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 theDispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 October 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member David Mayebi (Cameroon), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member on the claim presented by the player, Player D, from country M as Claimant against the club, Club P, 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 theDispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 October 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member David Mayebi (Cameroon), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member on the claim presented by the player, Player D, from country M as Claimant against the club, Club P, from country U as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 9 September 2010, Club P, from country U (hereinafter: club or Respondent), contacted FIFA asking that the employment contract with the country M player D, (hereinafter: player or Claimant), be terminated and to impose disciplinary sanctions on the player. 2. After having been asked by FIFA to specify its request, the club merely reiterated the above. 3. The club presented a copy of a document referred to as “labour contract” nr. 07/08/17 dated 2 January 2008, duly signed by both the club and the player and valid as from 2 January 2008 until 2 January 2011, in accordance with which inter alia, the player was to receive a monthly salary “… according to the State schedule of Club for the whole Contract period. All wages will be paid in sums by rate of Central Bank of country U”. 4. The club explained that the player had not returned to the club, whereas it had authorised him to train under an individual program in country M until 23 July 2010 and it had summoned him, on 28 August 2010, to return to the club. 5. The club further pointed out that both the visa and work permit of the player had been arranged for. 6. The club added that it had previously agreed to have the player transferred to any European club that the player would choose and, on 2 July 2010, it issued a document in this respect, in accordance with which the club declared that it was ready to transfer the player for a compensation of USD 300,000. 7. In addition, the club admitted that it had been in delay of payment of the player’s salaries since three months and that, since the player was outside of country U, it could not remit any payments to the player in the light of national legislation. 8. After having put the club in default in writing on 25 August 2010, the player terminated the employment contract due to non-payment of his salary allegedly totalling USD 155,852, on 13 September 2010. 9. On 17 November 2010, without having been formally informed of the aforementioned request of the club against the player, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA asking that the employment contract be declared terminated at the club’s fault and that the club be ordered to pay the total amount of USD 239,185.84 plus 5% interest per year calculated as follows: a. 5% as from 1 January 2010 on the amount of USD 39,185.84; b. 5% as from 13 September 2010 on the amount of USD 200,000. 10. In addition, the player asked that the club be ordered to pay all procedural costs. 11. Along with his claim, the player presented a document referred to as “labour contract”, which does not bear any date of signature, which only bears the signature of the player and which refers to a three years’ validity, i.e. until 2 January 2011. This document further bears a handwritten reference to wages as follows: 2008 – 150,000; 2009 – 175,000; 2010 – 200,000 with the mention of “USD dollars per month” being stricken through. According to the player, these monies were to be paid on a yearly basis. 12. The player pointed out that he only had a copy of this “labour contract” lacking the club’s signature and asserted that his employment contract was registered in the Football Association of country U on 26 February 2008 under number PT/07/08/17, of which he never received a copy, but the existence of which was confirmed by the club. 13. The player alleged that the club acted in breach of contract by failing to remit the amount of USD 39,185.74 relating to the 2009 season, i.e. he received USD 135,814.26 out of the total of USD 175,000. In addition, according to the player, the club failed to remit his wages for seven months of 2010 totalling USD 116,666. 14. The player further highlighted that he received payments either directly at the club or via a bank transfer via a company referred to as “XYZ” (hereinafter: XYZ). In this respect, the player presented documents referring to a payment of USD 75,000 on 19 February 2008 and of USD 48,962 on 27 August 2009 by XYZ to the player. 15. In reply to the player’s claim, the club pointed out that the document presented by the player in support of his claim lacks the club’s signature and includes handwritten clauses relating to his salary, whereas the employment contract no. 07/08/17, a copy of which it had presented, was duly signed by both parties and registered by the country U Football Federation. Therefore, according to the club, the document presented by the player is not valid. Furthermore, the club submitted that the document presented by the player shows a high remuneration level, which would imply that he is a highly qualified player, which, so the club, he is not. In fact, the player did not meet the club’s requirements and the player had expressed his wish to leave. Therefore, the club issued the document dated 2 July 2010 (cf. point I./6. above). 16. The club admitted that it was in delay of payment of three months’ salary in accordance with the employment contract no. 07/08/17. 17. As regards the payments that were made to the player, the club explained that according to the club’s internal payment system, bonus payments were made in line with the order of the general director. Furthermore, the player also received bonus payments from the club’s sponsor, which were incentive bonuses, cup and match bonuses. 18. The club denied that it ever directly transferred funds to country M, as those payments were made by the sponsor of the club, i.e. XYZ, as bonuses. In support of its position, the club presented a copy of the relevant sponsor agreement, in accordance with which XYZ was to transfer bonus and/or other monetary resources to football players of the club without any indication of monetary values. 