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 G, from country M as Claimant against the club, Club D, from country I 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 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 G, from country M as Claimant against the club, Club D, from country I as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 15 August 2010, Player G from country M (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club D, from country I (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid “for one competitive season (…) season 2010/11”. 2. The contract provided that the Claimant was entitled to a total remuneration of USD 150,000, payable as follows: - “the amount of USD 30,000 will be paid after getting ITC; - Another 10% of contract will be paid in 15NOV2010; - Further to the down payment 10,500 USD will be paid on monthly (for the 10 months). (…)” 3. Art. 5 of the contract provided that “(…) In case of any dispute the case shall be sent to the Federation of country I. If any party is not satisfied with the decision of the federation the issue shall be sent to FIFA”. 4. On 9 February 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA indicating that the Respondent only paid him the amount of USD 110,000. Consequently, the Claimant requested to be awarded with the amount of USD 40,000. 5. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent disputed the jurisdiction of FIFA, referring to art. 5 of the contract, stressing that the Claimant “has to bring the case in country I Football Federation before going to FIFA”. 6. Upon request to provide FIFA with the documentary evidence that the relevant deciding body of country I Football Federation is competent to deal with the matter, the Respondent sent an extract of art. 61 to 68 of the Statutes of the country I Football Federation. Art. 68 of said Statutes stipulates the following: “Country I Football Federation shall set up the NDRC, which deals with all internal disputes between the Federation, its Members, players, officials, coaches, provincial football associations and match and players’ agents that do not fall under the jurisdiction of its judicial bodies or yet is the case of protest. The regulations of NDRC will be approved by the executive committee in accordance with FIFA regulations. The members of NDRC shall be appointed based on the FIFA directives.” 7. Furthermore, the country I Football Federation informed FIFA that it has “Independent Judicial Bodies (Disciplinary Committee, Appeal Committee and Legal Department)” and that such bodies will investigate claims “with fair trial and independently”. The country I Football Federation further indicated that “the [Claimant] did not refer to our Judicial Bodies (…) and announce our Judicial Bodies readiness to receive the petition of the [Claimant] for investigation.” 8. Although having been invited to present its comments in relation to the substance of the matter, the Respondent did not submit any further comments. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter referred to as the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 9 February 2012. Consequently, 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 of the 2008 and 2012 edition 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 (edition 2012) the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on employment-related disputes between a club and a player that have an international dimension. 3. As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be competent to decide on the present litigation involving a player from country M and a club from country I regarding an employment-related dispute. 4. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of art. 5 of the contract, stressing that the Claimant “has to bring the case in country I Football Federation before going to FIFA”. 5. Taking into account the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players it is competent to deal with a matter such as the one at hand, unless an independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs, has been established at national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to the standards to be imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings, the Chamber referred to the FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. In this regard, the members of the Chamber further referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008. 6. In this framework, the Chamber first referred to art. 5 of the employment contract on the basis of which the Respondent contested FIFA’s jurisdiction. According to said article, “In case of any dispute the case shall be sent to country I Football Federation. If any party is not satisfied with the decision of the federation the issue shall be sent to FIFA.” 7. Having duly considered the content of art. 5 of the employment contract, the members of the Chamber stressed that said article did not explicitly refer to a national dispute resolution chamber or any similar arbitration body in the sense of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. In other words, the relevant article was rather vague and merely stipulated that the case shall be sent to country I Football Federation, which, however is not an arbitration tribunal. Therefore, the Chamber decided that art. 5 of the employment contract could not be considered a valid arbitration clause. 8. Furthermore, and while examining the content of art. 61 to 68 of the Statutes of country I Football Federation, the Chamber noted that the documentation provided by the Respondent did i) not contain any indication as to the composition of the relevant arbitration tribunal mentioned in art. 68 of the Statutes of country I Football Federation, and ii) did not contain any indication as to the manner in which the proceedings in front of the relevant arbitration tribunal are conducted. Therefore, and with reference to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the members of the Chamber were unanimous in their conclusion that the Respondent had failed to prove that the relevant arbitration tribunal of the country I Football Federation guaranteed fair proceedings and respected the principle of equal representation of players and clubs, as established in art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. 9. As a result, taking into consideration that the employment contract at the basis of the present dispute did not contain a valid arbitration clause and that the Respondent had not been able to prove that the relevant arbitration tribunal in country I guaranteed fair proceedings and respected the principle of equal representation of players and clubs, the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that the Respondent’s objection to the competence of FIFA to hear the present dispute had to be rejected. Therefore, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance. 10. In continuation, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010 and 2012), and considering that the claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 9 February 2012, the 2010 edition of the aforementioned regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 11. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber continued by entering into the substance of the matter. 12. First of all, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that, on 15 August 2010, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract valid “for one competitive season”, in accordance with which the Respondent would pay the Claimant the total amount of USD 150,000. 13. The Chamber further observed that the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent seeking payment of the total amount of USD 40,000, asserting that the Respondent had not fulfilled all its contractual obligations towards him. More specifically, the Claimant indicated that the Respondent had merely paid him the amount of USD 110,000, whereas the contract stipulated that the Claimant was entitled to receive the total amount of USD 150,000. 14. Furthermore, the Chamber observed that the Respondent failed to present its response as to the substance of the claim of the Claimant, despite having explicitly been invited to do so. In this way, so the Chamber deemed, the Respondent renounced to its right of defence in relation to the substance of the present dispute and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 15. As a consequence of the preceding consideration, the Chamber established that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and in connection with the substance of the matter it shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents on file. 16. On account of the above considerations, in particular taking into consideration that the Respondent did not contest that the amount of USD 40,000 was still outstanding, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must fulfil its obligations as per employment contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 40,000 as outstanding remuneration. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player G, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant is accepted. 3. The Respondent, Club D, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 40,000, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 4. In the event that the aforementioned sum is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives