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 15 March 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Carlos Soto (Chile), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Zola Majavu (South Africa), member on the claim presented by the player, Player C, from country A, as Claimant against the club, Club B, from country G, 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 15 March 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Carlos Soto (Chile), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Zola Majavu (South Africa), member on the claim presented by the player, Player C, from country A, as Claimant against the club, Club B, from country G, as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 2 July 2009, Player C, from country A (hereinafter: player or Claimant), and the Club B, from country G (hereinafter: club or Respondent), signed an employment contract valid as from the date of signature of the contract until 30 June 2010 (hereinafter: contract). 2. According to the contract, the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, for the 2009/10 season the following amounts/benefits: • Minimum wages (12 instalments x EUR 908.50 payable at the end of each month plus EUR 908.50 as Christmas bonus and EUR 454.25 as holiday bonus) EUR 12,264.75 • Advance payment (payable until 2 July 2009) EUR 63,450 • Remuneration as from July 2009 to June 2010 (4 instalments of EUR 43,554.06 each payable on or before 1 August/October/December 2009 and 1 March 2010 respectively) EUR 174,216.24 • Performance bonus, if the player participates in 60% of the club’s official matches (i.e. more than 25 min.) EUR 30,000 • Bonus if the club wins the country G Championship EUR 50,000 • Three bonuses, if the club qualifies for: a) Champions League EUR 50,000 b) UEFA Cup EUR 30,000 c) Country G Cup EUR 30,000 • A furnished apartment • One air ticket for the player and his family (country G - country A - country G) 3. On 31 August 2010, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA maintaining that, after several warnings, the club failed to pay the following amounts (totalling EUR 108,000): a) EUR 15,000 corresponding to player’s remuneration for the 2009/2010 season; b) EUR 30,000 corresponding to player’s participation in 60% of the club’s official matches; c) EUR 30,000 corresponding to the qualification of the club for the UEFA Cup; d) EUR 23,000 corresponding to team bonuses (hereinafter: team bonuses); e) EUR 10,000 corresponding to the acquisition of furniture for the accommodation provided by the club. 4. Therefore, the player asked that the club be ordered to pay the total amount of EUR 108,000, plus 5% interest as of the date on which the payments fell due. 5. In its response to the claim, the club confirmed that the amount of EUR 60,000 corresponding to items 3.b) and 3.c) above was, in fact, still outstanding. 6. Moreover, the club alleged that the amount of EUR 15,000 corresponding to the remuneration requested by the player was not outstanding and that the Claimant failed to calculate some expenses that, following his request, were paid on his behalf by the club. 7. Furthermore, the club stated that the player was entitled to receive additional bonuses as per the internal regulations of the club. However, regarding the sum of EUR 23,000 requested by the player as a bonus (cf. point I./3.d above), the club asserted that the figure was incorrect and that the player was entitled to the amount of EUR 12,284.28 instead. Nonetheless, the club alleged that said bonuses were already paid. 8. With respect to the amount of EUR 10,000 claimed by the player as furniture expenses, the club alleged that the player was not authorized to acquire additional furniture and that he failed to provide any evidence, hence, according to the club, said part of the claim should be rejected. 9. Finally, the club argued that, apart from the outstanding bonuses amounting to EUR 60,000 (cf. point I./5. above), the total amount the player was entitled to receive corresponds to EUR 212,284.28. In this respect, the club alleged to have made payments to the player in the amount of EUR 214,292.06. Therefore, according to the club, the total sum still outstanding amounts to EUR 57,992.22, i.e. EUR 60,000 minus EUR 2,007.78 which were allegedly paid to the player in excess of his receivables. 10. In his replica, the player contested the club’s arguments related to the payments maintaining that, as shown in the balance sheet presented by the club, the latter debited from the player’s account sums amounting to EUR 6,929.14 related to expenses such as petrol, insurance, ``DEH’’ and ``TDA 68’’. Moreover, the sum of EUR 13,303.15 corresponding to air tickets to which the player was allegedly entitled under the contract was accounted in the balance sheet as a credit and, therefore, included in the amount of EUR 214,292.06. 11. Therefore, according to the player, the sum of EUR 6,929.14 would need to be deducted from the amount of EUR 214,292.06 and the result, i.e. EUR 207,362, subtracted from the total amount that the player was entitled to receive under the contract, i.e., according to the player, EUR 320,903.15, which includes EUR 200,000 as total remuneration for the 2009/10 season, EUR 37,600 as total team bonuses, EUR 13,303.15 as air tickets, EUR 30,000 corresponding to player’s participation in 60% of the club’s official matches, EUR 30,000 corresponding to the qualification of the club for the UEFA Cup and EUR 10,000 corresponding to the acquisition of furniture for the accommodation provided by the club. Hence, the player sustained that, following the logic and reasoning of the club, the total outstanding amount would correspond to EUR 113,541.15. 12. Finally, the player submitted two declarations, from two members of the club’s team during the 2009-2010 season, in accordance with which the club had an outstanding debt with them, of EUR 22,000 and EUR 19,000 respectively, related to team bonuses. Moreover, the player presented a third declaration from a player who asserted that the club provided him with an apartment, which was not entirely furnished and that he was authorized by the club to buy the necessary furniture for it, which would be reimbursed by the club at a later stage. This player explained that the Claimant joined the club when he had just terminated his labour relation with the club. In this context, the club allegedly requested the Claimant to settle the debt of EUR 10,000 that the club had with this player for the acquisition of furniture for the apartment, ensuring that the amount would be reimbursed to the Claimant later on. 13. In its duplica, the club contested the third declaration, stating that it constitutes new evidence, submitted after the player’s replica. The club emphasized that the player did not submit enough evidence to substantiate his allegations. Therefore, the club requested that the player’s allegation regarding the amount of EUR 10,000 be rejected. 