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 12 December 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member Todd Durbin (USA), member on the claim presented by the player, Player C, from country U as “Claimant” against the club, Club D, from country O as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute 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 12 December 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member Todd Durbin (USA), member on the claim presented by the player, Player C, from country U as “Claimant” against the club, Club D, from country O as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 21 May 2008, Player C, from country U (hereinafter: player or Claimant) and Club D, from country O (hereinafter: club or Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid from 20 June 2008 until the end of the sport season 2008-2009, according to which the Respondent shall pay the Claimant a monthly salary of USD 3,000 as well as a signing on fee amounting to USD 10,000. 2. In this respect, art. 14 of the contract specified that “in the event of failure to pass the player of the medical examinations and tests that are functional in the contract and the ability -/10000 received ten thousand U.S. dollars”. Furthermore, art. 9 of the contract stated that “Given the failure to pass the player of the item number (14) special medical examinations upon the parties agreed that in case the player before the end of January 2009 it re-submitted the contract fully in the case of player injuries after a month in January to re-half of the decade”. 3. Equally, the contract provided for the Claimant to be able to prematurely terminate the contract by informing the Respondent accordingly three months in advance, in which case it would have to bear the costs of its flight back home (cf. art. 9 of the contract). In addition, the Claimant would have to “pay the full knots” (cf. art. 12 of the contract). 4. Finally, the contract specified that “if the party finished second service without warning to observe a period stipulated in item (9) of this contract [cf. par. 3 above] party is entitled to the first fine amount of $ (9000) nine thousand dollars only.” 5. On 31 August 2008, the Respondent terminated its contractual relationship with the Claimant referring to art. 14 of the contract (cf. par. 2 above). In addition, the Respondent informed the Claimant that it could collect its “balance dues” at its finance office. 6. On 8 April 2009, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent requesting from the latter the payment of USD 46,000 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to its salary during 12 months, plus USD 10,000, as signing on fee. Furthermore, the Claimant requested the payment of an addition unspecific amount of compensation. 7. In this respect, the Claimant contested the validity of art. 14 of the contract arguing that it violated the provision included in art. 18 par. 4. of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players which inter alia stipulates that the validity of a contract may not be made subject to a successful medical examination. Hence, the Claimant deemed that the contract had been terminated without just cause. 8. Finally, the Claimant alleged having had to pay to the Respondent USD 5,000 in order for his ITC to be issued in favour of its new club. 9. In its response on 6 July 2010, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim arguing that the latter had failed to pass the medical and fitness examination. In addition, the Respondent alleged that the amount of USD 10,000 had already been paid to the Claimant as signing on fee and that the latter had to reimburse such amount as per art. 14 of the contract. As to that and considering that the Claimant had apparently so far only reimbursed USD 5,000, the Respondent requested FIFA to intervene “in this matter to procure the remaining fund from the player”. In this respect and as proof of its allegations, the Respondent provided FIFA with a document dated 31 August 2008, allegedly signed by the Claimant, by means of which the latter confirmed having received “all my receivables finance in addition to ticket Club D (..). I claim is not entitled to any payments or succession where my services ended with the club in 31 August 2008. As I testified after the claim only after the transition of international payment and the ability - /10000 $ (..) for Club D, which received a provider contract”. 10. In spite of having been asked to do so, the Claimant did not provide FIFA with its position on the Respondent’s response, although it was informed that, in absence of a reply a decision would be taken on the basis of the information and evidence at disposal. 11. Nevertheless, on 21 November 2013, asked about its labour situation during the period between 31 August 2008 and 31 August 2009, the Claimant informed FIFA that it had signed an employment contract with Club G, from country P, which was valid from 19 February 2009 until the end of the season 2009, and provided for it to receive a monthly salary of USD 400 as well as a signing on fee in the amount of USD 5,915 to be paid in 6 instalments of USD 985.83 each on the following dates: 28 February 2009; 30 April 2009; 30 June 2009; 30 August 2009; 31 October 2009 and 15 December 2009. In total, the Claimant argued to have received until 31 August 2009, the amount of USD 2,550, corresponding to its salary during 6 months and 11 days, and a bonus of USD 3,940, corresponding to 4 instalments of USD 985 each. ***** 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 8 April 2009. 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 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 conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an country U player and an country O 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 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012, 2010, 2009 and 2008), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 8 April 2009, the 2008 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 and started by acknowledging the facts of the case, as well as the documentation contained in the file. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the parties had signed an employment contract valid as from 20 June 2008 until the end of the sport season 2008-2009, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive, a monthly salary of USD 3,000 and a signing on fee amounting to USD 10,000. 5. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber turned its attention to the claim of the Claimant, who argued that the Respondent had breached the employment contract, and claimed the payment of USD 46,000 as compensation for breach of contract, as well as the payment of the amount of USD 10,000, as a signing on fee and the payment of an unspecific amount of compensation. 6. In continuation, the Chamber observed that, for its part, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant. In particular, the Chamber took due note that during the procedure the Respondent provided FIFA with a waiver dated 31 August 2008, signed by the player, by means of which the player acknowledged that he has received all his outstanding remuneration and the club has no further obligations. 7. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the Claimant failed to present any comments on the position of the Respondent, in spite of having been invited to do so. 8. In this regard, the members of the Chamber referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof, the Chamber considered that the Claimant renounced to its right to defence and, thus, it had to be assume that it had accepted the legitimacy of the above-mentioned document. As a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the Chamber concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules it shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents already on file. 9. In the light of all of the above, and in particular bearing in mind the fact that the Claimant signed the aforementioned waiver, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to reject the claim put forward by the Claimant. 10. The members of the Chamber then turned its attention to the counterclaim lodged by the Respondent against the Claimant, who maintains that the latter is to be held liable to reimburse the amount of USD 10,000 which was paid by the Respondent as a signing on fee to the Claimant. 11. In this context, the members of the Chamber recalled once again 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. 12. According to this, the members of the Chamber noted that the Respondent did not substantiate its allegations, as it did not present any evidence in respect of the allegedly payment of USD 10,000. 13. As a result, and based on the documents at its disposal the Chamber decided to reject the counterclaim of the Respondent against the Claimant. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player C, is rejected. 2. The counterclaim of the Respondent, Club D, 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: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl.: CAS directives