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 Sato (Chile), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Zola Majavu (South Africa), member on the claim presented by the player, Player I, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club Q, from country C 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 Sato (Chile), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Zola Majavu (South Africa), member on the claim presented by the player, Player I, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club Q, from country C as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 5 March 2010, Player I, from country S (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club Q, from country C (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid from the date of signature until 5 November 2010. 2. Article 3 of the contract specified that the Claimant was entitled to “clean, healthy, comfortable and convenient accommodation and nutritious meals”. In addition, article 7 of the contract provided the Claimant with the following remuneration: - USD 17,500 as monthly salary, payable every 10th day of each month and “the work first and pay later system is adopted”; - USD 2,000 as bonus per match won in the country C Football Association Super League matches; - USD 1,000 as bonus per “minimum draw” in the country C Football Association Super League matches; - USD 20,000 as signing on fee. 3. Article 8 of the contract established that the Claimant was entitled to one round flight ticket per season to visit his family. 4. Article 7 clause 3 of the contract asserted that “when [the Claimant] fails to reach the match times, playing time or ratio required by [the Respondent], [the Respondent] has the right to duly subtract the above salary and the subtract methods shall be specified in the Supplementary Agreement”. 5. Article 12 of the contract provided that “either party shall adjudicate the compensation or remedy to the other party according to losses and responsibilities caused by the party’s breach of contract and therefore causing economic losses to the other party”. 6. On 23 March 2010, both parties signed a document named “Complementary Agreement” (hereinafter: the agreement), which determined that the agreement “prevails upon the relevant items of the employment contract in case of confliction”. 7. The agreement established that the Claimant was allowed to go back to his country for treatment and that within 40 days he was to return to the Respondent in order to continue his employment contract. In case the Claimant did not return within that period, the employment contract as well as the agreement, would be considered terminated and no party should be held liable for breach of contract, as well as to any financial claim. 8. The agreement further specified that “the relevant clauses of article 7 salary and bonuses of the employment contract abolished and revised as”: - Currency of country C 5,000 as basic monthly salary payable, as soon as the Claimant would start to train regularly with the Respondent; - “USD 5,400 per game / 90 minutes x the amount of minutes [the Claimant] is in game”; - “USD 2,000 per each game to win / 90 minutes x the amount of minutes [the Claimant] is in game”; - “USD 1,000 per each game to draw / 90 minutes x the amount of minutes [the Claimant] is in game”. 9. Moreover, the agreement established that all the payments were due by the 30th day of each month as well as that the agreement “prevails upon relevant items of Employment Contract in case of confliction, other articles not covered by this agreement should subject to Employment Contract”. 10. On 7 June 2010, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent before FIFA requesting a total amount of USD 176,814.486 plus legal interest, composed as follows: Outstanding salaries: - USD 20,000 as signing on fee as per the contract; - USD 17,500 as monthly salary regarding March 2010 as per the contract; - USD 731 as monthly salary regarding April 2010 as per the agreement; - USD 21,600 regarding four matches during the month of April 2010, in the amount of USD 5,400 each. Compensation: - USD 731 as monthly salary regarding May 2010 as per the agreement; - USD 21,600 regarding four matches during the month of May, in the amount of USD 5,400 each; - USD 87,500 as compensation for the monthly salaries of June 2010 until October 2010 in the amount of USD 17,500 each as per the contract. Costs: - USD 1,000 for flight ticket country B - country C; - USD 6,148.530 which is allegedly equivalent to currency of country C 42,000 composed of 6 monthly rents of currency of country C 6,000 each, as well as an additional currency of country C 6,000 which was allegedly provided as commission for the real state agency. 11. In this respect, the Claimant informed having arrived in country C on 12 March 2010 and that the Respondent never paid him any of the salaries agreed in the contract as well as in the agreement. Furthermore, according to the Claimant, the Respondent provided him with accommodation in the Respondent’s premises, which he held to have been inadequate. 12. According to the Claimant, on 19 March 2010, he underwent medical examination and was told that he was in good health and that the results would be later informed. Later that day, the Respondent took the Claimant’s training equipment and informed him not to attend the trainings since he allegedly had a heart problem and “that the doctors had prohibited him to practice the sport”. