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 T, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club L, 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 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 T, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club L, from country G as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 30 August 2010, Player T, from country S (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant), and Club L, from country G (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent), entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 30 August 2010 until 30 June 2012. Said contract is signed on behalf of the Respondent by Mr K. 2. According to the contract, the Respondent agreed to pay/provide the Claimant: EUR 857 as monthly salary, payable at the latest at the end of each month;• EUR 857 as Christmas bonus; EUR 428.50 as Easter bonus and EUR 428.50 as• holiday bonus; EUR 56,000 (net) to be paid in 5 instalments (EUR 15,000 on 30 November• 2010; EUR 8,000 on 28 February 2011; EUR 10,000 on 30 August 2011; EUR 15,000 on 30 November 2011; and EUR 8,000 on 28 February 2012); Bonuses for the season 2010/2011 – EUR 10,000 if the club is promoted to a• higher division; EUR 5,000 if the player completed 23 participations in matches for more than 46 minutes, each; Bonuses for the season 2011/2012 – EUR 10,000 “if the team is playing in• the Superleague and remains in the Superleague for the period 2012- 2013”; Accommodation.• 3. Art. 10 of the contract reads as follows: “All disputes between the parties are settled exclusively from the Appeals Committee for the resolution of financial disputes (PEEOD) of the country G Football Federation at first instance, and the court of Arbitration of the country G Football Federation at Second Instance.” 4. Furthermore, the parties signed an agreement written in the country G language which is designated “Private Subsidiary Contract” and dated 6 July 2010, but which the Claimant claims to have been signed on the same date as the contract (hereinafter: the private agreement). The private agreement only indicates the financial obligations of the Respondent and is signed by the Claimant and a certain Mr L, who, according to the Claimant, is the Respondent’s general manager. Also, the private agreement contains the stamp of the Respondent. 5. According to the private agreement, the Respondent agreed to pay the Claimant: EUR 10,000 (net) on 30 May 2011;• EUR 15,000 (net) on 30 June 2011;• EUR 15,000 (net) on 30 May 2012; and• EUR 20,000 (net) on 30 June 2012.• 6. By letter dated 1 December 2011, the Claimant terminated the contract invoking just cause, alleging various outstanding salaries. 7. On 8 January 2012, the Claimant filed a claim before FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract and requested the payment of the amount of EUR 126,351,69, plus 5% interest, according to the following breakdown: - EUR 73,036.10 as outstanding remuneration, calculated as follows: a) EUR 46,353.69 for the season 2010/2011: The Claimant claimed to have only received the amount of EUR 21,930,31, while he was entitled to EUR 68,284: - EUR 8,570 for the salaries between 30 August 2010 and 30 June 2011; - EUR 1,714 for the bonuses relating to Christmas, Easter and holidays; - EUR 48,000 for the instalments due on 30 November 2010, 28 February 2011, 30 May 2011 and 30 June 2011; - EUR 10,000 for the promotion bonus. The Claimant indicated that he does not accept a penalty imposed by the Respondent on 12 November 2011 in the amount of EUR 5,000. b) EUR 26,682.41 for the season 2011/2012: The Claimant claimed that, until 30 November 2011, he only received EUR 2,602.59, while he was entitled to EUR 29,285: - EUR 4,285 for the salaries between 30 July 2011 and 30 November 2011; - EUR 25,000 for the instalments due on 30 August 2011 and 30 November 2011. - - EUR 53,315.59 as compensation for breach of contract. 8. According to the Claimant, on 28 September 2011, he reminded the Respondent that the amount of EUR 37,361 was outstanding and that the Claimant ”should be immediately allowed to join the team and to be involved in the training session daily.” 9. On 17 October 2011, the Claimant reminded the Respondent that, by that time, the amount of EUR 42,010 was outstanding and, again, requested that he would be allowed to join the training immediately. 10. On 20 October 2011, the Respondent replied stating that there were no outstanding payments due to the Claimant and asked for a detailed breakdown of the amount claimed. Also, the Respondent emphasised that, contrary to the statements of the Claimant, the latter was allowed to train with the team. 11. On 25 October 2011, the Claimant sent the Respondent a breakdown of the amount claimed. 12. By letter dated 31 October 2011, the Respondent replied that it was “extremely surprised”, since the private agreement “does not exist in the records of our club. This document is not genuine and therefore we object to this agreement as well as the whole amount stipulated in it.” In continuation, the Respondent stated that “Mr. L, who is apparently the signatory of this alleged private agreement, has never been a legal representative of Club L and he has never been authorized to represent the club in front of third parties or sign any agreements on behalf of Club L.” 13. On 6, 18 and 26 November 2011, the Claimant again reminded the Respondent of the outstanding amounts. 14. By letter dated 17 November 2011, the Respondent decided to unilaterally terminate the contract and filed such termination with the First Instance Disputes Resolution Committee of the country G Football Federation. 