19. The club further reiterated its statements made when it previously contacted FIFA. 20. All in all, the club rejected the claim put forward by the player and asked that the player be “disqualified” for having left the club. 21. In reply to the club’s petition, the player pointed out that the club’s request shall be considered inadmissible, as it is not in accordance with the requirements under art. 9 par. 1 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Player’s Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. In addition, the player stressed that he terminated the contract by letter dated 13 September 2010 with immediate effect due to outstanding salaries for 2009 and 2010. Therefore, the club could no longer request that the employment contract be terminated. 22. With respect to the club’s response to his claim, the player submitted that he never signed the employment contract that was presented by the club highlighting that he would never sign a contract that does not establish the salary to be paid. He asserted that, in January 2008, the terms of his employment were agreed in country T when he signed the contract that he presented along with his claim. He was then told by the club that it would sign the contract afterwards and validate it at the federation. He reiterated that he never received a copy of the validated contract in spite of his respective requests. 23. In this context, the player presented a witness statement of the interpreter confirming inter alia that the parties had agreed on a total compensation of USD 500,000 over three years with the yearly financial details being written down by ballpoint pen on the contract that was given by the club president to the player for signature. The player further pointed out that the club did pay his salary to his account in country M via the firm XYZ and denied that those payments are related to bonuses. 24. The player further highlighted that the contract presented by the club was allegedly signed on 26 February 2008, i.e. five days after the issuance of the international transfer certificate (ITC). 25. He further submitted that the club duly paid him USD 150,000 in 2008 and, in this respect, he referred to the documents related to payments he received from XYZ (cf. point I./14. above). 26. In addition, the player asserted that he was told in June 2010 that all wages for 2009 and 2010 would be settled right after his transfer to another club during the summer transfer window. 27. The player denied that the document dated 2 July 2010 (cf. number I./6. above) was issued at his request. 28. He submitted that, while in country M, he was awaiting further instructions from the club on a possible transfer, respectively the club’s invitation letter to obtain the relevant visa. The player held that the club did not send such invitation letter at that time as opposed to the previous seasons. Consequently, he was not able to return to the club. 29. The player pointed out that he was one of the team leaders and best players in country U and he denied that he was undisciplined or unprofessional. 30. Therefore, the player asked that the club’s petition be considered inadmissible, respectively, be rejected and to accept his claim. 31. In its final comments, the club mainly reiterated its previous statements and highlighted once more that the monies paid by its sponsor were incentive and bonus payments for prizes won in various Championships and Cups. 32. At FIFA’s request, the club submitted the original version of the employment contract it presented along with its petition. 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 17 November 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. article 21 par. 2 and 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 combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010) 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 M 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 (edition 2010), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 17 November 2010, the 2010 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. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. 5. In this regard, the Chamber noted that, whereas it has remained uncontested that the parties were contractually bound to each other and that the contractual relationship between the parties had been prematurely terminated, there is disagreement between the parties as to the validity of the different documents that were presented by them in support of their respective positions. The parties further disagree on which party is to be held liable for the early termination of the contractual relationship. 6. Consequently, the members of the Chamber, first and foremost, focused their attention on the question as to whether a legally binding written employment contract had been concluded by and between the Claimant and the Respondent. 7. In this context, the Chamber recalled that in order for an employment contract to be considered as valid and binding, apart from the signature of both the employer and the employee, it should contain the essentialia negotii of an employment contract, such as the parties to the contract and their role, the duration of the employment relationship, the remuneration. 8. Turning their attention to the document presented by the Respondent, i.e. the “labour contract” nr. 07/08/17 dated 2 January 2008, the original version of which was submitted by the Respondent and which demonstrates that it does include the Claimant’s signature as opposed to the latter’s allegations in this regard, the members of the Chamber took into account that, with respect to the player’s remuneration, it merely stipulates that the player was to receive a monthly salary “… according to the State schedule of Club for the whole Contract period. All wages will be paid in sums by rate of Central Bank of country U”. Consequently, and bearing in mind that no other documents were presented by the Respondent in this connection, the Chamber concluded that the “labour contract” presented by the Respondent lacks the aforementioned essential element of remuneration, that is, a clearly specified salary in exchange of the player’s services. On account of the above, the Chamber decided that the “labour contract” nr. 07/08/17 dated 2 January 2008 presented by the Respondent cannot be qualified as a valid and binding employment contract. 