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 (DRC) passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 January 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Todd Durbin (USA), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Jon Newman (USA), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member on the claim presented by the player, Player D, from country G as Claimant against the club, Club A, from country S as Respondent 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 (DRC) passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 January 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Todd Durbin (USA), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Jon Newman (USA), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member on the claim presented by the player, Player D, from country G as Claimant against the club, Club A, from country S as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. Player D, from country G (hereinafter: player or Claimant), and Club A, from country S (hereinafter: club or Respondent), signed an employment contract, valid during 30 months, as of 1 February 2009 until 1 August 2011 (hereinafter: contract). 2. In accordance with the contract, the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, the monthly salary of USD 7,333. 3. On 10 May 2010, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA alleging that out of the total amount of USD 219,990 he was entitled to, the club only paid the sum of USD 36,000. 4. The player explained that two months after the start of the contract, the club told him that he was not allowed to play in country S due to a previous trip he had made to country I for a trial. Hence, according to the player, the club decided to send him back to country G, leaving country S on 19 April 2009. 5. Moreover, according to the player, before he left country S on 19 April 2009 and so as to be ‘’released’’ by the club, he was coerced into signing a document stating that he had received from Club A all the remuneration he was entitled to. 6. The player alleged that every time he had an opportunity to play for another club, Club A requested a transfer compensation of USD 100,000. Furthermore, the player sustained that he had an offer from Club Y, country M, which he could not honour due to the way he was treated by the club. 7. Therefore, the player asked that the club be declared in breach of contract and be ordered to pay the total amount of USD 300,000, which was detailed as follows: • Remainder of the contract USD 183,000 • Potential contract with Club Y USD 42,000 • Denied bonuses and interests on borrowed funds and unemployment hardships USD 75,000 8. Finally, the player alleged that, although after having had the opportunity to do so, he did not enter into any new labour relationship with any club after leaving the country S club due to Club A’s financial demands. 9. In reply to the claim, the club submitted that the player’s statements regarding the alleged coercion into signing the aforementioned document do not fit the status of the club as being a professional club and asked that the file be closed. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as 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 10 May 2010. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are 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 conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), 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 G player and a country S 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 (editions 2012, 2010 and 2009), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 4 May 2010, the 2009 edition 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. The members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case, as well as the documentation contained in the file. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the parties had signed an employment contract valid as from 1 February 2009 until 1 August 2011, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive, inter alia, the monthly salary of USD 7,333. 5. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant signed a document containing a declaration (hereinafter: waiver) in accordance with which the player admitted having received all his dues and entitlements from the club (cf. point I./5. above). 6. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Claimant alleged that the waiver was signed by him, prior to his departure from country S on 19 April 2009, under pressure from the club and in order to be ‘’released’’ by the latter. Whereas, on the other hand, the Respondent is of the firm opinion that the waiver was signed by the player without any type of coercion whatsoever and, consequently, rejects the claim lodged against it. 7. In this regard, referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof, the DRC took into account that the player failed to present documentary evidence in support of his allegation that he had been coerced, by the Respondent, into signing the above-mentioned waiver. Consequently, the DRC decided that the Claimant’s allegations in this regard cannot be accepted. 8. In the light of all of the above, and in particular bearing in mind the fact that the Claimant signed the aforementioned waiver, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that it must reject the claim put forward by the Claimant. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber The claim of the Claimant, Player D, 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: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl.: CAS directives