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 31 October 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Ivan Gazidis (England), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the player, Player T, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club M, from country G as Respondent 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 31 October 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Ivan Gazidis (England), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the player, Player T, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club M, from country G as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case Preliminary issues as regards competence: 1. On 16 January 2009, Player T, from country B (hereinafter: player or Claimant), and the professional Club M, from country G (hereinafter: club or Respondent) entered into an employment contract made out on a standard player contract issued by the country G Football League (hereinafter: standard contract) valid as from the date of its signature until 30 June 2010. 2. In accordance with the standard contract, which is at the basis of the present matter, all disputes between the parties are settled exclusively by the Appeals Committee for the Resolution of Financial Disputes (PEEOD) at first instance and the Court of Arbitration of the country G Football Federation at second instance. 3. The parties also signed an “Agreement”, which contains a jurisdiction clause assigning exclusive jurisdiction to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). 4. On 28 December 2012, the country G Football Federation confirmed that the professional club, Club M, is no longer affiliated to it due to its relegation to the 1st amateur division. 5. In addition, the country G Football Federation clarified that as this club was relegated to the 1st amateur division following a decision of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, the professional club ceased its operation and its founding sports association entered the amateur competition. 6. The country G Football Federation confirmed that the amateur club Club M is a different legal entity from the professional club Club M with different tax registration numbers and only has amateur members. 7. The country G Football Federation submitted a copy of country G law in accordance with which, in the event of the professional club being relegated (for any reason) to the amateur division, the amateur club does not undertake any contractual or other obligations of the company that was “set under liquidation”. 8. The player, Player T, does not agree with this viewpoint and insists that a formal decision be taken in this matter. The player points out that no tangible evidence was presented to corroborate this conclusion and that it would lead to the situation that any country G club can avoid paying its debts by merely being relegated to the amateur level and installing a different legal entity. 9. Prior to its disaffiliation, the club held that FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber has no jurisdiction to decide on the present matter in the light of the jurisdiction clause contained in the standard contract. 10. The player points out that the Dispute Resolution Chamber has jurisdiction to decide on the present matter given that the country G deciding body does not meet the minimum requirements set by FIFA, as allegedly confirmed by the CAS in February 2009. Facts related to the substance of the matter: 11. In accordance with the standard contract, the player was to receive a monthly salary of EUR 783 payable at the end of each month during 12 months per year. In addition, the player was entitled to receive a Christmas bonus (equalling one monthly salary), an Easter bonus (corresponding to half of the monthly salary), and holiday benefits (corresponding to half of the monthly salary). 12. On 16 January 2009, the parties entered into an “Agreement” with the same duration as the standard contract (hereinafter: agreement). 13. In addition to the aforementioned salary of EUR 783 per month, which according to the agreement is the player’s “basic salary according to the … [standard contract]” payable “until the 10th (tenth) day of each month for the current month”, the agreement includes further payments due to the player. 14. Art. 11 of the agreement sets forth the following procedure to be followed in case of the termination of the agreement and of the standard contract by the player: “In a case the Club fails to comply for the period of two consecutive months with the terms and the conditions for the payment of the basic salary, and amounts under this Agreement and/or other terms and conditions agreed upon in this Agreement and/or in the Professional Player’s Contract, the Player is entitled to send a 15 days notice, after the end of the second month, of termination of the Agreement and of the Professional Player’s Contract.”. 15. On 13 April 2009, the player put the club in default of payment of his basic and extra remuneration falling due on 10 March and 10 April 2009, giving a 15 days’ time limit to pay. In this default notice, the player referred to the procedure set out in art. 11 of the agreement. 16. On 11 May 2009, after having extended the first time limit, the player sent a reminder to the club in which he added his salary for May 2009 and, thus, asked to be paid three monthly salaries. 17. On 15 May 2009, these default notices having remained unanswered, the player terminated the standard contract and the agreement with immediate effect. 18. On 26 May 2009, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of CAS on the basis of the termination of both the standard contract and the agreement. 19. In its decision of 19 April 2010, the CAS concluded that said contracts complement each other, but that they are two separate and distinct contracts with each its own jurisdiction clause. The CAS considered that it was not competent to hear disputes between the parties arising out of the standard contract and only decided on the basis of the agreement, which CAS considered to have been breached by the club. 20. On 11 May 2010, the player lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the club on the basis of the standard contract, which, according to the player, he terminated with just cause. 21. Furthermore, the player stresses that there is no res iudicata in this case, given that the CAS denied its jurisdiction to hear and decide on the player’s claim based on the standard contract. 22. As regards his termination of the employment contracts with the club on 15 May 2009, the player highlights that the club was in delay of his salary payments for 3 months (March to May 2009). In this respect, the player submits that the clauses relating to his basic monthly salary in the agreement amended and completed the salary clause contained in the standard contract. 23. The player further points out that the termination procedure contained in the agreement stipulates the conditions for the termination of the standard contract, to which he was, in fact, not bound as the relevant clause entitled (emphasis added) him to follow such procedure. 24. Therefore, the player submits that he terminated the standard contract with just cause and asks to be awarded payment of outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract, which was detailed as follows: a. EUR 2,349 outstanding remuneration (3 x EUR 783 for March to May 2009); b. EUR 11,745 compensation relating to the residual contractual value in accordance with art. 12 of the agreement (13 X EUR 783 as from June 2009 until 30 June 2010; Christmas bonus 2009; Easter bonus; Holiday allowance); c. 5% interest p.a. as of 16 May 2009. 25. In addition, the player asks that sporting sanctions be imposed on the club. 26. The player further asks that no deductions be made from the residual contractual value as compensation, in the light of the compensation clause contained in the agreement. 27. In spite of having been invited to do so prior to its relegation, Club M has not presented its reply as to the substance of the matter. Apart from contesting FIFA’s competence to deal with the present matter in connection with the contractual jurisdiction clause, it merely indicated that the player’s present petition was already included in his claim in front of the CAS, who reached a decision and that, therefore, the player is not entitled to claim again in front of FIFA. 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 11 May 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. art. 21 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. With regard to the competence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its jurisdiction in the light of articles 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment- related dispute with an international dimension between a country B player and a country G club. 3. However, the DRC acknowledged that according to the information received from the country G Football Federation on 28 December 2012, the professional club Club M is no longer affiliated to the country G Football Federation due to its relegation to the amateur division. In addition, the country G Football Federation clarified that, as a result of its relegation, the professional club ceased its operations and its founding sports association entered the amateur competition. 4. The country G Football Federation further confirmed that the amateur club Club M is a different legal entity from the professional club Club M with different tax registration numbers and only has amateur members. 5. The Chamber noted that the Claimant, for his part, rejected such position and insisted that FIFA has jurisdiction to deal with the present matter. 6. Having said that, the members of the Chamber emphasised that according to art. 6 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of these regulations, FIFA may use documentation generated by or contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS) in order to properly assess the issue at stake. 7. In this regard, the Chamber took into account that from the information contained in TMS, which only includes professional clubs, it can be noted that the club, Club M, has been inactive and not been participating since 2011. The members of the Chamber concluded that the data contained in TMS confirm the information provided by the country G Football Federation in connection with the status of the Respondent, Club M, and that, thus, they had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the respective statements made by the country G. 8. On account of the above, the Chamber recognized that the Respondent, i.e. the club with which the Claimant had signed the contract at the basis of the present dispute, is no longer affiliated to the country G Football Federation. 9. Consequently, bearing in mind art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which parties are members of FIFA, clubs, players, coaches or licensed match agents and players’ agents, the Chamber decided that it has no competence to enter into the substance of the present matter due to the fact that the Respondent is not affiliated to its relevant member association. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber The claim of the Claimant, Player T, is not admissible. ** 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