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 7 June 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Piat (France), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club S, from country U 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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 7 June 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Piat (France), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club S, from country U as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 15 July 2008, Player A, from country B (hereinafter: player or Claimant) and the Club S, from country U (hereinafter: club or Respondent), signed an employment contract for eleven months, valid as from 15 July 2008 until 15 June “2008”. 2. In accordance with the contract, the player was entitled to receive inter alia the total net amount of USD 2,500,000, to be paid as follows: • “USD 1,250,000 (…) to be paid immediately after the player passes the proper medical tests, in a Bank Account to be provided by the Player”. • “USD 1,250,000 (…) divided as monthly salary, and to be paid in 11 (eleven) consecutive instalments always on the first week of the consecutive months, the first instalment of (US Dollar 113.500.00) One Hundred and Thousand and five Hundred US Dollars net shall be paid on the first week of August 2008, and so on for the next consecutive nine months, and the last instalment of (US Dollar 115.000.00) One Hundred and Fifteen Thousand UD Dollar Net shall be paid on the first week of June/2009”. 3. On 8 June 2011, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA claiming that, upon the expiry of the contract, the club had failed to fully comply with its financial obligations, still owing him his salary payable in the months of April, May and June 2009. 4. In this respect, the player claims that after formally notifying the club of its arrears, the latter in response provided him with a letter dated 21 July 2010 in which it only recognised the final instalment of USD 115,000 as pending. 5. In line with the above-mentioned facts, the player is requesting to be awarded the total amount of USD 343,500 plus 5% interest p.a., expenses and fees: - USD 113,500 corresponding to his salary payable in April 2009; - USD “115,000” corresponding to his salary payable in May 2009; - USD 115,000 corresponding to his salary payable in June 2009. 6. In relation to the statute of limitations contained in art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the player, on 28 June 2011 claimed that i) the event giving rise to the dispute was 21 July 2010 as the player had accepted, upon the club’s request, to “postpone to collect his due payments” or ii) the contract run until 15 June 2009 and “there was a common agreement on postponing the payment of salaries the real deadline was june 15th 2011”. 7. In reply, the club claims to have paid the player all his dues until 15 May 2009, and in order to sustain its position, the club provided several bank account statements which contained the following payments: - 10.09.2008: payment of currency of country U 417,680 approx. USD 113,500 - 29.09.2008: payment of currency of country U 417,680 approx. USD 113,500 - 23.10.2008: payment of currency of country U 417,680 approx. USD 113,500 - 27.12.2008: payment of currency of country U 417,680 approx. USD 113,500 - 21.01.2009: payment of currency of country U 417,680 approx. USD 113,500 - 22.01.2009: payment of currency of country U 417,680 approx. USD 113,500 - 17.02.2009: payment of currency of country U 417,680 approx. USD 113,500 - 04.04.2009: payment of currency of country U 417,680 approx. USD 113,500 - 08.04.2009: payment of currency of country U 417,680 approx. USD 113,500 - 03.05.2009: payment of currency of country U 416,970 approx. USD 112,000 8. Finally, and taking into account that the player lodged his claim in front of FIFA on 8 June 2011, the club states that it is “related to the limitation period set forth in article 25.5 of FIFA Regulation on Status & Transfer of Players”. 9. In his replica, the player claims that by submitting the above-mentioned bank statements, the club is acknowledging that it still owes the player his final salary which was due in June 2009. Moreover, and regarding the club’s alleged payment of the player´s salary for April and May 2009, the player claims that the bank statement presented by the club cannot be held as proof of payment, as its legitimacy cannot be verified. 10. In its final comments, the club presented another list of the payments it had allegedly made to the player. ***** 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 8 June 2011. 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. article 21 par. 2 and par. 3 of the 2008 and 2012 editions 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 par. 2 in combination 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 an country U 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 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012 and 2010), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 8 June 2011, the 2010 edition of said Regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the substance of the matter at hand. 4. In continuation, the members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in the file, and in this respect, in view of the circumstances of the present matter, had to focus first of all on the question whether or not the player´s claim against the club might be barred by the statute of limitations in application of art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations. 5. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that on 15 July 2008, the parties signed an employment contract for eleven months, valid as from 15 July 2008 until 15 June “2008”, according to which the player was entitled inter alia to “USD 1,250,000 (…) divided as monthly salary, and to be paid in 11 (eleven) consecutive instalments always on the first week of the consecutive months, the first instalment of (US Dollar 113.500.00) One Hundred and Thousand and five Hundred US Dollars net shall be paid on the first week of August 2008, and so on for the next consecutive nine months, and the last instalment of (US Dollar 115.000.00) One Hundred and Fifteen Thousand UD Dollar Net shall be paid on the first week of June/2009”. 6. In continuation, the Chamber recalled the contents of the Claimant´s claim, who alleged that his salaries for April, May and June 2009 remained unpaid. 7. Having established the above, the Chamber unanimously stated that first and foremost, it was crucial to clarify the date of submission of the formal petition to FIFA, in order to establish whether the claim was brought to FIFA in due time. In this context, the Chamber highlighted art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations, which, in completion to the general procedural terms outlined in the Procedural Rules, clearly establishes that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute and that the application of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in each individual case. 8. In this context, the Chamber noted that the Claimant was requesting the salaries of April, May and June 2009. However, following the terms of the employment contract, the Chamber acknowledged that there was no salary payable for the month of June 2009. More specifically, the Chamber outlined that the Claimant was entitled to 11 salary payments, the first one falling due in the first week of August 2008 and the last payment falling due in the first week of June 2009. Therefore, a detailed breakdown of the salary payments would look as follows: Salary for the month of: Payment falls due the latest on: July 2008 7 August 2008 August 2008 7 September 2008 September 2008 7 October 2008 October 2008 7 November 2008 November 2008 7 December 2008 December 2008 7 January 2009 January 2009 7 February 2009 February 2009 7 March 2009 March 2009 7 April 2009 April 2009 7 May 2009 May 2009 7 June 2009 9. In this context, the Chamber highlighted that, thus, the facts giving rise to the dispute in casu were the alleged non-payments by the Respondent of the Claimant’s salary for the months of March, April and May 2009 which were payable in April, May and June 2009 respectively, and that according to the wording of the employment contract, these payments were due always on the first week of each consecutive month. 10. Moreover, the Chamber was eager to underline that the contract clearly stipulated that the first instalment was to be paid in the first week of August 2008, whilst the last instalment was to be paid in the first week of June 2009; this is, for the month of March 2009, the salary fell due at the latest on 7 April 2009, for the month of April 2009, the salary fell due at the latest on 7 May 2009 and for the month of May 2009, the salary fell due at the latest on 7 June 2009. 11. After a thorough examination of the Claimant´s submission as well as acknowledging the facts giving rise to the dispute, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant lodged his claim against the Respondent on 8 June 2011 only. Therefore, the Chamber came to the conclusion that at the moment the Claimant lodged his claim with FIFA, more than two years had elapsed since the due dates of the salaries of March, April and May 2009. 12. What is more, in relation to the statements of the Claimant submitted on 28 June 2011, the Chamber considered that the document dated 21 July 2010 did not replace the terms of the employment contract. Equally, the Chamber considered that the expiration date of the contract is not the relevant date to consider as the event giving rise to the dispute, but rather the dates on which the relevant payments fell due. 13. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber had to decide that it was not in a position to hear the case at hand, since the respective claim is barred by the statute of limitations in application of art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is inadmissible. ***** 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