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that on 20 March 2010, the Respondent allowed him to undergo another medical exam held in the same hospital, however, that before receiving the results, the Respondent’s coach allegedly spoke with the doctor during a long time. Afterwards, the Claimant affirmed that both the doctor and the coach informed that the Claimant’s heart was not healthy “for sport activities” and consequently he was pressured to terminate the contract and banned from participating in a friendly match to be held on the same day. 13. Furthermore, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent’s website already publicized that the “contract with [the Claimant] had been terminated”, despite the fact that he had not accepted the termination and that the Respondent had accepted him to go for further medical examinations in Europe. In this respect, the Claimant alleged that on 22 March 2010, the Respondent “persuaded” him to sign an annex (hereinafter: the notification) to the contract that would drastically decrease his remuneration which he signed in fear and which was torn by both parties the next day. In this regard, in addition to the contract, the agreement was signed establishing new conditions and salaries. Consequently, on 24 March 2010 the Claimant travelled to country A for further medical examinations to be held with the doctor of his former club. The examinations lasted from 28 March 2010 until 1 April 2010, and the results asserted that “there is no cardiological reason why Player I cannot play professional football”. The Claimant submitted a copy of the medical examinations. 14. The Claimant alleged to have returned to country C only on the 12 of April 2010, because all the exams needed to be translated and recognized by the country C Embassy. He further asserted that upon his arrival, he began training once more with the Respondent and continued to live in the Respondent’s premises. On 1 May 2010 the Claimant decided to rent an apartment at his own expense and paid 6 month’s rent in advance of currency of country C 6,000 each, as well as a real estate agency commission in the value of one monthly rent. The Claimant did not submit any document in this respect. 15. On 5 May 2010, the Claimant was allegedly informed that the Respondent wished to terminate the contract and that the Claimant would not have his visa permit renewed even though it would expire on 12 May 2010. The Claimant rejected the termination of the contract and attempted to train the subsequent days with the Respondent, however, he was not allowed to participate in any matches and was banned from the team. Consequently on 11 May 2012, he contacted the country S Embassy in country C to check what could be done, and was advised to leave country C before becoming illegal. The Claimant informed that he left country C on the day of his visa expiration dated 12 May 2010, enclosing a copy of his visa. 16. Finally, the Claimant enclosed a copy of an email received from a travel company enclosing an “Electronic Ticket Passenger Itinerary Receipt” dated 10 March 2010 in the amount of EUR 839.39. 17. In its reply, the Respondent affirmed that its premises resemble a hotel room with television, air conditioner, bathroom and internet connection. Furthermore, the Respondent alleged that on 16 March 2010, after the Claimant underwent a low “intense body restoration training with the team, (…) encountered serious vomiting in front of all players”. Due to this reaction, the Respondent decided to stop the Claimant from all trainings and have him undergo medical examinations. The Respondent asserted that the Claimant was found to have a heart problem and allowed the Claimant to take a second round of examinations which, however, also appointed the Claimant’s heart condition. 18. Consequently, the Respondent issued a “Notification of the Termination Contract”, on 21 March 2010, which the Claimant allegedly agreed to sign. Said notification specified that “we inform you [the Claimant] that country C Football Association Super League Football club Employment Contract for Players signed between [the Claimant] and our club is terminated and we reserve the right to prosecute you for the loss of [the Respondent] caused by [the Claimant]”.The Respondent further stated that it allowed the Claimant to travel on 23 March 2013 and paid a round flight ticket to country B after the agreement was signed. The Claimant returned on 12 April 2010 and was allegedly allowed to train with the Respondent’s first team in a special training program. 19. The Respondent attached on file a document dated 10 May 2010 allegedly provided by the “coaching staff of professional team”, which asserted that “considering that the fitness and physical condition of country S football player I still cannot meet the basic requirements of normal training sessions since he came back from country B, coaching staff of the first team think the player cannot train with the professional team”. Subsequently, the Respondent stated that it started to negotiate with the Claimant’s agent in the sense of executing the agreement previously signed, however, the Claimant had vanished “without notifying anybody”. The Respondent further claimed that the Claimant breached the contract and therefore, it imposed a fine in the amount of USD 100,000 and terminated the contract in writing on 12 May 2010, sending a notification to the Claimant’s agent. 