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 23 January 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman (did not take part in the deliberations) Jon Newman (USA), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Todd Durbin (USA), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the player, Player M, from country I as Claimant against the club, Club U, 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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 January 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman (did not take part in the deliberations) Jon Newman (USA), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Todd Durbin (USA), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the player, Player M, from country I as Claimant against the club, Club U, from country E as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 September 2008, Player M, from country I (hereinafter: the player or Claimant), and the Club U, from country E (hereinafter: the club or Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of the signature until 30 June 2009. 2. In accordance with the contract, the Claimant was, inter alia, entitled to receive a basic wage of “currency of country E 2,000,000 per annum payable by monthly installments in arrears from 1.09.2008 to 30.06.2009”. 3. Furthermore, in accordance with art. 19 par. 2 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a “severance payment” if, upon expiry of the contract, the Respondent would not make an offer of re-engagement to the Claimant. 4. On 30 August 2010, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA explaining that a dispute with the Respondent had occurred concerning the interpretation of the terms of the contract, in particular of the words “per annum”; whereas the Respondent was of the opinion that it had to pay currency of country E 166,660 a month, the Claimant understood he was entitled to currency of country E 200,000 a month. The Claimant indicated that, after several meetings, the Respondent accepted the interpretation of the Claimant and both parties orally agreed on a severance payment of currency of country E 250,000 in order to settle the matter. 5. In this regard, the Claimant stated that on 8 January 2009, the club’s solicitor, Mr T, wrote a letter to the player, which reads as follows: “I refer to our meeting of earlier this month and confirm, as agreed with you and your various representatives that in the event that [the club] do not extend the Contract at the end of the current (ie 2008/09 Season) that we agree to pay to you your goal bonus of currency of country E 75,000 (…) regardless of whether you achieve the target number of goals and also will pay to you a sum equivalent to one month’s net pay of currency of country E 166,660 making a total of currency of country E 241,660 which, as a further sign of goodwill on [the club]’s part, we will agree to round up to currency of country E 250,000 (the “Severance Payment”).(…) Please confirm your agreement to the above terms by signing the attached copy of this letter below in the appropriate place. (…)” 6. The Claimant submitted two further letters from the Respondent addressed to the Claimant, dated 5 and 25 March 2009, one signed by Mr T and one signed by Mr D, the Chief Executive Officer of the club, which both referred to the letter dated 8 January 2009. 7. The Claimant indicated that the Respondent had paid him the amount of currency of country E 75,000, but not the remaining currency of country E 175,000. Equally, the Claimant asserted that in January 2010 the club’s management had changed and that, thereafter, the club was unwilling to pay. 8. On account of all the above, the Claimant requested to be awarded with the net amount of currency of country E 334,000 as outstanding salaries as he allegedly only received currency of country E 1,666,000 instead of currency of country E 2,000,000. In the alternative, the Claimant requested to be awarded with currency of country E 175,000 corresponding to the agreed severance payment. Additionally, the Claimant requested to be awarded with “interest at court rates” and the costs incurred “to bring this claim”. 9. In reply to the claim lodged against it, the Respondent indicated that the management of the club had changed and that the letters dated 8 January, 5 March and 25 March 2009 were not shown in the due diligence exercise undertaken by the new owners. Secondly, the persons who had signed said letters were no longer employed by the club. 10. Moreover, the club denied any liability since: - No details were provided as to where and when the alleged oral agreement was made, and if such agreement was made it is invalid as such agreement should be recorded in writing and registered with the “appropriate regulatory authorities”; - The relevant letters do not contain the signature of the player and “accordingly documentation was not fully executed and, thereby, incapable of registration or required to be registered at the appropriate regulatory authorities ; - The contract ended on 30 June 2009 and, thus, on that date all obligations and payments due to the player by the club were terminated; - Clause 5 of the contract stipulated that “throughout his engagement the club shall pay to the player the remuneration and provide the benefits (if any) as set out in Schedule 2”. The relevant letters were not contained in Schedule 2. 11. In his replica, the Claimant indicated that any reasonable due diligence check would have revealed the existence of the relevant letters. Moreover, and as to the other arguments raised by the Respondent, the Claimant stated that: - The “alleged oral agreement” was clearly proven by the various letters, which were on the club’s official letterhead and signed by the club’s solicitor and Chief Executive Officer; - It is unreasonable to expect that the player is the party responsible for registering the agreement with the “appropriate regulatory authorities” ; - The letters were signed by the club; the club cannot expect to exclude liability to the terms of an agreement made, which is evidenced in writing, because the player’s signature is not present; - The ending of the contract gave rise to the severance payment falling due; - As to clause 5 of the contract, said contract was drafted prior to the date on which the letters were drafted. 12. On account of the above, the Claimant reiterated his request for the payment of the amount of currency of country E 334,000, or alternatively, the amount of currency of country E 175,000. 13. In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated its previous position and added that the reason why the letters were not provided to the new owners in January 2010 may well have been because said letters did not contain the Claimant’s signature and “accordingly were not fully executed and, thereby, incapable of registration (…) at the appropriate football authorities”. The Respondent stressed that it is prescribed regulatory practice that all agreements between football clubs and football players must be signed by the club and the player. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or Chamber) indicated that Mr Geoff Thompson refrained from participating in the deliberations on account of his nationality. Therefore, the Chamber adjudicated in the presence of four members, two club representatives and two player representatives. 2. Secondly, the 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 30 August 2010. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the 2008 and 2012 edition of the Procedural Rules). 3. 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 (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 I player and an country E club. 4. 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 2009, 2010 and 2012), and considering that the contract at the basis of the dispute was signed on 1 September 2008, while the present claim was lodged on 30 August 2010, the 2009 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 5. 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 that, on 1 September 2008, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of the signature until 30 June 2009, i.e. for a period of 10 months. 6. In this regard, the members of the Chamber duly noted that apparently a conflict had arisen in relation to the financial terms of the employment contract, i.e. a conflict had arisen on the question whether the total amount payable to the Claimant amounted to currency of country E 1,666,600 or currency of country E 2,000,000. According to the Claimant, in view of the dispute arisen, the Respondent had offered to pay him the amount of currency of country E 250,000 in order to settle the matter. Subsequently, the Respondent had paid currency of country E 75,000 to the Claimant, but after a change of management, the Respondent failed to pay the remaining amount of currency of country E 175,000. In view of the foregoing, the Claimant requested payment of the amount of currency of country E 334,000, or alternatively, the amount of currency of country E 175,000. 7. In continuation, the Chamber took due note of the arguments put forward by the Respondent, which explained that the management of the club had changed and which contested that the player was entitled to any payment, since no oral agreement had been made between the Respondent and the Claimant and, alternatively, even if an oral agreement existed, such agreement was not valid as no agreement had been registered with the relevant football authorities in country E. The Chamber further observed that the Respondent argued that the employment contract had already expired and that, thus, the parties had no further financial obligations towards each other. 8. In this context, the members of the Chamber emphasised that they had to determine whether or not the parties had agreed upon a payment of currency of country E 250,000 in order to amicably settle the apparent conflict arisen in relation to the employment contract. In this respect, the DRC thoroughly analysed the documentation submitted by the Claimant and first of all acknowledged that the Claimant had not submitted any agreement duly signed by both parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Chamber noted that the Claimant had submitted three letters signed by the Respondent, written on the club’s letterhead, one of which explicitly confirmed that the Respondent had informed the Claimant that it would pay him the amount of currency of country E 250,000. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the two other letters referred to the letter in which the Respondent had confirmed to the Claimant that it would pay him said currency of country E 250,000. In this respect, the Chamber gave particular attention to the fact that it was at no point contested by the Respondent that the persons who signed the various letters were, at the time, not authorised to represent the club. 9. On account of the above, taking into consideration that the letters were signed by various people employed by the Respondent, were drafted on the club’s letterhead and were clear as to their contents, the Chamber was unanimous in its conclusion that, even in the absence of a duly signed document by both parties, it could be proven that the parties had, in fact, agreed that the Respondent would pay the Claimant the amount of currency of country E 250,000 as a “severance payment” in order to settle the dispute arisen in relation to the employment contract. 10. The Chamber underlined that the fact that the agreement was not registered at the relevant football authorities in country E could not be imputed to the player, as one cannot expect a player, all the more living in a foreign country, to register the pertinent agreements with the relevant football authorities, this clearly being the responsibility of a club, which is normally affiliated to such authorities. 11. Furthermore, in relation to the Respondent’s change of management and the due diligence-check, the Chamber was, likewise, of the firm opinion that the occurrence of these events and the alleged consequences thereof could not be held against the player, who had no influence whatsoever on these processes and bore no responsibility in this regard. The Chamber deemed that if the Respondent wished to hold someone accountable for any inaccuracies in this respect, it would rather be the former management of the Respondent, and not the Claimant. 12. Finally, the Chamber could not follow the Respondent’s argument that, by 30 June 2009, all obligations and payments due to the player by the club were terminated, since the mere circumstance that an employment contract expires does not lead to the direct consequence that all obligations have been fulfilled under such contract. 13. Taken into consideration all the previous considerations, the members of the Chamber concurred that it could be established that there was an agreement in place between the parties as to the conflict arisen and that the parties had agreed upon the payment of currency of country E 250,000 in order to settle the conflict. As a consequence, the Chamber decided that the Claimant’s primary claim based on the employment contract should be rejected. In continuation, the Chamber determined that the Respondent’s alternative request should be accepted and decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount of currency of country E 175,000, i.e. the outstanding part of the “severance payment” agreed upon between the parties. 14. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim and the Chamber’s constant jurisprudence in this respect, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of currency of country E 175,000 as from 30 August 2010 until the date of effective payment. 15. Moreover, as regards the Claimant’s claim in relation to the costs incurred “to bring this claim”, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to its long-standing and well-established jurisprudence, in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject this part of the Claimant’s claim. 16. 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 M, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club U, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of currency of country E 175,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 30 August 2010 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid 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. 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