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 7 February 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member John Bramhall (England), member Santiago Nebot (Spain), member on the claim presented by the player, Player F, from country T as Claimant against the club, Club K, from country R 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 7 February 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member John Bramhall (England), member Santiago Nebot (Spain), member on the claim presented by the player, Player F, from country T as Claimant against the club, Club K, from country R as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 19 February 2010, Player F, from country T (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the Club K, from country R (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of signature until 19 February 2012. 2. According to clause 6 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive a monthly remuneration amounting to USD 2,000 “in currency of country R of a country R Central Bank rate at date of payment”. 3. Equally, clauses 6 and 7 also stipulated that “the [Respondent] can effect payment of remunerations through premiums, simulations, pay rise and other similar payments, as well” and that “the special conditions are written in the Appendix 1 which is the part of the present labor agreement”. 4. Furthermore, the parties also signed a document named Appendix 1 (hereinafter: the appendix), which established a “Special Conditions for the Contract”, according to which the Claimant was entitled to receive the following: a) EUR 2,000,000 net corresponding to the salary for the term of the contract, to be paid out as follows: i. EUR 250,000 payable until 15 March 2010; ii. “the remaining amount of the [Claimant´s] salary is divided into 24 equal parts to be paid monthly, starting from 19 February 2010, 156,250 […] Euros per month with the exchange rate of the Central bank of country R Federation on the day of payment”; iii. EUR 100,000 net as bonus in case the Respondent “wins the right to play in the official competition of UEFA”. “The payment is made with the exchange rate of the Central bank of country R Federation on the day of payment.” iv. EUR 200,000 net as bonus in case the Respondent qualifies for the UEFA Champions League. “The payment is made with the exchange rate of the Central bank of country R Federation on the day of payment.” 5. On 1 September 2010, the Claimant was transferred to the Club B, from country T. 6. On 15 February 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) claiming EUR 277,753.43 net as well as USD 12,666 net, plus interest of 5% p.a. as set out below: a. USD 12,000 corresponding to six monthly salaries from March 2010 until August 2010, in accordance with the contract, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 September 2010; b. USD 666 corresponding to the salary due from 19 February until 29 February 2010, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 September 2010; c. EUR 177,753.43 net corresponding to the payments due to the player in accordance with the appendix, namely: EUR 250,000 EUR 937,500 EUR 52,080 = EUR 1,239,580 - EUR 1,061,826.57 = EUR 177,753.43 down-payment payable until 15 March 2010 corresponding to six months, i.e. March until August 2010 of the “remaining amount of the [Claimant´s] salary […] divided into 24 equal parts […] of EUR 156,250 per month corresponding to the remuneration due from 19 February until 29 February 2010 Grand total corresponding to the payments the Claimant has already received plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 September 2010 d) EUR 100,000 as bonus since the Respondent finished the season 2010 of the country R Premier League 3rd, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 15 February 2012. 7. Thereupon, the Claimant claims having asked the Respondent to pay his outstanding monies until the day he was transferred to Club B. on 1 September 2010, however, without allegedly receiving any answer and/or payment in this regard. 8. With regard to the requested bonus payment, the Claimant stated that he should be granted EUR 70,000 in case the Dispute Resolution Chamber would not accept his initial request of EUR 100,000. In this respect, the Claimant explained that the season in country R runs during 10 months. As he was employed with the Respondent during 7 months, he should be entitled to receive at least EUR 70,000, on a pro rata basis. 9. In its response to the claim, the Respondent emphasized that the amount of EUR 2,000,000 specified in the appendix already included the monthly salary of USD 2,000 due to the Claimant in accordance with clause 6 of the contract, and the Claimant was allegedly aware of this fact. 10. With regard to the Claimant´s request for the amount of EUR 177,753.43, the Respondent explained that “the salary of the [Claimant] was paid in currency of country R at the exchange rate of the Central Bank of country R (currency of country R/Euro) on the day of payment”. In this respect, the Respondent stated that “the labor legislation of country R Federation stipulates that in our country the salary is paid only in currency of country R. As the [Claimant] wished money to be transferred on his account in Euro, [the Respondent´s] bank converted currency of country R into Euro at its internal rate”. In this regard, the Respondent explained that “this rate does not coincide with the rate of the Central Bank of country R” and, therefore, there is “a small difference not in favor of the [Claimant], which he is trying now to claim from our club”. In view of all the above, the Respondent considered the claim of the Claimant to be groundless. 