20. In his replica, the Claimant alleged being able to fulfil his professional duties and what should be considered are the contract and the agreement, since the notification was torn and no longer was in force. In this regard, the Claimant asserted that “suffice to that in the event that Termination Notice remained in force and the Contract was terminated prior to conclusion of the Complementary Agreement that would govern amendment of already terminated agreement, i.e. Contract”. Regarding the basic training program which the Respondent alleged the Claimant was incapable of following, the Claimant asserted to be unaware of such document and that he had carried out the training with a satisfactory level of performance. Furthermore, he affirmed to have never received any training report and that on 10 May 2010, the day the aforementioned report was allegedly issued, he was banned from further trainings and pressured to terminate the contract by the Respondent. 21. In addition, the Claimant stated that the Respondent was aware that his visa would expire on 12 May 2010 and did not proceed to do all the necessary arrangements for him to receive a residence permit, once “the residence has not been granted for the whole envisaged employment period”. In this respect, the Claimant held that this would be the main reason for his departure once the Respondent did not proceed to renew or extend his visa. Finally, concerning the signing on fee due upon signature of the contract, the Claimant reaffirmed that it had not been abolished and is to be considered as outstanding salary once it had not been honoured, independently of him having signed the agreement at a later date. 22. In spite of being invited by FIFA to provide its final position, the Respondent failed to do so. 23. The Claimant stated not to have engaged into any new employment contract until the expiry of the contract. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 7 June 2010. 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. art. 21 par. 1 and par. 2 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, 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 S player and a country C 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 7 June 2010, the 2009 edition of the aforementioned regulations (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 all the facts and arguments submitted by the parties. 5. First, the Chamber took note that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent for breach of contract, requesting the aggregate amount of USD 176,814.486. 6. In this respect, the DRC took note that the Respondent rejected the claim, alleging that after a medical problem was detected, it tried to negotiate the termination of the contract, but that the Claimant vanished, breaching the contract. 7. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that according to the Claimant, despite being informed of his visa expiry, the Respondent wished to terminate the contract and agreement, and did not proceed to the visa renewal, which lead to the Claimant’s departure from country C on 12 May 2010. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the Respondent alleged that the Claimant had vanished and for this reason, it terminated the contract and fined the Claimant in the amount of USD 100,000. 8. Considering the opposite positions of the parties and all the facts and arguments submitted, the DRC first highlighted that a first employment contract was signed by the parties on 5 March 2010 and that subsequently, on 21 March 2010, a document was sent by the Respondent to the Claimant, by means of which the Respondent allegedly terminated said contract. 9. Notwithstanding the above, the members of the DRC concluded that the Respondent did not rely on such document considering that the latter confirmed having terminated the contract on 12 May 2010. Moreover, on 23 March 2010, after the alleged termination, i.e. 21 March 210, the parties signed another agreement which stipulated that said document would prevail over the contract on all points that it addressed, in particular, the salaries and bonuses. Therefore, the contract and the agreement were valid and in force until 12 May 2010, date when the Respondent terminated both the contract and the agreement. 10. Having established that the contract was terminated by the Respondent on 12 May 2010, the DRC proceeded to analyse whether the latter had just cause to do so. 11. The Chamber considered that by the time the contract was terminated on 12 May 2010, it remained uncontested that the Claimant’s visa was about to expire and that the salaries for the months of March and April 2010 were outstanding. Furthermore, the Respondent punished the Claimant twice by imposing a fine in the amount of USD 100,000 and terminating the contract. Finally, the Chamber considered that the Claimant was obliged to leave the country due to the fact that he did not have a visa renewal, which primarily should have been sought by his employer, in this case, by the Respondent. 12. In continuation, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract without prior warning. In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect a continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in order for an employer to ensure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can always only be an ultima ratio. 