the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 January 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Todd Durbin (USA), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the club, Club P, from country F as Claimant against the player, Player M, from country B as Respondent 1 and the club, Club O, from country S as Respondent 2 regarding an employment-related dispute 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 the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 January 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Todd Durbin (USA), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the club, Club P, from country F as Claimant against the player, Player M, from country B as Respondent 1 and the club, Club O, from country S as Respondent 2 regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 27 July 2009, Club P, from country F (hereinafter: the Claimant), lodged a claim against Player M, from country B (hereinafter: the player or Respondent 1) for breach of contract, as well as against Club O, from country S (hereinafter: Club O or Respondent 2), which should be held jointly liable for the amount of EUR 20,000 as a “transfer fee” plus interest as well as legal fees in the amount of EUR 6,600. 2. In this respect, the Claimant argued that on 24 July 2009, it allegedly concluded an employment contract over the phone with the Respondent 1, valid “until the end of the season 2009”. 3. According to the Claimant, the Respondent 1 was to receive an alleged total salary of EUR 6,000 for 2.5 months, accommodation as well as a flight ticket. 4. Furthermore, the Claimant provided an e-mail exchange between the player and its club manager dated 26 and 27 July 2009, from which it can be noted, inter alia, that the club states that “an oral contract is juridically the same as written contract. I wish that you respect me and Mr A and follow the contract we did [...]”. The player replied to such e-mail and he stated that “If it goes in that way that I do not come to play to your club, I pay the flight ticket that you bought”. 5. Moreover, the Claimant refers to the country F Employment Contracts Act from 2001, and in particular to its chapter 1, section 3, which provides that “An employment contract may be oral, written or electronic.” 6. The Claimant also emphasises that the amount of compensation claimed corresponds to an estimate of the costs in order to acquire a new player of the same level as the player. In this respect, the Claimant states that it acquired the player O to whom it paid the total amount of EUR 1,222.22 as salary plus flight tickets for EUR 2,424.27. Moreover, there was a damage caused to the Claimant, since the transfer window was open only for a short period (from 1 until 31 August), and so it was very difficult for the Claimant to acquire a new player to replace the player during this period. 7. Finally, the Claimant considers that since the player had entered into a new employment contract with Club O while he was still bound by an oral contract with it, it would have been entitled to a “transfer fee” from the player’s new club. 8. In the player’s reply to the claim, he explains that he was in contact with the Claimant’s manager over the phone and was happy that the Claimant would offer him a salary of EUR 6,000 for the rest of the season 2009, however, that if there was any other offer from another club he would be free to sign. Therefore, the player also negotiated with other clubs. The player allegedly told the Claimant’s manager that he could buy a flight ticket for him so that they could negotiate about a possible agreement in country F and to be able to meet his friend, the club’s head coach. After that, the player sent an e-mail on 27 July 2009 to the Claimant, informing it that he would not come to country F and that he would reimburse them the flight ticket. 9. In addition, the player argues that he does not understand why the Claimant is claiming for a transfer fee against him and Club O, since the latter club has nothing to do with the present matter. 10. Furthermore, the player states that since April 2011 he played in country F for the Club K and was trying to find an amicable settlement with the Claimant, however, the Claimant went to the media and talked badly about the player. In order to find an amicable settlement, the player states that he signed an employment contract with the Claimant on 17 August 2011 valid until 22 October 2011 and allegedly agreed with the latter that it would withdraw its claim and that if the club gets promoted to the first division, it would also withdraw its claim against Club O. In this respect, the player provided a copy of the signed employment contract dated 17 August 2011 signed with the Claimant, which provides in its clause B) art. 7: “Other: With this contract all the possible compensations ruled to be paid by Player M to Club P, are eliminated and he does not have to pay them. If Club P shall rise to [highest league in country F], the case in FIFA shall be withdrawn alltogether”. 11. In Club O’s reply to the claim, Club O states that the player did not mention anything about an oral agreement at the time it signed an employment contract with the latter. Only on 30 July 2009, it received a fax from the Claimant, where the latter claimed to have an oral agreement with the player and demanded the amount of EUR 20,000. After it asked the player if it was true, the player declined that there was an oral agreement between him and the Claimant. 12. In its replica, the Claimant maintains its position and emphasises that it would not have bought a flight ticket if a contract was not concluded with the player. Regarding clause B) art. 7 of the contract dated 17 August 2011, the Claimant states that this clause meant that it “has not agreed to drop the case in FIFA concerning Player M, only that if Player M is ruled to pay something, Club P will not demand the payments from Player M. Moreover, regarding Club O, OPS states that it has not been promoted to highest league in country F and thus the clause does not apply”. 13. In its final position, Club O maintained its previous position. 14. In his final position, the player maintains his position and states that the Claimant still owes him money from the season 2011 which shows its bad faith. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as the Chamber or the DRC) analysed which Procedural Rules were applicable to the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 27 July 2009. 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 at hand (cf. article 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 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010, 2009 and 2008), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to adjudicate on an employment related dispute between a country F club, a country B player and a country S club. 3. In continuation, the Chamber analysed which regulations were 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 (editions 2010, 2009 and 2008), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 27 July 2009, the 2008 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this regard, the members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts and documentation contained in the file. 5. In this respect, the Chamber took due note that, on the one hand, the Claimant is of the firm opinion that it concluded an employment contract with the player valid for the period of 24 July 2009 until the end of the season 2009. Furthermore, the DRC took note that the Claimant insists that the aforementioned contract was concluded orally over the phone. Consequently of the aforementioned, the Claimant is convinced that the player breached the allegedly existing employment contract and Club O induced the player to breach said contract. Therefore, the Claimant demands from the Respondent 1 the amount of EUR 20,000 as a “transfer fee” plus interest, which corresponds to the estimated transfer value of the player and the latter’s substitution costs as well as legal fees in the amount of EUR 6,600 and requests that the Respondent 2 shall be held jointly liable. 6. On the other hand, the members of the DRC acknowledged that the Respondent 1 is, in particular, convinced that although he was in contact with the Claimant for a possible conclusion of an employment contract, he did not conclude any professional contract with the Claimant on 24 July 2009. Furthermore, the Chamber took note that the player affirms that he sent an e-mail on 27 July 2009 to the Claimant, informing the latter that he would not come to country F to play for it, but that he would reimburse the costs of the flight ticket. 7. Finally, the members of the Chamber took note that the Respondent 2 is of the opinion that the player was free to sign an employment contract with it, since it was not informed by the player that an oral agreement existed at the time it signed an employment contract with him and after confronting the player with said statement the latter denied it. 8. In consideration of these positions, the members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber continued their deliberations by analysing the question as to whether any binding contract existed between the Claimant and the Respondent 1. 9. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that it was uncontested by the parties that they never signed a written employment contract on 24 July 2009 valid until the end of the season 2009, but that they merely had an e-mail exchange referring to an oral contract. 10. In continuation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber deemed important to highlight that in accordance with its well established jurisprudence, in order to establish the existence of a binding contract between a professional player and a club, the party alleging the existence of such contract must at least prove what where the essentialia negotii agreed upon between the parties to the alleged contract (cf. the legal principle of the burden of proof of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). These essentialia negotii are, apart from the signature of both the employer and the employee, the denomination of parties to the contract and their respective obligations as well as the duration of their employment relationship. 11. In this regard, the Chamber considered that the Claimant did not present any documentary evidence corroborating what would have been the essentialia negotii of the alleged contract concluded between the parties. Consequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber had no other alternative than to conclude that no binding contract existed between the Claimant and the Respondent 1 for the season 2009. 12. Equally, the DRC considered that the Respondent 1 did not commit breach of a contract and the Respondent 2 did not induce the Respondent 1 to such breach, since there did not exist any contractual relation between the Claimant and the Respondent 1. 13. Finally, the Chamber turned to the player’s position and noted that he provided a copy of an e-mail sent to the Claimant on 27 July 2009, informing the latter that he would not come to country F, however, that he is willing to reimburse the costs of the flight ticket bought by the Claimant. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Claimant provided in its position a receipt of a flight ticket for a flight from a place in country F to another place in country F for 28 July 2009 in the amount of EUR 185.21. 14. In this respect, the Chamber decided that in accordance with the player’s position from which it can be noted that he is willing to reimburse the Claimant with the costs of the flight ticket and based on the documentary evidence provided by the Claimant, the Respondent 1 has to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 185.21 as reimbursement for the flight ticket. 15. Moreover, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s claim pertaining to legal costs in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence in this regard. 16. In view of all the considerations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim in the amount of EUR 185.21 for the reimbursement of the flight ticket. 17. The Chamber concluded its deliberations by deciding that any further claims of the Claimant are rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club P, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent 1, Player M, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 185.21 as reimbursement of a flight ticket, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the above-mentioned deadline, interest at the rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiry of the stipulated time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claim filed by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The Claimant, Club P, is directed to inform the Respondent 1, Player M, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives