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 G, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club V, 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 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 G, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club V, from country R as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 7 June 2008, Player G, from country B (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club V, from country R (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), as well as an appendix, both valid as from 1 July 2008 until 1 July 2011, i.e. for 3 years. 2. In accordance with the appendix to the contract, the Claimant was, inter alia, entitled to the following net amounts: - EUR 60,000 after completing the medical exams; - EUR 140,000 per season payable in 12 instalments of EUR 11,600 per month, each due on the 22nd day of the month; - EUR 140,000 per season as bonus for finishing in 1st or 2nd position (i.e. Champions League qualification); - EUR 70,000 per season as bonus for finishing in 3rd, 4th or 5th position (i.e. UEFA Cup / Europa League qualification); “Bonus will be paid only if the player is playing in at least 80% of the games but not less than 60%”; - Match bonus for the season 2008/2009: EUR 3,000 for each match won at home, EUR 6,000 for each match won away from home (50% will be paid after the match and 50% at the end of the championship if the team is classified in the top 5). 3. Art. 17.2 of the contract stipulates that “The parties will make, in good faith, all efforts in order to solve amiably any dispute, controversy or misunderstanding from or in connection with the present agreement. If this is not possible, the dispute will be forwarded in order to be solved only to the sports jurisdiction courts of country R Football Federation or Professional Football League”. 4. Art. 3 of the appendix stipulates that “If the player gets injured during training sessions, official or friendly matches, he will benefit from all the rights and obligations deriving from the present document (…)”. 5. On 19 January 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA for outstanding amounts, and after amending his claim after the expiry of the contract, requests EUR 213,456 plus 5% interest p.a. made up of the following amounts: - Season 2009/2010 total amount of EUR 103,710 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 1 July 2010: EUR 9,710 as total amount outstanding from his monthly salaries• throughout the season; EUR 24,000 as outstanding match bonuses;• EUR 70,000 as outstanding ‘’UEFA bonus’’.• - Season 2010/2011 total amount of EUR 109,746 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 1 July 2011: EUR 39,654 as total amount outstanding from his monthly salaries• throughout the season; EUR 70,092 as partial ‘’UEFA bonus’’.• 6. Furthermore, the Claimant requests sporting sanctions to be imposed on the Respondent. 7. The Claimant provided evidence of having put the Respondent in arrears in writing on 19 November 2010 and 13 December 2010, upon which the Respondent allegedly failed to remit the entire outstanding amounts. 8. In reply to the claim, the Respondent first of all rejected the competence of FIFA to deal with the matter, asserting that the contract is governed country R law and the regulations of the country R Football Federation and that the “National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the country R Football Federation or Dispute Resolution Committee of the country R Professional Football League” of the country R Football Federation are, respectively, the only competent bodies. In this respect, the Respondent referred to art. 26 of the Regulations concerning the Statute and Transfer of Players of the country R Football Federation (hereinafter: country R Football Federation Regulations). 9. Having been requested by FIFA to provide documentary evidence regarding the arbitration tribunal at national level, the Respondent provided a translated version of the “Collaboration Convention” concluded between the country R Football Federation and the country R Professional League, dated 28 January 2011. The Respondent also provided a translated version of the 2009 edition of the country R Football Federation Regulations. a. with regard to the existing deciding bodies: Art. 26. 1 lit. a) of the country R Football Federation Regulations indicates that the first instance deciding bodies are the NDRC of the country R Football Federation, the DRC of the country R Professional Football League and the Commission for the Players’ Status of the County Football Association (CFA). b. with regard to the jurisdiction of the deciding bodies: According to art. 26.2 lit. a) of the country R Football Federation Regulations, the NDRC of the country R Football Federation is competent to decide on disputes concerning “the conclusion, interpretation and execution of contracts concluded between clubs and players, and maintaining contractual stability”. As per art. 26.8 of the country R Football Federation Regulations, the DRC of the country R Professional Football League is “exclusively” competent to solve disputes involving “Clubs participating in the 1st League National Championship, officials, players and their coaches (…) according to the country R Football Federation and the country R Professional Football League annual convention”. c. with regard to the composition of the deciding bodies: Art. 26.5 of the country R Football Federation Regulations provides that the NDRC of the country R Football Federation is composed of a chairman and a vice-chairman “elected by consensus by the players and clubs’ representatives from a list containing the names of at least five people, drawn by the Executive Committee of the country R Football Federation”, three players’ representatives nominated by the Association of Amateur and Non-Amateur Footballers, and three clubs’ representatives nominated by the Executive Committee of the country R Football Federation. Art. 26.8 in fine of the country R Football Federation Regulations stipulates that the DRC of the country R Professional Football League – and its appeal body – is composed of five members, among which one president and one vice-president, their names and functions being approved by the Executive Committee of the Professional Football League for a one-year mandate. d. with regard to the possibility of an appeal: Art. 26.1 lit. b) of the country R Football Federation Regulations establishes that the decisions of the NDRC of the country R Football Federation may be appealed before the “Appeal Committee of the country R Football Federation” and that the decisions of the DRC of the country R Professional Football League may be appealed before the “Appeal Commission of the country R Professional Football League”. Art. 26.1 lit. c) of the country R Football Federation Regulations provides that the decisions of the aforementioned appeal bodies may be appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). 10. As an alternative request, the Respondent claims that country R law and the regulations of the country R Football Federation should be applied, thereby referring to several provisions in the contract that refer to country R law and the regulations of the country R Football Federation. 11. As to the substance of the claim, the Respondent rejects the Claimant’s claim and states that it tried to find an amicable settlement with the Claimant without success and the latter knows that the Respondent was in a difficult situation. 12. The Respondent further states that for the season 2008/2009 the Claimant was entitled to receive EUR 330,000 (EUR 200,000 salary + EUR 70,000 as ‘’UEFA bonus’’ + EUR 60,000 match bonus). In this respect, the Respondent asserts that a ‘’sportive penalty’’ representing 10% of his yearly income, i.e. EUR 33,000, was imposed on the Claimant. This decision was taken by the Respondent on 25 May 2009, and ratified by the Disciplinary Committee of the country R Football Federation on 9 June 2009. Therefore, taking into account the “sportive penalty”, the Claimant was entitled to receive EUR 297,000, but has in fact received EUR 297,711 from the Respondent, in accordance with the Claimant’s explanations. 13. As to the season 2009/2010, the Respondent states that the Claimant was entitled to receive EUR 140,000 as salary and EUR 70,000 as ‘’UEFA bonus’’. However, since the Claimant participated only in 38,2% of the UEFA matches he is only entitled to receive EUR 26,740 from said bonus. In particular, according to the Respondent’s interpretation of the relevant bonus is “conditioned by the participation in the field in at least 80% of the matches but not less than 60% from the duration of each match”. As to the match bonuses claimed for the season 2009/2010, the Respondent explains that there is no such clause for this entitlement in the appendix. Consequently, the Claimant was entitled to receive EUR 166,740 for the season 2009/2010 of which he received EUR 166,145. 14. In order to corroborate the amounts the Respondent alleges having paid to the Claimant, the Respondent provides balance sheets issued by its own services for each season. The Respondent also provides payment orders, without translation, for four payments dated after the original claim of the Claimant amounting to 126,000 currency of country R (approx. EUR 31,300). 15. In his replica, the Claimant emphasised that the DRC is competent since there is no specific arbitration clause in the contract or annex empowering exclusively the country R Football Federation NDRC and the latter does not meet the principle of equal representation. Moreover, the Claimant stressed that the Respondent failed to provide the country R Football Federation Regulations and “Collaboration Convention” in their original versions in country R. Moreover, the “Collaboration Convention” has come into force on 28 January 2011, whereas the claim was lodged on 18 January 2011 and therefore cannot be taken into account. Also, the country R Football Federation NDRC has no jurisdiction to rule on the dispute between a club participating in the First League National Championship and the Claimant. In this respect, the Claimant refers to CAS 2010/A/2289 Club V v/ Player L, which, in the Claimant’s view, confirmed that the NDRC of the country R Football Federation does not comply with the required minimum standards to be recognised. 16. As to the substance of the matter, the Claimant stressed that from the balance sheets provided by the Respondent it is not clear which debts the alleged payments refer to. In this regard, the Claimant deems that the Respondent has not provided tangible proof in order to demonstrate that the amounts he claims were at all paid. 17. As to the fine imposed by the Respondent on the Claimant (cf. point 12), the latter states that he was not notified or informed about it and thus had no right to be heard. Moreover, the decision does not contain the names of the members of the Chamber and therefore is not binding. 18. As to the ‘’UEFA bonus’’ for the season 2009/2010, the Claimant explains that he participated in 21 out of 34 matches, i.e. in 61.76% of the matches. Therefore, the Respondent’s argument that the Claimant only participated in 38.2% of the matches is unfounded and is not supported by any evidence. Furthermore, the Claimant states that he missed 12 matches through injury. In accordance with art. 3 of the appendix it should thus be considered that he participated in more than 80% of the matches and is entitled to receive the entire ‘’UEFA bonus’’ of EUR 70,000. 19. Regarding the match bonuses for the season 2009/2010, the Claimant explains that the Respondent is in bad faith, since he received match bonuses for the season 2009/2010 as well as 2010/2011. Thus the Respondent tacitly affirmed its obligation to pay such bonuses in spite of them not being provided for in the appendix. The Claimant confirms having received a total of EUR 24,000 for match bonuses during the season 2009/2010, which he considers to be 50% of his entitlement for that season. In particular, considering that the Respondent finished in the top 5 of the championship that season, the other 50% of match bonuses are due at the end of the season and are still outstanding. 20. In addition, the Claimant states that if the balance sheets provided by the parties are compared, it appears that the Respondent paid EUR 130,353 for salaries and admits to have an outstanding balance of salaries of EUR 9,647 net for the 2009/2010 season (EUR 140,000 – EUR 130,353). However, the Claimant claims EUR 9,710. 21. Regarding the season 2010/2011, the Claimant states that half of the ‘’UEFA bonus’’ is outstanding since the Respondent played against Club T in the third qualifying round of the UEFA Champions League (2011/2012) and thus the amount of EUR 140,000 is due. However, the Claimant only received EUR 69,908, meaning that the amount of EUR 70,092 is outstanding. 22. In conclusion, the Claimant states that if the balance sheets for the season 2010/2011 are compared, it appears that the Respondent paid EUR 90,101 for salaries and admits to have an outstanding balance of salaries of EUR 49,899 net (EUR 140,000 – EUR 90,101). However, the Claimant claims EUR 39,654. 23. In its final position, the Respondent maintained its previous position and stated that it paid all the amounts indicated in the table below, which it enclosed to its correspondence: Season Salary Bonus Total financial rights Payment (club to Claimant ) Observations 2008/2009 EUR 200,000 Match bonus: EUR 60,000 UEFA bonus: EUR 70,000 EUR 330,000 EUR 296,711 Sanction of Claimant 10% for season 2008/2009 (EUR 33,000) according to Disciplinary decision of 25 May 2009. 2009/2010 EUR 140,000 Match bonus: Not stipulated in contract UEFA bonus: EUR 26,740 (participation EUR 166,740 EUR 166,145 24. As to the disciplinary sanction imposed on the Claimant, the Respondent states that the Claimant never appealed it and therefore accepted it in 2009. 25. As to the ‘’UEFA bonus’’ for 2009/2010, the Respondent points out that the Claimant admitted having only played 61,76% of the matches and therefore has not reached the requirement of 80% match participation. In this respect, the Respondent stated the bonus would be due “if [the Claimant] plays not less than 60% of the (championship) games but imposes before all an obligation for [the Claimant] to play at least 80% of the games”. Therefore the residual amount is not due. 26. As to the amount of EUR 70,092 claimed as residual ‘’UEFA bonus’’ for the season 2010/2011, the Respondent states that it actually finished the season as 3rd on the basis of the sporting performance of its team and players. However, as a result of an administrative issue encountered by another club, the country R Professional League had to amend the classification and the Respondent was therefore ranked 2 nd. Consequently, the Claimant is not entitled to receive the ‘’UEFA bonus’’ according to the contract. 27. Finally, the Respondent stresses that match bonuses for the seasons 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 were not contractually provided for and therefore such claim has to be rejected. 28. After the closure of the investigation-phase in the present matter, the Claimant submitted an unsolicited correspondence in relation to the competence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. In this regard, the Claimant was informed that it would be for the said Chamber to determine whether said correspondence could be taken into consideration in spite of having been transmitted after the closure of the investigation. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. In a first instance, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter referred to as the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 19 January 2011. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the 38,2%) 2010/2011 EUR 140,000 Match bonus: Not stipulated in contract UEFA bonus: EUR 70,000 EUR 210,000 EUR 140,900 + EUR 70,000 paid on 27 march 2012 On 27 March 2012 the club paid EUR 7,535 for outstanding match bonuses for the season 2008/2009. Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the 2008 and 2012 editions 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 and par. 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010 and 2012) the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on employment-related disputes between a club and a player that have an international dimension. 3. As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be competent to decide on the present litigation involving a country B player and a country R club regarding alleged outstanding remuneration. 4. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber to deal with the present case, stating that any dispute arisen between the parties should be submitted to the deciding bodies of the country R Football Federation and of the country R Professional Football League. 5. The Chamber equally noted that the Claimant rejected such position and stressed that FIFA had jurisdiction to deal with the present matter because there is no specific arbitration clause in the contract or annex empowering exclusively a specific national arbitration body. Additionally, the Claimant considered that the NDRC of the country R Football Federation had no jurisdiction ratione personae and ratione materiae and that the DRC of the Professional Football League did not meet the principle of equal representation. 6. In relation to this aspect, the DRC observed that the Claimant submitted a correspondence after the investigation-phase of the matter had already been concluded. As a result, the DRC decided not to take into account the last submission of the Claimant and established that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, it shall take a decision upon the basis of those documents on file that were provided prior to the closure of the investigation-phase. 7. Taking into account the above, the Chamber emphasised that, in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the 2010 FIFA Regulations, it is competent to deal with a matter such as the one at hand, unless an independent arbitration 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 Chamber referred to the FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. In this regard, the members of 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. While analysing whether it was competent to hear the present matter, the Dispute Resolution Chamber considered that it should, first and foremost, analyse whether the employment contract at the basis of the present dispute actually contained a jurisdiction clause. 9. Having said this, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to art. 17 par. 2 of the contract, which stipulates that “The parties will make, in good faith all efforts in order to solve amiably any dispute, controversy or misunderstanding arising from or in connection with the present agreement. If this is not possible, the dispute will be forwarded in order to be solved only to the sports jurisdiction courts of country R Football Federation or Professional Football League”. 10. In view of the aforementioned clause, the members of the DRC were of the opinion that art. 17 par. 2 of the employment contract does not make clear reference to one specific national dispute resolution chamber in the sense of art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations. Therefore, the members of the Chamber deem that said clause can by no means be considered as a clear arbitration clause in favour of either of the national deciding bodies, i.e. of the country R Football Federation or the country R Professional Football League, and, therefore, cannot be applicable. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that this lack of clarity is also reflected in the Respondent’s argumentation since it refers to the alleged competence of the deciding bodies of both the country R Football Federation and Professional Football League, without further precision. 11. Having established that the first criterion for the recognition of the competence of a national decision-making body is not fulfilled in the present matter, the Chamber deemed unnecessary to examine any further points which would need to be assessed before concluding to the competence of a national deciding body. 12. In view of the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent’s objection to the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter had to be rejected and that the DRC is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance. 13. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber 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 claim in front of FIFA was lodged on 19 January 2011, the 2010 edition of said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance. 14. Furthermore, the DRC wished to point out that when deciding a dispute before the DRC, FIFA’s regulations prevail over any national law chosen by the parties. In this regard the Chamber emphasized that the main objective of the FIFA regulations is to create a standard set of rules to which all the actors within the football community are subject to and can rely on. This objective would not be achievable if the DRC would have to apply the national law of a specific party on every dispute brought to it. Therefore, the Chamber deems that it is not appropriate to apply the principles of a particular national law to the present affair, which concerns alleged outstanding remuneration only, but rather the RSTP, general principles of law and, where existing, the Chamber’s well-established jurisprudence. 15. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 16. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that, on 7 June 2008, the parties signed an employment contract as well as an appendix, both valid as from 1 July 2008 until 1 July 2011. In accordance with the appendix, the player was, inter alia, entitled to receive the amount of EUR 140,000 per season as fixed remuneration, bonuses pertaining to the club’s classification at the end of each season (referred to as ‘’UEFA bonus’’) and further appearances bonuses for the season 2008/2009. 17. The Chamber further observed that the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent seeking payment of alleged outstanding amounts totalling EUR 213,456, plus interest. In particular, the DRC conceded that the Claimant claimed an amount of EUR 9,710 as outstanding salaries, EUR 24,000 as outstanding match bonuses and EUR 70,000 as outstanding UEFA bonus for the season 2009/2010. As to 2010/2011 season, the Chamber took note that the Claimant requested to be awarded EUR 39,654 as outstanding salaries as well as 70,092 as residual UEFA Bonus arguing that the Respondent played in the third preliminary round of the 2011/2012 UEFA Champions League. 18. Turning its attention to the Respondent’s position, the DRC noted that the latter sustained that, according to the contract, match bonuses were only agreed for the 2008/2009 season and not for either of the subsequent seasons. As regards the amount claimed as UEFA bonus for the 2009/2010 season, the Chamber observed that the Respondent acknowledged in its final submission that the Claimant had taken part in 61.76 % of the games and was therefore not entitled to the claimed amount as the contractual threshold of 80% had not been reached. In this context, the Chamber took due note that the Respondent maintained that the Claimant was entitled to the total amount of EUR 166,740 for the 2009/2010 season and alleged having paid the amount EUR 166,145. Furthermore, the Chamber noted the Respondent’s assertion that an amount of EUR 210,900 was paid to the Claimant for the season 2010/2011. Hence, since the player was allegedly entitled to EUR 140,000 as salary plus EUR 70,000 as UEFA bonus - on the basis of having finished the season in 3rd position – no amounts remain outstanding. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. The Chamber firstly focused its attention on the match bonuses claimed by the Claimant. In order to do so, the members of the Chamber analysed the wording of art. 1 of the appendix. According to such article, match bonuses were only provided for the 2008/2009. Consequently, considering the lack of a contractual basis and the Claimant’s failure to produce documentary evidence that such bonuses were actually due, the Chamber determined, in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, that the Claimant was not entitled to receive the alleged outstanding match bonuses. 22. As to the alleged outstanding salaries, i.e. the amounts of EUR 9,710 for the 2009/2010 season and EUR 39,654 for the 2010/2011 season, the Chamber noted that the Respondent provided no conclusive evidence that the amounts claimed by the Claimant were effectively paid since it only submitted a list of alleged payments drafted by its own administration on letterhead bearing its name. In fact, despite the burden to prove that the relevant amounts were paid to lie on the Respondent, the Chamber deemed that the documentation provided did not prove that any single amount had been paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. Consequently, and in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber relied on the Claimant’s statement and evidence and held that the amounts of EUR 9,710 and EUR 39,654 were outstanding for the seasons 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 respectively. 23. In this context, the DRC turned its attention to the Respondent’s argument according to which the player was not entitled to receive the full amount of the UEFA bonus for the 2009/2010 season since he did not reach the limit of 80% stated in article 1 of the appendix. In this respect, the Chamber analysed said clause which reads as follows: “the bonuses will be paid only if the player is playing in at least 80% of the games, but not less than 60% of the games”. In this regard, the DRC firstly noted that the wording of the clause is unclear. In addition, the Chamber observed that the Respondent’s interpretation of the clause during the course of the investigation was not consistent. While it initially considered that the bonus was “conditioned by the participation in the field in at least 80% of the matches but not less than 60% from the duration of each match,” the Respondent then stated the bonus would be paid “if [the Claimant] plays not less than 60% of the (championship) games but imposes before all an obligation for [the Claimant] to play at least 80% of the games”. Accordingly, concentrating on the wording of the annex, the DRC deemed that the parties must have agreed on a threshold of either 60% or 80% of matches. Facing this situation, the Chamber held that the clause had to be interpreted in favour of the Claimant in that he would have been in good faith in considering that a participation in 60% of matches would be sufficient to trigger the relevant bonus, since such a figure is explicitly indicated. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the Respondent did not produce any documentary evidence that the Claimant’s appearances amounted to 38.2%, as alleged in its initial submission. Conversely, the Claimant provided the Chamber with evidence attesting that he took part in 21 out of 34 league games, i.e. 61.76%, which was acknowledged by the Respondent in its final submission. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant was entitled to receive the amount of EUR 70,000 as UEFA bonus for the 2009/2010 season. Since the Respondent failed to produce conclusive evidence that it had already paid an amount of EUR 26,145 as UEFA bonus, the DRC, in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, held therefore that an amount of EUR 70,000 was outstanding and due by the Respondent. 24. As far as the UEFA bonus for the season 2010/2011 is concerned, the Chamber pointed out that the Claimant acknowledged receipt of the payment of the bonus corresponding to the qualification for the UEFA Cup/Europa League, i.e. classification between 3rd and 5th. In addition, the DRC noted that the Claimant considered that he was entitled to receive the bonus corresponding to the qualification for the UEFA Champions League since the Respondent played in the third preliminary round of the 2011/2012 UEFA Champions League. In this regard, the Chamber stressed that it is generally admitted that bonuses are dependent on sporting criteria. The DRC further noticed that, according to the ranking published on the official website of the country R Football Federation reflects the situation at the time of the end of the 2010/2011 season and indicates the Respondent as having ended the season as 3 rd . However, due to the relegation of Club S on the basis of an administrative decision, the entire table was subsequently modified and the Respondent was able to participate in the 2011/2012 UEFA Champions League instead of Club S, i.e. as one of two country R clubs qualified for said competition. On account of the above, the Chamber deemed that from a sporting point of view and considering the situation at the end of the 2010/2011 season, the Respondent came 3 rd of the Championship. As a result, the Chamber concluded that since the Claimant already received the bonus for ending 3rd, no outstanding UEFA bonus was due. 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 119,364 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 1 July 2010 on the amount of EUR 79,710; b. 5% p.a. as of 1 July 2011 on the amount of EUR 39,654. 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 is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 119,364 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 1 July 2010 on the amount of EUR 79,710; b. 5% p.a. as of 1 July 2011 on the amount of EUR 39,654. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is 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