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 25 April 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club N, from country E 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 the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 April 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club N, from country E as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 18 July 2007, Player A, from country B (hereinafter: the Claimant), and tClub N,f rom country E (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid until 15 July 2009, according to clause 13. 2. According to the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a total remuneration in the amount of USD 1,350,000 for the 2007/08 season, payable as follows: a. USD 270,000 on 15 July 2007; b. USD 270,000 on 2 January 2008; c. USD 270,000 on 30 May 2008; and d. a monthly salary in the amount of USD 49,000 for ten months and a last monthly salary in the amount of USD 50,000, each of them to be paid “on the first weekday of the following month”. 3. On 23 September 2009, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA claiming the aggregate amount of USD 320,000 plus interest as follows: a. USD 270,000 that became due on 30 May 2008; and b. the last monthly salary in the amount of USD 50,000, that, according to the Claimant, became due on 18 June 2008. 4. According to the Claimant, the contract was valid “for the term of eleven months”. In this respect, he held that, even though he fulfilled all his contractual obligations, the club failed to pay the amounts aforementioned. 5. On 16 May 2011, the Respondent submitted its reply, rejecting the Claimant’s claim. 6. In this respect, the Respondent stated that the contract was valid from 18 July 2007 through 17 June 2008 and confirmed that it was valid for eleven months. 7. Furthermore, the Respondent enclosed a copy of a document issued by the Respondent dated 26 June 2007 addressed to the alleged agent of the Claimant, which subject read “Official Offer for the Player A” (hereinafter: the contract offer). The contract offer outlined the salary for the Claimant for the 2007/08 season and regarding the contract period it stated that: - “If the period is Two years, same amount will paid to the player in the 2nd year” - “If the period is One year, Club N entitled to have 7% of the new contract” 8. The Respondent claimed having invited the Claimant in May 2008 to a meeting aimed at renewing his contract for the 2008/09 season. According to the Respondent, the Claimant informed them that he did not intend to renew his contract with the Respondent. The Respondent reported that following this it informed the Claimant that, pursuant to the contract offer, if the contract period was one year, the Respondent was “entitled to have 7% of the new contract”. 9. Further, the Respondent claimed to have summoned the Claimant to try and amicably settle the dispute; however, according to the Respondent, the Claimant, without given written notice to the Respondent, left for Italy where and, according to the website of Club S, from country E (hereinafter: Club S), he officially joined the summer training camp of Club S. The Respondent did not provide the relevant dates. 10. In relation to the Claimant’s joining of Club S, the Respondent contacted the country E Football Association. The country E Football Association replied that the Claimant had been registered with Club S on 14 September 2008 after considering that the contract between the Respondent and the Claimant had come to an end on 18 June 2008. In this respect, the Respondent argued that according to the official circular letter ref. no. 1714 issued by the country E Football Association, the official registration dates for the transfer window were from 18 June 2008 until 10 September 2008. Therefore, the Respondent held that the registration of the Claimant with Club S is not only not approved by the Respondent itself, but also incorrect since it was not completed within the official registration period. 11. In light of the above, the Respondent requested the DRC to dismiss the Claimant’s claim. 12. The Claimant further stated that he was bound by and complied with the contract until 17 June 2008. Thereafter, from 18 June to 26 June 2008, the Claimant claimed that he was unemployed. Then, according to the Claimant, on 27 June 2008, he signed an employment contract with Club S. 13. The Respondent did not submit any comments, even though it was invited to do so. 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 23 September 2009. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 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 B player and a country E club. 3. In continuation, the DRC 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, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of said Regulations (editions 2012, 2010, 2009, and 2008), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 23 September 2009, the 2008 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the 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. 5. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that although the contract stipulates that its term expires on 15 July 2009, the Claimant as well as the Respondent acknowledged that the contract was concluded for an eleven-month term only, i.e. from 18 July 2007 to 17 June 2008 (cf. pints I.4 and I.6). Moreover, the DRC took note that according to the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a total remuneration in the amount of USD 1,350,000 for the 2007/08 season. 6. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent requesting the payment of an overall amount of USD 320,000 plus interest, corresponding to outstanding payments, namely: an installment in the amount of USD 270,000, which became due on 30 May 2008; and the last monthly salary, i.e. USD 50,000, which according to the Claimant became due on 18 June 2008. 7. Subsequently, the Chamber turned its attention to the arguments of the Respondent and noted that the latter is not actually contesting the amounts claimed as outstanding, but simply refuses to pay because the Claimant allegedly breached the contract and did not want to renew the contract for the 2008/09 season. Furthermore, the Chamber observed that the Respondent bases its allegation on the contract offer, pursuant to which if the contract period was one year, the Respondent would be entitled to a 7% share of the Claimant’s new employment contract (cf. point I.7). 8. In view of the contradictory positions of the parties and, in particular, considering the basis of the Respondent’s allegation, the Chamber stressed that first and foremost it had to address whether the contract offer constituted a legally binding employment contract on the basis of which the obligation referred to by the Respondent could be enforced. 9. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that the contract offer does not appear to contain all the “essentialia negotii” of an employment contract, such as the parties to the contract and their role, the duration of their employment relationship as well as the remuneration. In addition, the Chamber observed that the contract offer was signed only by the employer, i.e. the Respondent. 10. Further, the Dispute Resolution Chamber deemed important to highlight that the parties had concluded a valid employment contract on 18 July 2007 but made therein no reference to the contract offer of 26 June 2007. As a consequence, the Chamber concluded that the terms and conditions set out in the contract offer had been in any event superseded by those contained in the employment contract entered by the parties on 18 July 2007. 11. Furthermore, the Dispute Resolution Chamber recalled that according to the legal principle of the burden of proof, any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). 12. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent shall carry the burden of proof as to the payment of the USD 270,000 installment, which became due on 30 May 2008, and the last monthly salary, in the amount of USD 50,000, which according to the Claimant became due on 18 June 2008. 13. In continuation, and notwithstanding the principle of the burden of proof as set out above, the DRC stated that the Respondent does not contest the outstanding amounts claimed by the player. 14. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the Chamber established that the Respondent had failed to pay to the player the USD 270,000 installment and the last monthly salary, in the amount of USD 50,000. As a consequence, the DRC decided that the Respondent, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, is liable to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the total amount of USD 320,000. 15. Taking into account all the above, the DRC judge decided to accept the Claimant’s claim. Consequently, the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 320,000. 16. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 23 September 2009 on the amount granted (cf. point II.15 above). ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club N, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 320,000, plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 23 September 2009 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned number 2 is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent 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