9. Subsequently, the Chamber reverted to the “labour contract” presented by the Claimant in support of his petition and highlighted that it bears the signature of the Claimant only. Consequently, it does not contain the essential element of the signature of both the employer and the employee, as a result of which such document cannot be considered as valid and binding upon the parties. For the sake of good order, bearing in mind the Respondent’s position as regards this “labour contract”, the members of the Chamber wished to highlight that, as a general rule, the homologation and/or registration of an employment contract at a Federation does not constitute a condition for its validity. 10. On account of the above, the Chamber concluded that no valid written employment contract had been concluded by and between the parties. However, from the above-mentioned facts, it can be noted that the Claimant and Respondent do consent that they had entered into a contractual relationship, which was allegedly breached by the counterparty. 11. On this basis, the members of the Chamber proceeded to address the question as to which party is to be held liable for the undisputed early termination of said contractual relationship. In this regard, the Chamber took due note of the fact that, in the beginning of September 2010, the Respondent admitted that it was in delay of payment of three monthly salaries without, however, indicating any amount of money. 12. The Chamber equally emphasised that the contractual relationship between the parties was terminated by the Claimant on 13 September 2010, after having put the Respondent in default of payment of his remuneration. 13. On account of these considerations, the Chamber agreed that the Respondent’s argument that the Claimant had breached the contractual relationship by leaving without authorisation could not be backed, in particular, since the Respondent had admitted that three monthly salaries had remained unpaid. 14. In the light of all of the above, the Chamber decided that the player had just cause to unilaterally terminate the contractual relationship on 13 September 2010 and that, thus, the Respondent is to be held liable for the termination of the contractual relationship with just cause by the Claimant. 15. Having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the contractual relationship with just cause by the Claimant, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of such termination. According to art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the party in breach shall be liable to pay compensation. 16. However, in view of the considerations under points II./8. and II./9. above, the Chamber concluded that it had no valid and binding written contractual elements at its disposal allowing it to award the Claimant a certain amount of money as compensation for breach of contract. 17. In this context, and regardless of the preceding consideration, the members of the Chamber reverted to the allegation of the Claimant that the Respondent had acted in breach of contract by failing to remit his remuneration, which, according to the Claimant, amounted to USD 150,000, USD 175,000 and USD 200,000 for the years 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively, on the basis of the “labour contract” that he presented along with his statement of claim. 18. The Chamber recalled that in support of his allegations as regards the remuneration remitted to him by the Respondent, either directly at the club or via the company XYZ, the Claimant presented certain documents, that, according to the Claimant, would demonstrate that the Respondent duly paid him USD 150,000 for the year 2008. In this regard, the Chamber noted, first of all, that the documents presented by the Claimant refer to a payment of USD 75,000 on 19 February 2008 and of USD 48,962 on 27 August 2009 by XYZ. Contrary to the Claimant’s submission, the Chamber agreed that these documents do not corroborate that the Claimant a) had received a payment of USD 150,000 from the Respondent and b) that such payment would have been made by the Respondent on the basis of the “labour contract” presented by the player. In this regard, the Chamber further noted that according to the Respondent, those payments made by its sponsor, XYZ, were bonus payments made on the basis of a sponsor agreement concluded between the Respondent and XYZ, which allegation was contested by the Claimant, without the latter having submitted any documentation corroborating his position in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules. 19. In addition, the members of the Chamber took note of the witness statement presented by the Claimant in accordance with which an interpreter confirmed that the Claimant and the Respondent had agreed on a total compensation of USD 500,000 over three years. The Chamber concurred that such statement cannot be considered as convincing evidence demonstrating that the Claimant and the Respondent had agreed upon such amount of money as remuneration in exchange of the Claimant’s services. 20. Taking into account the aforementioned considerations as well as art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant failed to substantiate his allegation that the parties had agreed upon a remuneration of USD 150,000, USD 175,000 and USD 200,000 for the years 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively, in exchange of the Claimant’s services to the Respondent. 21. All in all, the Chamber decided that no compensation can be awarded to the Claimant due to the lack of valid contractual elements of remuneration. 22. Moreover, the Dispute Resolution Chamber considered the Claimant’s request to order the Respondent to pay all procedural costs irrelevant, since, according to art. 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, DRC proceedings relating to international employment-related disputes between a club and a player are free of charge. 23. The Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by rejecting any further claim lodged by the Claimant. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player D, is partially accepted. 2. The Claimant had just cause to terminate the contractual relationship with the Respondent, Club P Football Club, on 13 September 2010. 3. Any further claim of the Claimant is rejected. ***** 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 Player D, from country M / Club P, from country U 11/11 Encl: CAS directives