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 25 April 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Ivan Gazidis (England), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member on the claim presented by the player, Player B, from country M as Claimant against the club, Club L, from country B 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 25 April 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Ivan Gazidis (England), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member on the claim presented by the player, Player B, from country M as Claimant against the club, Club L, from country B as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case Facts related to the preliminary issue on the competence of the DRC: 1. On 3 July 2007, the player, Player B, who has the country M and country B nationality (hereinafter: player or Claimant), and Club S, from country B (hereinafter: club or Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: employment contract), valid as from 1 July 2007 until 30 June 2009. The contract refers to the player’s identification card number issued by the ``Ministry of Interior of the Republic of country M’’ on 29 November 2006. 2. Furthermore, the parties signed an annex to the employment contract (hereinafter: annex), valid for the same period of time, which refers to the same ID card of the player as the one mentioned in the employment contract. 3. On 15 June 2009, an addendum was signed between the parties, in order to extend the term of the employment contract for one more year until 30 June 2010. 4. Moreover, a contract dated 26 January 2010 was concluded for the transfer of the player from the club to Club H (hereinafter: transfer agreement), country I. The transfer agreement refers to the player as ``(…) holder of Passport issued by the government of country B No. (…)’’ 5. Clause 18 of the employment contract stipulates: ``For the unregulated issues of this employment contract the appropriate regulations and other acts of FIFA, UEFA and country B Football Union shall apply on the status of the football player as a professional of special nature and the provisions of the labor law in the country’’. 6. On 1 October 2010, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the club. 7. The club disputed the jurisdiction of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber to deal with the present matter alleging that the present dispute lacks an international dimension given that the club is country B and that the player had been naturalized by virtue of a Decree issued on 3 August 2007 and thus acquired country B citizenship as of the date of issuance of the Decree. The club reported that, consequently, the player was registered for the club with the country B Football Union (hereinafter: country B Football Union) on 6 August 2007 as a country B player, as allegedly confirmed by a certificate issued by the country B Football Union on 8 February 2011. Furthermore, the club stated that the player transferred to the club, Club H, as a country B player, which is indicated in the transfer agreement signed between the parties. Therefore, according to the club, the present matter falls outside the scope of art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and comes instead “under the jurisdiction of the country B civil courts, provided that the employment-related matter disputes in country B are not subject to arbitration, pursuant to Art. 360 par. 1 of the country B Labor Code in connection with Art. 19 par. 1 of the country B Code of Civil Procedures”. 8. In this respect, the player admitted that he acquired the country B nationality on 3 August 2007. He rejected the club’s allegations stating that he has been a country M national from birth, signed the contract and the annex as a ``country M National player with possession of only country M Nationality’’ and that his claim is in fact based on the annex signed between the parties, which refers to his country M citizenship. Furthermore, the player pointed out that he only accepted to take country B citizenship in order to simplify the paperwork related to obtaining a work permit in country B and avoiding using a place of the foreign players’ quota. 9. The country B Football Union confirmed that the player was registered with the club on 6 August 2007 as a country B citizen. Facts related to the substance of the matter: 10. Pursuant to the employment contract, valid as from 1 July 2007 until 30 June 2009, the player was entitled to receive a monthly salary of currency of country B 600. 11. According to the annex, the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, the following remuneration/fringe benefits: a) Monthly salary of EUR 1,250 for the 2007/08 and 2008/09 seasons; b) EUR 400 if the player plays in 70% of the official games during the 2007/08 and 2008/09 seasons; c) A monthly rent allowance amounting to EUR 180 during the 2007/08 and 2008/09 seasons (or, alternatively, the club has to provide housing to the player); d) For the 2007/08 season, two equal instalments of EUR 10,000, payable on or before 15 July 2007 and 20 January 2008 respectively; e) For the 2008/09 season, two equal instalments of EUR 12,500 payable on or before 15 July 2008 and 20 January 2009 respectively; f) Two instalments in accordance with clause 12 of the annex, which stipulates that in the event that the club pays EUR 10,000 to the player before 30 April 2009, the contract shall be “automatically renewed for one sports competition year, calculated as of 30.06.2010. The competitor is to receive the following amounts”: EUR 20,000 payable on or before 15 July 2009 and EUR 10,000 no later than 20 January 2010. In addition, the player was entitled to a number of bonus payments (cf. arts. 3 to 6 of the annex for the 2007/08 season and arts. 7 to 11 of the annex for the 2008/09 season) provided that the set targets had been met. In particular, the player shall be entitled to a bonus payment amounting to EUR 2,500 provided that, according to the “country B Football Union statistics”, he had scored at least 15 goals “(according to the goal plus pass system)” during a “sports competition year”. 12. On 1 October 2010, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the club claiming outstanding payments on the basis of the annex and relating to the extended duration of the employment contract. 13. The player held that the club had failed to pay EUR 10,000 out of the EUR 20,000 corresponding to the instalment due on 15 July 2009 as well as EUR 10,000 corresponding to the second instalment due on 20 January 2010, in accordance with clause 12 of the annex. Moreover, the player claimed that the club failed to pay him the EUR 2,500 corresponding to a bonus for goals scored in the 2008/2009 season. According to the player, he had obtained 15 points on the basis of the goals scored and goal assistance system. In addition, the player asserted that he had not received the monthly rent allowance of EUR 180 from September 2009 through January 2010. 14. In view of the above, the player asked that the club be ordered to pay outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 23,400, namely: - EUR 10,000 that fell due on 15 July 2009; - EUR 10,000 that fell due on 20 January 2010; - EUR 2,500, as bonus payment, that fell due 10 days after the end of the 2008/2009 season in country B; - EUR 900 corresponding to the rent allowance as from September 2009 until January 2010, (i.e. EUR 180/month x 5 months). 15. As to the substance of the matter, the club stated that it was undisputed by the parties that the unilateral extension option stipulated in art. 12 of the annex was availed by the club and that the player accepted to remain contractually bound to the club until 30 June 2010. Furthermore, the club reported that, on 26 January 2010, a contract for the transfer of the player to Club H (hereinafter: Club H) was signed between the country I club and the club with the explicit consent of the player. The relevant International Transfer Certificate (ITC) was issued on 27 January 2010. Therefore, the club sustains that, not only the contractual relationship between the club and the player had been terminated by mutual consent of the parties but also that “the Claimant tacitly renounced to payments which were due to him as a result of the Contract and/or the Appendix, if any” because the “Claimant, on parting with the Respondent and moving to Club H, failed to mention and reserve his rights with regard to any payments due to him based on the Contract and/or the Appendix. Therefore, the [player] tacitly renounced to payments which were due to him as a result of the Contract and/or the Appendix, if any”. 16. In addition, the club stressed that the player had failed to provide evidence in support of his claim. In particular, the club highlighted that the player did not provide any evidence to prove his alleged right to bonus payments for goals scored, and pointed out that “the Appendix itself is not enough evidence”. Finally, the club stressed, that, as regards the player’s claim for rent allowance, it was under no contractual obligation to pay the rent to the player himself and asserted that it had paid the rent directly to the landlord. Therefore, the club argued that the player had failed to prove that he was either “left without accommodation or that he had to pay for it and he, thus, has to be reimbursed by the Respondent”. 17. In view of the above, the club considered that the player’s claim for outstanding payments is unproven and unfounded and therefore requested that the claim be rejected. 18. In his replica, the player stated that his transfer to Club H is not relevant to the present matter. Finally, the player pointed out that the transfer agreement made between the club and Club H was solely decided by and between the clubs, as proven by the documentation on file. 19. In response to the player’s replica, the club reiterated that the player had tacitly waived the outstanding payments upon signing with Club H by stating that “if there were any outstanding amounts at the date of termination of the Contract, they were surely considered when assessing the transfer compensation that Club H had to pay to the Respondent for the termination of the Contract with the Claimant”. Finally, the club asserted that the player had “scored only 10 goals (plus passes) in the 2008/2009 season” and therefore was not entitled to any bonus. 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 1 October 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. 1 and 2 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 combination 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 employment-related disputes with an international dimension between a player and a club. 3. In view of the above mentioned provisions, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that, in principle, and without prejudice to the right of any player or club to seek redress before a civil court for employment-related disputes, it falls under its competence to deal with international employment-related disputes between players and clubs, unless an independent arbitration tribunal has been established at national level. 4. The members of the Chamber then referred to the Introductory Provision of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and particularly to its art. 2 and art. 3, according to which some principles outlined in the Regulations are also binding at national level and each association is obliged to draw up its internal regulations. The associations are within the framework of their autonomy, free to adapt their internal rules to the necessity and the particularity of the country concerned. Therefore, the competence of FIFA is restricted to international transfers and disputes. 5. Furthermore, in the context of labour disputes, the Chamber underlined that, as a general rule, the international dimension is represented by the fact that the player concerned is not a national of the country of the association to which the relevant club is affiliated. 6. However, when both parties have the same nationality, the dispute shall be considered as national or internal, with the consequence that the rules and regulations of the association concerned shall be applied to the matter and the deciding bodies in accordance with the relevant provisions are to decide on the issue. If FIFA’s deciding body would deal with such internal matter, the internal competence of FIFA Members would be violated. These principles of delimitation between the competence of FIFA and the competence of the associations are primordial for the reciprocal recognition of the organisations and autonomy of FIFA and the member associations. 7. Having said this, the Chamber turned its attention to circumstances surrounding the double citizenship of a player. The Chamber observed that more and more players with two or more nationalities have appeared in the world of football and that FIFA and its deciding bodies are confronted with an augmented number of cases, which concern double citizenship. In this respect, the members of the Chamber emphasised that a player’s nationality is expressed by his passport(s) or identification documents, but that in the framework of plural citizenship a player could, under certain circumstances, possibly invoke a “sportive nationality”. The “sportive nationality” generally is linked to the concrete situation of the registration of a player with a club affiliated to the specific association domiciled in a country of which the player also is a national, in compliance with the rules of registration and eligibility for a club of the association concerned. 8. In such situations, both the club and the player may reap advantages of the “sportive nationality”. For example, the player being registered as a “local player” does not charge any quota of foreign players and would have no difficulty in obtaining a visa or work permit, if at all required. Furthermore, any possible restriction on the number of foreign persons in the country would not be applicable in such situation. Obviously, such circumstances are to the benefit of both the club and the player. 9. As regards the present matter, the Chamber took note that, whereas the Respondent contested FIFA’s competence to deal with this matter and sustained that it falls under the jurisdiction of country B deciding bodies, due to its lack of an international dimension, the Claimant, for his part, rejected such position and insisted that FIFA has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 10. Subsequently, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant held that both the employment contract and the annex, which are at the basis of the dispute, were signed on 3 July 2007, i.e. one month prior to having acquired the country B nationality. Consequently, the employment contract and the annex were signed by the Claimant as a country M player. 11. In this context, the Chamber further noted the crucial fact that the Claimant, who, as of 3 August 2007, held both the country M and the country B nationality, despite having signed the contract and the annex with the Respondent as a country M player, he was registered with the Respondent on 6 August 2007 as a country B player as confirmed by the country B Football Union. 12. Furthermore, the Chamber highlighted that the Claimant admitted to have acquired the country B citizenship in order to avoid an administrative burden as regards his work permit and using a place of the foreign players’ quota. 13. The members of the Chamber also acknowledge that the addendum, by means of which the parties extended their contractual relation for one more year (until 30 June 2010), was signed by the Claimant as country B. 14. On account of all of the above considerations, in particular of the fact that the country M / country B player was registered as a country B player with the Respondent, the Chamber established that the case of the player in question comes under the jurisdiction of the football association in the country concerned (i.e. country B), as a result of which FIFA cannot intervene due to a lack of jurisdiction over the matter. 15. Consequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the present claim is inadmissible. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber The claim of the Claimant, Player B, 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