11. Furthermore, the Respondent also rejected the Claimant’s request for the bonus of EUR 100,000 since he was no longer employed by the Respondent by the time it qualified for the official UEFA competition, i.e. at the end of the season 2010 which ended on 28 November 2010. As the employment contract was terminated on 1 September 2010, “the conditions on which the bonus has to be paid, were not fulfilled”, as per the Respondent. 12. Finally, the Respondent also noted that “as for the payment of salary for the February 2010, in this case a technical fault took place” and “[the Respondent] underpaid 14,686 Euro to the [Claimant]”. Thus, the Respondent acknowledged still owing the Claimant the amount of EUR 14,686. 13. In his reaction to the Respondent´s position, the Claimant reiterated his claims and also rejected the Respondent´s statement with regard to the salary of USD 2,000, stipulated in the contract, already being included in the salary amounting to EUR 2,000,000, stipulated in the Appendix. In this respect, the Claimant pointed out that the appendix neither refers to the contract nor to the inclusion of the salary of USD 2,000 in the amount of EUR 2,000,000. Furthermore, the Claimant asserted that the “contract drafted as “Euro” payment will be done as “Euro”, the [Respondent´s] explanations does not binding for the side of the [Claimant]. The [Respondent] should have done the payment until completing responsibilities as “Euro” debt”. In this regard, the Claimant also emphasized that “the payment is not completed, not only the exchange rate but there is also monthly lack of payment by the [Respondent]”. 14. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not provide FIFA with its final comments. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 21 par. 1 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 15 February 2012. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the edition 2008 of the Procedural Rules was applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 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 and par. 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010), it is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension, between a country T player and a country R 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 (editions 2010 and 2012), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 15 February 2012, the 2010 edition of said regulations is applicable to the matter at hand 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 to acknowledge 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, on 19 February 2010, they had signed an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 19 February 2012, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive a monthly remuneration amounting to USD 2,000 payable “in currency of country R of a country R Central Bank rate at date of payment”. 6. In addition, the Chamber observed that the parties equally did not dispute that, on the same day, they had concluded an appendix, which stipulated that the Respondent should pay to the Claimant as remuneration for the term of the appendix, the amount of EUR 2,000,000 payable as detailed in point I.4. above. 7. Furthermore, the DRC took due note that it was also undisputed by the parties that the Claimant was transferred to the country T club, Club B., on 1 September 2010, as detailed in point I.5. above. 8. The DRC further noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant claims that the Respondent had failed to make several payments regarding salaries and bonuses up to the date of his transfer to Club B. Consequently, the Claimant asked to be awarded the payment of the amounts of EUR 277,753.43 and USD 12,666, plus interest. 9. The DRC further noted that, on the other hand, the Respondent alleged that the monthly salary of USD 2,000 specified in the contract would already be included in the amount of EUR 2,000,000 stipulated in the appendix, as established in art. 6 of the contract (cf. point I.3. above). Equally, the Chamber took due note that the Respondent emphasized that, as per art. 6 of the contract (cf. point I.2. above), the Claimant’s remuneration was to be paid out in currency of country R, which occasioned the difference claimed by the Claimant. In addition, the Chamber observed that the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s request to be awarded the bonus amounting to EUR 100,000 (cf. point I.4 a) iii.), since the Claimant was no longer employed by the Respondent by the time it qualified for the official UEFA competition. Finally, the DRC also took due note that the Respondent acknowledged still owing to the Claimant the amount of EUR 14,686. 10. Subsequently, the Chamber observed that the Claimant rejects the Respondent’s arguments stating, in particular, that it was nowhere established that the salary stipulated in the contract was to be considered as included in the amount established in the appendix. Thus, the Claimant maintained his claim. 11. Finally, the Chamber noted that the Respondent did not submit its final position on the present matter. 12. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant and the allegations of the Respondent, was to determine whether the Claimant’s request for outstanding remuneration could be upheld. 13. At this point, and for the sake of good order, the DRC deemed it appropriate to remind the parties of 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 on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Bearing in mind the aforementioned principle, the DRC noted that in the present dispute, the Respondent bore the burden of proof regarding the payment of the Claimant’s remuneration. 