14. In respect of the documents submitted by the player regarding team bonuses, the club contested the allegations, stating that they do not constitute evidence of an existing outstanding debt between the player and the club. Furthermore, the club found the statements to be untrue and irrelevant. 15. Consequently, the club requested that the player’s allegations regarding the sum of EUR 23,000 be rejected. 16. With regard to the amount of EUR 6,929.14 that the player claimed should not have been debited from his account, the club sustained that it corresponds to diverse expenses incurred by the club, such as electricity, heating, player’s insurance premiums, and subscription to the Professional Football Player’s Association among other bills, which constitute the player’s obligations and were rightfully deducted. Hence, the club requested that the player’s pertinent objection be rejected. 17. Furthermore, the club addressed the player’s allegations regarding the amount of EUR 13,298.15. In this sense, the club sustained that this sum corresponds to the payments made on behalf of the player for the acquisition of airline tickets for the player’s distant relatives, i.e. the sister of the player’s wife and her daughter who were not covered by the player’s employment contract. Moreover, the club alleged that one ticket from country G to country A for the player and his family, i.e. his wife and children, was paid by the club in accordance with the contract and was not debited from the player’s account. Hence, the club requested the Chamber to reject the player’s allegation with regard to the amount of EUR 13,298.15. 18. Finally, the club requested that the player’s claim be partially rejected and asked the Chamber to rule that the sum due to the player amounts to a total of EUR 57,992.22. 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 31 August 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 par. 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 an country A player and a country G 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, 2010 and 2009), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 31 August 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 2 July 2009 until 30 June 2010. 5. In continuation, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent requesting the payment of outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 108,000, consisting of EUR 15,000 relating to his remuneration, EUR 60,000 relating to the performance bonus and the UEFA Cup bonus, EUR 23,000 corresponding to team bonuses and EUR 10,000 for furniture. 6. The Chamber noted that the Respondent, for its part, acknowledged that it owes the amount of EUR 57,992.22 to the Claimant, consisting of the performance and UEFA cup qualification bonuses amounting to EUR 60,000 minus the amount of EUR 2,007.78 which the Respondent considered to have paid in excess of the Claimant’s entitlements. 7. In continuation, the Chamber referred to the legal principle of the burden of proof contained in 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. 8. In this respect, the Chamber took into account that, in support of its position, the Respondent submitted internal accounting documents, which, according to the Respondent, demonstrate that EUR 214,292.06 were paid to the Claimant. 9. In this regard, the Chamber concluded that the documents submitted by the Respondent in its defence, consisting of internal accounting extracts, cannot be validly relied upon, since these documents were issued by the Respondent and, as such, do not fulfil the requirement of objectivity and impartiality. Consequently, the Chamber concurred that these documents shall not be taken into consideration and that the parties’ arguments based on these documents shall not be further analysed. 10. Subsequently, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant maintained that the Respondent failed to pay team bonuses in the total amount EUR 23,000 and that, in this regard, the Claimant submitted declarations of two members of the Respondent’s team, who declared that the Respondent had an outstanding debt towards them in connection with team bonuses. 11. In this respect, the Chamber further noted that the Respondent admitted that the Claimant was entitled to team bonuses provided for in its internal regulations, however, the Respondent asserted that said bonuses added up to the amount of EUR 12,284.28, which amount allegedly already had been paid. 12. In continuation, the members of the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had failed to submit convincing evidence that he was entitled to receive EUR 23,000 from the Respondent in connection with team bonuses, instead of the amount of EUR 12,284.28 which was acknowledged by the Respondent, albeit allegedly already paid. 13. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the members of the Chamber concluded that the Respondent had failed to submit sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that it had paid to the Claimant the team bonus in the amount of EUR 12,284.28, the performance and UEFA cup qualification bonuses in the total amount of EUR 60,000 as well as EUR 15,000 corresponding to the Claimant’s remuneration for the 2009/10 season. 14. The Chamber then turned its attention to the Claimant’s request regarding the alleged costs for furniture and concluded that the Claimant failed to submit evidence to substantiate his allegations that he had paid, on behalf of the Respondent, the amount of EUR 10,000 for the acquisition of additional furniture to a member of the Respondent’s team. 15. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 87,284.28. 16. Furthermore, taking into account the Claimant’s petition for interest as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 5% p.a. over the amount of EUR 87,284.28 as from 1 July 2010. 17. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player C, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club B, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 87,284.28 plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 1 July 2010 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the above-mentioned amount due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and decision. 4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. 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