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 27 February 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Todd Durbin (USA), member Mohamed Al Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on the claim presented by the player, Player P, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club T, 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 27 February 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Todd Durbin (USA), member Mohamed Al Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on the claim presented by the player, Player P, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club T, from country G as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 10 August 2009, Player P, from country S, born in February 1982 (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club T, from country G (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded a country G Super League employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 10 August 2009 until 30 June 2011. 2. Pursuant to the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 826 as well as an amount of EUR 275,218.27, payable in ten instalments as follows: - EUR 25,380.71 to be paid on 10 August 2009; - EUR 22,445.69 to be paid on the following 5 dates: - 1 September 2009, - 1 November 2009, - 1 January 2010, - 1 March 2010, and - 1 June 2010; - EUR 34,402.28 to be paid on the 4 following dates: - 1 September 2010, - 1 November 2010, - 1 January 2011, and - 1 March 2011. 3. Clause 4.11 of the contract stipulates that: “In the event of termination of the contract due to fault of the Club, without prejudice to the specific and minimum provisions of par. 2 of Article 17 of the Regulations, it is hereby stipulated that the compensation due to the Player amounts to: a) During the protected period 200.000 €; b) Outside the protected period ---------.“ 4. Clause 10 of the contract states that “All disputes between the parties are settled 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 the second instance.” 5. On 20 August 2010, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA for compensation for breach of contract and sporting sanctions, alleging that he had grounds to terminate the contract. The Claimant reported that until 1 June 2010 six instalments fell due totalling the amount EUR 137,609.16. However, he had only received the total amount of EUR 40,813. Consequently, the Claimant claimed that there was an amount of “EUR 79,187” net outstanding. In addition, the Claimant claimed that the Respondent had prevented him from participating in trainings and matches, despite his requests to enable him to train with the team and fulfil his duties. 6. On account of the above, the Claimant requested compensation in the total amount of EUR 200,000 in accordance with art. 4.11 of the contract. 7. To its claim, the Claimant enclosed a letter dated 6 August 2010 by means of which he put the Respondent in default for the amount of EUR 79,187 and notified the Respondent that he would terminate the contract if it would not pay the relevant amount within 5 days. 8. On 6 September 2010, the Claimant reverted to FIFA indicating that, on 10 July 2009, the parties had concluded a pre-contract by means of which they undertook to sign “a professional contract of labour”. In this respect, the Claimant submitted a copy of said pre-contract which is only signed by the Respondent. 9. According to the pre-contract, the Claimant would be entitled to an advance payment of EUR 20,000 to be paid upon receipt of the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) and to EUR 120,000 net per contract year. In addition, the Claimant would be entitled to the following benefits: accommodation in an apartment; a car; as well as one plane ticket to country P per year for him and his family. 10. As a consequence of the above, the Claimant held that the outstanding amount amounted to EUR 109,187 (EUR 120,000 – EUR 40,813). 11. On 13 September 2010, the Claimant reverted again to FIFA indicating that, on the same day, he notified the Respondent of his decision to terminate the contract. 12. On account of all the above, the Claimant requested the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) to: a. declare that the Respondent is in breach of the contract; b. order the Respondent to pay outstanding remuneration totalling EUR 109,187 plus interest. c. order the Respondent to pay EUR 200,000 as compensation for breach of contract; d. impose sporting sanctions. 13. On 30 September 2011, the Respondent replied to the Claimant’s claim, primarily disputing FIFA’s competence to deal with the matter on the basis of clause 10 of the contract. The Respondent stressed that both bodies mentioned in clause 10 “are independent arbitration tribunals guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs”. Therefore, the Respondent argued that the Claimant was obliged to file his claim before the country G bodies. 14. In this respect, the Respondent provided FIFA with a copy of the 2009 editions of the “country G Football Federation Statutes” and the “Procedural Rules of the Disputes Resolution Committee of the country G Football Federation”. 15. In the alternative and as to the substance, the Respondent stressed that the payments due by 1 June 2010 amounted to EUR 108,436 net only, that is EUR 137,609.16 gross minus the applicable 21,2% tax rate. 16. Moreover, the Respondent maintained that by 1 June 2010 the Claimant had received an overall amount of EUR 60,813, instead of EUR 40,813. According to the Respondent, the additional amount of EUR 20,000 corresponded to an advance payment made on 15 July 2009 to the Claimant, which he had requested in order to pay his agent’s commission. 17. In addition to the amount of EUR 60,813, the Respondent claimed to have made a number of payments in the total amount of EUR 4,308.86 (utilities, insurance, etc.) on behalf of the Claimant until the end of the season, i.e. 30 June 2010. Therefore, in the Respondent’s view, the outstanding amount must be set at EUR 43,314.14 instead of EUR 79,187. In this respect, the Respondent held that the contract must be regarded as terminated as of the date of the filing of the claim, i.e. 20 August 2010. Consequently, the Claimant was not entitled to receive the payment due on 1 September 2010 and, as a result, at the time of termination, only the amount of EUR 43,314.14 was outstanding. 18. Furthermore, the Respondent pointed out that until July 2010, the Claimant had never complained about any delayed payments, but, as from mid-July, the Claimant started causing troubles because he wanted to leave the Respondent, allegedly because the Respondent’s coach regarded him as third option for the goalkeeper position. Following this, at the end of July, the Respondent reported that the Claimant left without notice and never returned, despite the Respondent’s efforts to persuade him through his agent to return. Moreover the Respondent rejected that it had prevented the Claimant from taking part in trainings sessions and from fulfilling his duties. 19. The Respondent stressed that the Claimant had filed his claim before FIFA without having previously put the Respondent in default and that he had already closed his bank account in country G, reason for which the Respondent could not make any further payments. In this regard, the Respondent claimed to have never received the letter of 6 August 2010. Similarly, the Respondent pointed out that the documentation submitted by the Claimant to prove the notification, were either illegible or not translated into English. 20. Moreover, the Respondent claimed that, in the meantime, there is no amount outstanding to the Claimant, because it issued a check for the amount of EUR 53,720.99 in the name of the Claimant, which it deposited with the country G Football Federation. The Respondent explained that it issued the check because the Claimant had closed his bank account in country G. Finally, the Respondent stated that it issued a check for EUR 53,720.99, instead of EUR 43,314.14, because of other monies that the Claimant was entitled to or that were due to him (monthly fees and minor expenses). 21. In continuation, with respect to the Claimant’s request for EUR 200,000 as compensation, the Respondent rejected such request arguing that, in fact, it was the Claimant who breached the contract by leaving the Respondent without terminating the contract and without any notice. 22. Finally, should the DRC accept the claim of the Claimant, then it shall reduce the compensation in light of the mitigating factors of the present case, the Respondent’s payment of all of the outstanding amounts and the disproportionately of the amount claimed. 23. In his replica, the Claimant confirmed that a payment of EUR 20,000 had been made on 15 July 2009, however it was made on an account to which he had no access “earlier than on 20 of July 2009”. Also, the Respondent “did not prove that the payment done for the player’s agent should be enlisted to the payments to which the club was obliged by contract”. Hence, the payment was made as a commission to the agent and was “not calculated in the player’s salary.” 24. Furthermore, the Claimant: - insisted on the competence of FIFA to hear the present dispute; - indicated that the amount of EUR 4,308.86 was a separate obligation of the Respondent; - indicated that he never got any information in relation to the check; - asserted that the statements of the Respondent in relation to his abandonment of the club are not true. 25. In its replica, the Respondent adhered to its previous position. 26. Finally, the Claimant indicated that he signed a new employment contract with Club R, from country P, on 19 January 2011, valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2011. In accordance with the contract, the player was entitled to currency of country P 22,712 gross per month, apart from the month of January 2011, in which he was entitled to currency of country P 9,352. 27. On 22 July 2013, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) rendered an award whereby it decided that the national arbitration bodies of the country G Football Federation fulfil the requirements of equal representation and of an independent chairman and guarantee fair proceedings. 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 20 August 2010. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (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 S player and a country G club. 3. However, the DRC acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding body on the basis of clause 10 of the employment contract, asserting that the arbitration bodies of the country G Football Federation are independent arbitration tribunals guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs. 4. The Chamber noted that the Claimant, for his part, rejected such position and insisted that FIFA has jurisdiction to deal with the present matter. 5. In this respect, and first of all, the Chamber outlined that the standard country G Super League employment contract signed by and between the Claimant and the Respondent on 10 August 2009 contains a clause in accordance with which all disputes between the parties are settled 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. 6. As to the pre-contract dated 10 July 2010, the Chamber considered that said precontract was only signed by the Respondent but not by the Claimant and that it could therefore not be considered by the Chamber. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the standard country G Super League employment contract signed by and between the Claimant and the Respondent on 10 August 2009 shall be considered to be the only valid contract at the basis of the present matter. For this reason, the Chamber concluded that when analysing the preliminary question as to the competence of the Chamber, it shall take into account only the terms of the standard country G Super League employment contract signed by and between the Claimant and the Respondent on 10 August 2009. 7. In continuation, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, it is competent to hear a matter such as the one at hand, unless an independent tribunal, guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs, has been established at national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to the standards to be imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings, the DRC referred to FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. In this regard, the Chamber further referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008. 8. In this respect, the Chamber took into account that, on 22 July 2013, the CAS issued an award, whereby it decided that the national arbitration bodies of the country G Football Federation fulfill the requirements of equal representation and of an independent chairman and guarantee fair proceedings, in compliance with the aforementioned applicable standards. 9. In this context, the Chamber took note that the country G deciding bodies at the basis of the aforementioned CAS decision are the same deciding bodies as the ones included in the jurisdiction clause of the standard country G Super League employment contract dated 10 August 2009. 10. On account of the above, the DRC referred to art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and established that it is not competent to adjudicate on the present matter since a) clause 10 of the relevant employment contract constitutes a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the PEEOD and the Court of Arbitration of the country g Football Federation, and b) CAS confirmed that the relevant country G deciding bodies fulfill the requirements of equal representation and of an independent chairman and guarantee fair proceedings, i.e. the relevant country G deciding bodies are competent to adjudicate on disputes between players and clubs like the matter at hand. 11. In light of the above, the Chamber unanimously decided that the claim of the Claimant is inadmissible. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player P, is inadmissible. 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