14. In this respect, the Chamber first noted that the Respondent was not able to provide any type of documentary evidence of the payment to the Claimant of the salaries and the bonus claimed by him as outstanding. The DRC observed, instead, that the Respondent invokes several arguments in order to justify the non-payment of the Claimant’s remuneration. 15. In this context, the DRC first focused its attention on the Respondent’s argument, according to which the salary of USD 2,000 established in the contract was already included in the remuneration stipulated in the appendix, as per art. 6 and 7 of the contract. 16. At this point, the members of the DRC deemed it appropriate to recall the wording of the aforementioned articles, which is as follows: “the [Respondent] can effect payment of remuneration through premiums, simulations, pay rise and other similar payments, as well” and that “the special conditions are written in Appendix […] which is the part of the present labor agreement.” 17. In view of the aforementioned, the DRC observed that art. 6 and 7 of the contract do not establish the inclusion of the contractual remuneration in the amount stipulated in the appendix. On the contrary, the Chamber observed that the contract even mentions that “the special conditions […] in the Appendix [are] part of the present labour agreement”, implying, thus, a relation of complementarity between the contract and the agreement. Therefore, the financial terms of the contract and of the appendix are to be considered as independent and complementary and the Respondent’s objection in this regard cannot be upheld. 18. In continuation, the DRC focused its attention on the Respondent’s argument, as per which the amounts claimed by the Claimant as outstanding are the result of the conversion of the Claimant’s remuneration into currency of country R, as established in art. 6 of the contract (cf. point I.2. above). 19. In this respect, the Chamber considered that the Respondent did not provide any documentary evidence in support of the aforementioned argument. In any case, the DRC stated that the difference allegedly caused by the conversion of the Claimant’s salary from US Dollars into currency of country R is not able to justify the partial payment of the Claimant’s remuneration by the Respondent. The Chamber further emphasized that, in accordance with the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, all obligations undertaken by a party in a contract should be, as a rule, duly complied with. In the present case, the Chamber deemed that the Respondent has to pay the Claimant the amounts agreed by the parties as remuneration for his services in the specific amount as stipulated in the contract. Consequently, the DRC concluded that the argument of the Respondent had to be rejected. 20. Finally, the Chamber also noted that the Respondent even acknowledges a debt towards the Claimant in the amount of EUR 14,686 (cf. point I.12. above). 21. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent was not able to provide any substantial evidence of the payment of the Claimant’s remuneration, as per the contract and the appendix, or to provide any reasons to justify the failure in making those payments. Thus, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is to be held liable for the payment of outstanding remuneration to the Claimant in the total amounts of EUR 177,753.43 and USD 12,666, corresponding to his salaries for the months from February 2010 until August 2010, plus interest of 5% p.a. on said amounts as from 1 September 2010, as requested by the Claimant. 22. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber began to analyse the Claimant’s request for the payment of the allegedly outstanding bonus for qualification to an official UEFA competition in the amount of EUR 100,000. 23. In this regard, the Chamber noted that while the Claimant claims his entitlement to receive the aforementioned amount, the Respondent deems that such amount is not due, since the Claimant was no longer employed by it at the time the season ended on 28 November 2010. 24. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that it is an undisputed fact by the parties that the Claimant was transferred to Club B on 1 September 2010. Therefore, by the time the club officially qualified for the UEFA competition, i.e. end of the season, he was indeed no longer employed by the Respondent. As a consequence, the DRC determined that the Claimant is not entitled to receive the bonus of EUR 100,000. 25. In conclusion, the Chamber decided that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Respondent is to be held liable to pay the outstanding amounts of EUR 177,753.43 and USD 12,666 to the Claimant as well as 5% interest p.a. on said amounts as from 1 September 2010 until the date of effective payment. 26. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player F, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club K, is ordered to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 177,753.43 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September 2010 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 12,666 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September 2010 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 4. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant in accordance with the above- mentioned numbers 2. and 3., plus interest, are not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent 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 article 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