13. In view of the above, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Respondent did not have just cause to prematurely terminate the employment contract with the Claimant, since there would have been more lenient measures to be taken in order to sanction any alleged misconduct. The Respondent neither warned the Claimant nor adopted less harsh means, since it simultaneously imposed a fine and terminated the contract on 12 May 2010. 14. Overall, the Chamber decided that there was no just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent and that therefore, the Respondent had breached the employment contract without just cause. 15. Having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the contract without just cause, the Chamber focussed its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decide that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant contract and agreement. 16. In this context, the DRC decided to first analyse the terms of both the contract and the agreement. In particular, the Dispute Resolution Chamber acknowledged that the agreement signed between the Claimant and the Respondent explicitly “abolished and revised” the salaries and bonuses established in article 7 of the contract and stipulated new remuneration. 17. The DRC concluded that the salary established in the contract was nullified by the agreement and thus, the latter’s financial terms prevailed as explicitly stated in the agreement duly signed by the Claimant. 18. Considering all the above, the DRC considered that it remained uncontested by the Respondent that it owed the Claimant the salary of April 2010 as well as the bonuses, both established in the agreement. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the Respondent had to pay the outstanding amounts of USD 731 for the salary of April 2010 and USD 21,600 regarding the matches played by the Claimant in April 2010. 19. Furthermore, the DRC took note that the flight tickets were established in the contract in its article 8 and thus, such article remained valid. Also, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant provided with the relevant receipt regarding the amount claimed. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay USD 1,000 to the Claimant regarding a flight ticket. 20. In regards to the signing on fee and the monthly salaries requested by the Claimant on the basis of the contract, the DRC recalled that article 7 of the contract was nullified by the agreement. Therefore, the DRC noted that the financial terms of the agreement replaced the signing on fee and the monthly salaries established in the contract and consequently, decided to reject the Claimant’s request for USD 20,000 as signing on fee and USD 17,500 as monthly salary for March 2010. 21. Concerning the interest claimed by the Claimant, the DRC noted that the neither the contract nor the agreement provided for any specific interest rate in case of late payment. Consequently, the DRC decided to award, in accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, default interest rate of 5% p.a. to the Claimant on the outstanding salaries as from the date the claim was lodged. 22. In continuation, the Chamber its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for a breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contracts at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contracts and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a ,maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period. 23. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract and agreement contain a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake. 24. Bearing in mind the foregoing and considering that the salaries and bonuses established in the agreement replaced the remuneration established in the contract, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the agreement until 5 November 2010, taking into account that the player’s remuneration until May 2010 is included in the calculation of the outstanding remuneration. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 4,386 (i.e. salaries as from May 2010 until November 2010) serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 25. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages. 26. The Chamber noted that the Claimant did not sign any employment contract during the relevant period of time. 27. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and specificities of the case at hand, the chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of USD 4,386 to the Claimant as compensation for the breach of contract. 28. The DRC concluded by establishing that any further claim of the Claimant must be rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player I, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club Q, from country C, has to pay to the Claimant, Player I, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 23,331 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 7 June 2010 until the date of effective payment. 3. The Respondent, Club Q, has to pay to the Claimant, Player I, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 4,386 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of the date of this decision until the date of effective payment. present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Player I, are rejected. 6. The Claimant, Player I, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club Q, 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 Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives