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 G, from country F as Claimant against the club, Club F, from country S 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 G, from country F as Claimant against the club, Club F, from country S as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 July 2012, Player G, from country F (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club F, from country S (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as of the date of signature until 30 June 2014. 2. The contract specifies, inter alia, that the Respondent would provide the Claimant with the following remuneration: - USD 50,000 payable upon signature of the contract and the Claimant’s presence in country S; - a fixed remuneration of USD 18,333 per month payable at the end of each month. 3. In addition to the above-mentioned amounts and in accordance with the contract uploaded in the Transfer Matching System by the club, the player was also entitled to the amount of USD 50,000 due on 1 July 2013. 4. In accordance with article 19 of the contract, the Respondent has to provide the Claimant with accommodation, a suitable transportation, “two tickets travel in case of approval of the first party” as well as “one round ticket for family in case of coming to country S”. 5. Article 29 of the contract stipulates that the Respondent “is entitled to take back the total contract value from the [Claimant] in case he is absent of training or any official or friendly match, non-commitment for the [Respondent’s] internal lists and systems, or in case he requests for terminating the contract”. 6. On 23 July 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent, requesting the imposition of sporting sanctions as well as a total amount of USD 290,000 broken down as follows: - USD 50,000 as unpaid sign-on fee for the season 2013/2014, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 1 July 2013; - USD 220,000 as compensation corresponding to the total salaries for the season 2013/14; - USD 20,000 as additional compensation for loss of benefits in kind. 7. According to the Claimant, he contacted the Respondent, either by fax or e-mail, on 11, 14, 17 and 28 June 2013, asking for information regarding the start of pre-season training and for a flight ticket in order to return to country S. In particular, in his correspondence of 28 June 2013, the Claimant indicated that his visa expired on 27 June 2013 and asked for all necessary documentation in order to fulfil his contractual obligations. The Claimant provided a copy of the visa which was valid for a period of 60 days and granting him the right to exit and enter country S during said period. On 29 June 2013, the Respondent answered stating that it received the Claimant’s last fax and that it had been informed by the Claimant’s agent of his intention to terminate the contract. The Claimant replied on 2 July 2013 insisting that the agent referred to does not represent him, that he has no intention to terminate the contract and that he still awaits the necessary documentation in order to travel to country S, i.e. a flight ticket and a valid visa. 8. On 6 July 2013, the Respondent informed the Claimant that he should have returned to country S before his visa had expired and that it would have reimbursed the costs of the flight upon his arrival. At the same time the Respondent stated that it will apply the relevant sanctions due to the Claimant’s absence and that his technical level had been assessed as unsatisfactory. In his reply of 7 July 2013, the Claimant maintained that his absence from the Respondent was only due to the fact that the Respondent failed to respond to his correspondence as from 11 June 2013 and reiterated his requests in order to pursue the contract. On 9 July 2013, the Respondent stated that it had no objection with the Claimant fulfilling his contract, that the Claimant would be provided with a visa and that he should buy his own flight ticket which would be reimbursed upon arrival. In response, the Claimant acknowledged the Respondent’s intention to organise the issuance of a visa but maintained that the Respondent should also provide him with a flight ticket. 9. Subsequently, the Respondent informed the Claimant that a specific training programme had been prepared for him in view of the fact that he had been absent from a pre-season camp in Rome. On 18 July 2013, the Claimant responded insisting that he had not been called-up for the training camp in Rome and that his visa had still not been issued. 10. The Respondent then informed the Claimant on 18 July 2013 that it was seriously thinking of terminating the contract or negotiating a mutual termination due to the Claimant’s alleged negligence towards his duties. Then, on 19 July 2013, the Respondent informed the Claimant that a visa was going to be issued shortly for the Claimant to travel to country S ‘’ in order to pay all amounts required from you’’. In this context, the Respondent made reference to article 29 of the contract. 11. On 20 July 2013, the Claimant addressed a default notice to the Respondent, requesting the payment of an alleged unpaid sign-on fee by no later than 22 July 2013. The Respondent apparently never executed, which is why the Claimant lodged his claim in front of FIFA on 23 July 2013. 12. In this context, the Claimant alleges that the Respondent did not comply with its primary obligation of payment. The Respondent apparently did not pay the sign-on fee of USD 50,000 allegedly due for the season 2013/2014. As a matter of fact, the Claimant points to the Respondent’s persistent delay in paying the Claimant’s salaries for the season 2012/2013. The Claimant provided cheques evidencing the delayed payment of several salaries. 13. Moreover, the Claimant stresses that the Respondent lacked genuine interest to retain his services. The Claimant highlights the fact that he was not contacted in order to resume training and take part in pre-season camp and insists that his multiple attempts to contact the Respondent before expiry of his contract remained unanswered. According to the Claimant, the Respondent is to be held liable for his incapacity to return to country S since it failed to carry out the necessary administrative steps to renew his visa. In addition, the Claimant underlines the Respondent’s violation of article 19 of the contract since it refused to book the flight ticket for the Claimant’s return to country S. 14. Finally, the Claimant maintains that the Respondent was in bad faith when it informed him on 19 July 2013 that he should reimburse the entire value of the contract pursuant to article 29 of the contract on the basis that he had failed to resume training. 15. In its defence, the Respondent holds that the Claimant has received all his financial dues for the season 2012/2013 before he left on vacation. The Respondent also points to the Claimant’s negligence regarding his professional duties since he had been absent for 4 days without a formal reason and had initiated a strike of two days with other players during the 2012/2013 season. 16. Subsequently, the Respondent asserts that it had no intention to terminate the contractual relationship with the Claimant. According to the Respondent, the main issue is the fact that the Claimant did not return to country S before the expiry of his visa. Regarding the Claimant’s requests for information about training and a flight ticket, the Respondent maintains that the Claimant knew about his obligation to return before expiry of his visa – i.e. within the relevant period of two months - which demonstrates the Claimant’s lack of desire to pursue the contractual relationship. In this respect, the Respondent also recalls that it only has to cover the Claimant’s travel costs upon its approval, pursuant to article 19 of the contract. In any event, the Respondent underlined that it had offered the Claimant to reimburse the value of his plane ticket to return to country S. 17. Finally, the Respondent emphasises that it sent a new visa to the Claimant in order for him to return to country S and requested the Claimant’s return to the Respondent. In this respect, the Respondent refers to its correspondence dated 26 July 2013 by means of which it informed the Claimant of the issuance of his new visa, and its correspondence of 28 July 2013 ‘’asking your presence to the Kingdom of country S in order to complete the remaining period of your employment contract and to negotiate on paying item 29 with the club due to your evident absence any your tardiness to come before the expiration of the visa that was given to you’’. 18. Upon FIFA’s request, the Claimant stated on 28 March 2014 that he had remained unemployed since 23 July 2013 to date. The Claimant provided the relevant documentation indicating the monthly allowances received from the country F state regarding his unemployment since September 2013 which correspond to the total amount of EUR 5,153 from October 2013 until March 2014. The Claimant also explained having joined, as an amateur, the club US C, and since January 2014 the Club T. 19. The International Transfer Certificate (ITC) for the envisaged registration of the Claimant as an amateur with Club C was requested by the country F Football Federation on 23 August 2013. Following the refusal of the country S Football Federation to deliver the ITC and a request for provisional registration by the country F Football Federation, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee authorised the Claimant’s provisional registration with Club C on 14 October 2013. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 23 July 2013. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 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 the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country S club and a country F player. 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 23 July 2013, the 2012 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. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and 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. 5. The members of the Chamber acknowledged that the parties were bound by an employment contract, which was signed on 1 July 2012. The Claimant, on the one hand, maintains that the employment contract was breached by the Respondent which did not contact him to resume training or take part in pre-season camp and which did not help him to return to country S. The Claimant thus alleged having terminated the contract with just cause as a result of his incapacity to return to the club after the expiry of his visa on 27 June 2013. The Respondent, on the other hand, rejects such claim asserting that the Claimant had in fact acted in violation of his contractual obligations by failing to return to country S before the date of expiry of his visa. 6. The Chamber highlighted that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant and the conflicting positions of the parties, was to determine whether the employment contract had been prematurely and unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by either of the parties. 7. In view of the above, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to shortly recall the timeline of events in the present matter according to the documentary evidence provided by either party as well as the respective allegations which have remained uncontested by the opposing party. 8. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Claimant left country S to go on vacation and held a visa allowing him to exit and enter country S during a period of 60 days, i.e. until 27 June 2014. The Claimant held having contacted the Respondent several times during the month of June, asking for the starting date of pre-season training as well as to be provided with a flight ticket to return to country S. 9. The DRC also acknowledged that the Respondent answered after the expiry of the Claimant’s visa, informing the Claimant that he should have returned within the 60 days for which he had a valid visa and that in any case, he should bear his own travelling expenses since it had no contractual obligation to pay the Claimant flight tickets in advance. 10. In view of the foregoing sequel of events and taking into account the parties’ respective contractual obligations, the Chamber deems that the Claimant failed to comply with his obligations towards the Respondent by not returning to country S before 27 June 2013. The Chamber considers that although the Respondent did not show doubtless interest in ensuring the player’s timely return to country S, the Claimant acted in violation of his contractual obligations by not travelling to the country despite being aware of the forthcoming expiry of his visa. 11. Reverting to the traveling costs, the DRC refers to article 19 of the contract – as outlined in point 3 above – according to which the Respondent has to cover the Claimant’s traveling costs only upon its approval. In this context, the Chamber was of the opinion that there was no express obligation contained in the contract for the Respondent to provide the Claimant with a flight ticket and pay for such prior to the player’s travel. In this context, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent had not committed any violation of his contractual obligations and could not be reproached for its stance of requesting the player to travel before being reimbursed. 12. On account of the above considerations, the DRC decided that the Claimant breached the contract without just cause. Consequently, the Chamber judges that the contract should be considered as terminated by the Claimant as of 28 June 2013 and the Respondent was not to be held liable for said termination. Therefore, the Chamber decides to reject the claim for compensation lodged by the Claimant. 13. The Chamber then turned its attention to the Claimant’s claim for USD 50,000 which he considers to have fallen due on 1 July 2013. In this regard, and consequently with the considerations here-above, the members of the Chamber agreed that the Claimant was not entitled to said amount since the contract had already been terminated by him without just cause prior to the payment falling due. 14. Therefore, the DRC concluded its deliberations by establishing that the claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber The claim of the Claimant 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives