F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 August 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the player, Player R, from country B as Claimant/Counter-Respondent against the club, Club P, from country G as Respondent/Counter-Claimant regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 August 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the player, Player R, from country B as Claimant/Counter-Respondent against the club, Club P, from country G as Respondent/Counter-Claimant regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 22 July 2009, the country B player, Player R (hereinafter: the Claimant/Counter- Respondent), and the country G club, Club P (hereinafter: the Respondent/Counter-Claimant), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2010. 2. According to art. 2 of the contract, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant undertakes to provide the Claimant/Counter-Respondent with: - EUR 10,000 as sign-on fee; - EUR 70,000 of salaries, payable in ten equal instalments of EUR 7,000, by the end of each month, as from 30 August 2009 until 30 May 2010; - two round-trip air tickets to country B; - EUR 10,000 of bonus, in case the club wins the Championship and wins promotion to the 1st Division, payable 20 days after the confirmation of the final; - EUR 10,000 of bonus, in case the player scores 14 goals. 3. Art. 5 of the contract stipulates that “all conditions in this contract are fair and reasonable and both parties clearly and unreservedly renounce the breach of contract”. 4. On 11 May 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for breach of contract without just cause and, after amending his claim, requested the payment of the total amount of EUR 122,317, plus interests of 5% p.a. as from the date of termination, made up of: - EUR 70,000 of salaries for the entire duration of the contract; - EUR 10,000 of bonus, considering that the player could have scored 14 goals if the contract had not been terminated; - EUR 2,317 corresponding to two round-trip air tickets to country B; - EUR 40,000 as damages related to the prejudice to his future career; - legal fees. 5. Furthermore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent also requests that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant should be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for two registration periods. 6. In his arguments, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent states never having received any of the amounts established in the contract. 7. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent further claims that, on 29 July 2009, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant terminated the employment contract. According to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, no valid reasons were given by the club for the termination, which occurred within the protected period. In this respect, the Chamber noted that none of the parties has provided written evidence of the termination. 8. In order to obtain an explanation for the early termination, the Claimant/Counter- Respondent sent the Respondent/Counter-Claimant two letters, dated 5 April 2011 and 27 April 2011, which allegedly remained unanswered. 9. Finally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that the termination of his contract after such a short period of time has damaged his image and his future career, causing him financial and personal damages as well, since he had already moved from country B to country G. 10. In its response, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant affirms having paid the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the sign-on fee of EUR 10,000 in cash. In addition, the amount of EUR 30,000 was allegedly paid to the player’s agent, Mr F as a condition set forth by his former club in order to release the player. A cheque in the amount of EUR 10,000, regarding agent fees, was also issued on behalf of the player’s agent on 10 August 2009, but was never cashed. 11. Furthermore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant points out that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was in breach of contract, as he and his agent disappeared after the aforementioned payments were made. Allegedly, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant waited two days for the Claimant/Counter- Respondent to present himself at training and to sign the “official employment contract”, but he failed to do so. Therefore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent allegedly never played for the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 12. In view of the foregoing, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant cancelled the cheque issued on behalf of Mr F and lodges a counterclaim against the player, requesting that he should reimburse the amount of EUR 40,000 to the club. 13. In his replica, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent states that the contract signed with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is valid and binding and, thus, the signature of an official employment contract - as mentioned by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant - is by no means necessary. In addition, the contract signed between the parties contained no clause mentioning that an “official contract” should be signed. 14. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent confirms having received the amount of EUR 10,000 as sign-on fee upon signature of the contract. Nevertheless, the amount of EUR 70,000 is still due as compensation for the breach of contract. 15. Furthermore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent states that the amount of EUR 30,000 allegedly paid to the player’s agent is not mentioned in the employment contract and has, therefore, no connection whatsoever to the present dispute. In addition, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant presents no evidence that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s former club has imposed the payment of EUR 30,000 as a condition for his release. 16. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not submit its final position to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim. 17. Finally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims having been employed with the following clubs: - Club A (country B), as from 27 August 2009 until 22 October 2009, for a monthly salary of currency of country B 900 (EUR 338); - Club H (country B), as from 23 October 2009 until 20 December 2010, for a monthly salary of currency of country B 900 (EUR 338). II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the DRC 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 11 May 2011. 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 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC 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 (editions 2010 and 2012), it is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension, between a country B player and a country G club. 3. Furthermore, the DRC analysed which edition of the 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 (editions 2010 and 2012) and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 11 May 2011, the 2010 edition of said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, it started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. 5. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had signed an employment contract, on 22 July 2009, valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2010, according to which the Claimant/Counter- Respondent was entitled, inter alia, to EUR 10,000 as sign-on fee and EUR 70,000 as global salary for the entire duration of the contract. 6. The Chamber further noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant/Counter- Respondent claims that, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 29 July 2011 unilaterally and without just cause terminated the contract, and never paid him any of the contractually stipulated remuneration, in spite of his reminders dated 5 and 27 April 2011. As the premature termination of the contract caused him financial and professional damage, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent requests the payment of compensation by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in the total amount of EUR 122,317, as well as the imposition of sporting sanctions. 7. The DRC equally noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, on the other hand, states having lawfully terminated the contract, since the Claimant/Counter- Respondent, after receiving his sign-on fee in the amount of EUR 10,000, did not present himself at the club to start training and sign the official employment contract. Therefore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant requests that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent reimburses the amount of EUR 40,000, paid to him and to his agent. 8. In continuation, the members of the Chamber took note of the fact that, in his replica, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent maintains his previous allegations and claims that the contract signed between the parties on 22 July 2009 was valid and binding and that the signature of an “official employment contract” was not necessary. In addition, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent confirms having received the amount of EUR 10,000 from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 9. Subsequently, the Chamber observed that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not submit its final position to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim. 10. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the allegations of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, and which party was responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship in question. The DRC also underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the employment contract was breached by one of the parties without just cause, it would be necessary to determine the consequences for the party that caused the unjust breach of the relevant employment contract. 11. The Chamber, first and foremost, focused its attention on the question as to whether a legally binding employment contract had been concluded by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 12. In this regard, 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 and the signature of both parties. After a careful study of the employment contract presented by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the Chamber concluded that all such essential elements are included in the pertinent document, in particular, the fact that the contract establishes that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive remuneration, including a monthly salary, in exchange for his services to the club as a player. 13. Having established that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had agreed to enter a valid and legally binding employment contract, the Chamber went on to analyse as to whether the contract had been breached and, in the affirmative, which party is to be held liable for such breach of contract. 14. In this respect, the DRC firstly recalled that the parties do not dispute the fact that the sign-on fee in the amount of EUR 10,000 was paid by the Respondent/Counter- Claimant to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. Consequently, the Chamber pointed out that by doing so the Respondent/Counter-Claimant started the execution of the employment contract of 22 July 2009. In addition, the parties appear to agree upon the fact that such contract was terminated by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant a few days after the start date. 15. In continuation, the Chamber took due not of the fact that the Claimant/Counter- Respondent sent the Respondent/Counter-Claimant two reminders dated 5 and 27 April 2011, by means of which he requested that the club justify the early termination of their employment relationship. 16. Finally, the members of the DRC acknowledged that, after the termination of the contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Claimant/Counter- Respondent found new employment with the country B club, Club A, as from 27 August 2009. 17. At this point and for the sake of good order, the DRC recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right from an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. 18. Bearing in mind the aforementioned article, the Chamber took note of the fact that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not deny the Respondent/Counter- Claimant’s allegation that he was not present at training at the beginning of their contract nor did he provide any type of evidence of his presence in country G. This, in spite of having received the amount of EUR 10,000 upon signature of the contract. 19. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber took note of the fact that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s reminders to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant were only sent almost two years after the termination of the employment contract by the club. In addition, the DRC noted that about one month after the start date of the employment contract, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had already found new employment with a country B club. 20. At this point, the DRC deemed it appropriate to remind the parties of the basic elements of a contract, namely an offer and an acceptance of said offer. Moreover, the DRC recalled that the parties to an agreement must necessarily intend to enter a legally binding relationship, which they shall either state explicitly or which can, in certain cases, be inferred from the circumstances under which the agreement was made. 21. Bearing in mind the aforementioned principles as well as the particular circumstances of the present case, the members of the Chamber observed that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was not able to prove by means of substantial evidence that he ever had the legitimate intention to create a legal relationship with the club and execute the contract signed between them on 22 July 2009. In fact, the DRC deemed that the circumstances of the matter at hand unequivocally suggest the contrary. 22. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had breached the employment contract without just cause and was therefore not entitled to receive from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant any type of compensation. 23. Consequently, the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for compensation and sporting sanctions against the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had to be rejected. 24. In addition, the DRC held that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim pertaining to legal costs is also rejected, in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence. 25. Subsequently, the Chamber noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had paid the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the amount of EUR 10,000 as sign-on fee, which was confirmed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 26. In view of the aforementioned, the Chamber decided to partially accept the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and established that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was to be held liable to reimburse the amount of EUR 10,000 to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 27. The Chamber concluded its deliberations by establishing that any further counterclaims lodged by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant are rejected. ** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player R, is rejected. 2. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club P, is partially accepted. 3. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player R, is ordered to pay to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club P, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 10,000. 4. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the above-mentioned time limit, an interest rate of 5% p.a. will apply on said amount as of expiry of the above- mentioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further counterclaims lodged by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club P, are rejected. 6. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club P, is directed to inform the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player R, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are 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