15. The Claimant asserted that there were no reasons for the Respondent not to fulfil its contractual obligations. He mentions that the Respondent never reprehended him for anything and that there is no evidence of any misconduct. The Claimant further stated that “Due to the individual training without a coach and medical care, the conditions for a professional player were not appropriate.” and that he feels cheated, because the Respondent disputes the validity of the private agreement. 16. On 6 December 2011, the Respondent notified the Claimant that he should be present on 12 December 2011 at the country G Football Federation for a hearing. 17. On 8 December 2011, the Claimant responded stating that he had elected FIFA as the competent deciding body to resolve the dispute and therefore declined to appear before the country G Football Federation. 18. On 12 January 2012, the PEEOD of the country G Football Federation decided to reject the application-notice for the termination of the contract by the Respondent. 19. On 31 January 2012, the Court of Arbitration of the country G Football Federation decided, on appeal, that the Respondent did have just cause to terminate the contract. The proceedings were conducted without the Claimant being present. 20. In its reply to the Claimant’s claim before FIFA, the Respondent first of all disputed FIFA’s competence to deal with the present matter on the basis of clause 10 of the contract. The Respondent claimed that the national arbitration bodies of the country G Football Federation are constituted in compliance with FIFA’s rules and regulations. 21. 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. 22. As to the substance of the matter, the Respondent disputed the validity of the private agreement, by stating that the signatory, Mr L, was a mere scout of the Respondent and had no power whatsoever to bind the Respondent. The Respondent adds that no one was aware of the private agreement or its content. 23. The Respondent claimed that the Claimant, who was already playing in the Greek Leagues and wished to join the Respondent, was offered to Mr L in July 2010. The Respondent held that the private agreement was only signed because it wanted the Claimant to join the team in training sessions to assess his quality before agreeing to sign him. The Claimant accepted this, but “because of the fact that he desperately wanted to join our club, agreed, but requested from Mr L to ensure him in writing that in the event of a final agreement, the contract period would be for two years and he would receive the amount of EUR 60,000 net plus certain bonuses that were to be stipulated at the time of signature of the contract with the then President of the Club, Mr K”. The Respondent insisted that the agreement signed by Mr L was not known to the club’s President and Managing Director and that the Claimant “started his preparation with the team, without having signed a contract.” 24. Moreover, the Respondent disputed the Claimant’s allegation that the private agreement was signed on the same date as the contract. The Respondent sustained that the Claimant is misstating the signature date in an attempt to suggest that the private agreement constituted not a preliminary agreement, but an auxiliary agreement. 25. In continuation, the Respondent sustained that the fact that the contract provides for the same amounts as the private agreement is evidence that it merely materializes the private agreement signed two months earlier. 26. Also, the Respondent pointed out that the two agreements together would result in a salary that no club in the second division could offer. To this end, the Respondent provided the employment contract that the Claimant had with another second division club to demonstrate that the salary provided for in the contract is comparable to what the Claimant was earning at the other club. 27. Furthermore, the Respondent stressed that the Claimant was, between 30 August 2010 and 30 June 2011, only entitled to the amount of EUR 31,347.11 (EUR 7,414.40 net as monthly salaries (the club holds that the amount of EUR 857 is a gross amount and that, therefore, the net amount is EUR 741,44), EUR 932.71 net in bonuses and EUR 23,000 for the instalments due on 30 November 2010 and 28 February 2011). The Respondent deemed that the promotion bonus did not fall due, since the promotion was only achieved due to a sanction imposed on another club, and not due to sporting achievements of the Respondent. In this respect, the Respondent insisted that the Claimant received, between 30 August 2010 and 30 June 2011, the amount of EUR 31,897.28: - EUR 8,897.28 as his monthly salaries and bonuses; - EUR 15,000 as the first instalment under the contract; - EUR 3,325.27 as the payment “against the instalment of the 28-02-2011”; - EUR 1,500 as the payment “against the instalment of the 28-02-2011”; - EUR 3,174.73 as the payment “against the instalment of the 18-02-2011”; According to the Respondent, “this amount correspondence to the full payment of the balance of EUR 3,174.73 of the 28-02-2011 instalment, whereas the balance of EUR 1,825.27 was paid out against the next instalment, i.e. that of the 30-08- 2011.” 28. Moreover, the Respondent sustained that for the second season the Claimant should have received the total amount of EUR 13,490.94 between July to November 2011 (EUR 3,490.94 for the monthly salaries of July to November 2011 plus the instalment due on 30 August 2011 in the amount of EUR 10,000). The Respondent argued that the monthly salaries were mandatorily reduced following the crisis in country G. In this respect, the Respondent held that the Claimant had received EUR 10,122.20 as follows: - EUR 2,796.93 as salaries for July to October 2011; - EUR 500, as the payment “against the instalment of the 30-08-2011”; - EUR 1,825.27 as the payment “against the instalment of the 30-08-2011”; - EUR 5,000 paid in cash on 10 October 2011 “against the instalment of the 30-08- 2011”. 29. Therefore, the Respondent requested that the Claimant’s request is “dismissed, apart from the amount of EUR 3,368.74, which we acknowledge as due and payable to him.” 30. In his replica, the Claimant insisted on the competence of FIFA, alleging that the country G national arbitration bodies do not fulfil the principles established by FIFA to be recognised as independent national arbitration bodies. 31. As to the substance, the Claimant “confirmed his claim in its entirety” and stressed that “there is not existing one document, which was confirming any violation against the provisions of the contract in good faith and loyalty. Even if there was a violation, the Respondent could fine the Claimant. Therefore, after lodging the claim, the Respondent fabricates imaginary incidents.” 32. In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated its previous position and referred to the earlier-mentioned CAS award. 33. Upon request of FIFA, the Claimant stated that he was registered with Club B, from country S, between January 2012 and May 2012. The Claimant indicated that no agreement was signed but that, for the sake of good order, he wants to disclose that he was paid the lump sum of EUR 5,000 upon registration as well as five monthly salaries of EUR 500. 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 January 2012. 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 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 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 employment contract signed by and between the Claimant and the Respondent on 30 August 2010 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. Furthermore, the DRC noted that on 31 January 2012, the Court of Arbitration of the country G Football Federation decided that the Respondent had a just cause to terminate the employment contract dated 30 August 2010. 7. With due consideration to the above, 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 were issued 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 Greek 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 employment contract dated 30 August 2010. 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 dispute in relation to the employment contract dated 30 August 2010, since a) art. 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 in relation to the employment contract dated 30 August 2010 is inadmissible. 12. In continuation, the Chamber addressed the question whether it could adjudicate on the dispute related to the private agreement dated 6 July 2010. 13. First and foremost, the Chamber pointed out that contrary to the employment contract dated 30 August 2010, the private agreement dated 6 July 2010 did not contain any arbitration clause. What is more, after a thorough examination of the decisions passed by the PEEOD and the Court of Arbitration of the country G Football Federation, the Chamber came to the conclusion that said national deciding bodies had not rendered a decision in relation to the private agreement dated 6 July 2010, i.e. said private agreement had not been mentioned in any of the decision of the PEEOD and the Court of Arbitration of the country G Football Federation. 14. On account of the above, and with reference to art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Chamber decided that it was competent to adjudicate on the dispute between the Claimant and the Respondent in relation to the private agreement. 15. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the Respondent contested the validity of the private agreement indicating that it was i) signed by a person of the club who was not authorized to legally bind the club, ii) was only signed in order for the club to assess the player during training sessions, and iii) the private agreement was a preliminary agreement which was only materialized by the signing of the employment contract afterwards. 16. Having duly examined the private agreement as well as the arguments of the Respondent, the Chamber came to the conclusion that the private agreement was valid and binding upon the parties. In particular, the Chamber held that the position of the Respondent that the private agreement had no legal effect since it had been signed on behalf of the Respondent by a non-authorized person, cannot be upheld due to the fact that in accordance with the principle of good faith, a principle to be respected by the parties during the conclusion of contracts, the Claimant was in good faith to believe that Mr L was legally authorized to sign on behalf of the Respondent. Equally, and in accordance with the principle of the burden of proof, the DRC outlined that the Respondent never provided documentary evidence demonstrating that the Claimant was aware that Mr L was a mere scout of the Respondent at the moment of signing the agreement. The Chamber further underlined that the agreement bear the official stamp of the club, reason for which the Claimant was in good faith to assume that the agreement was valid and binding upon the parties. 17. The Chamber was comforted in its conclusion by the fact that the private agreement is called “Private Subsidiary Agreement” and that it is nowhere stipulated in said agreement that, at a later stage, the parties would conclude another contract. Furthermore, the Chamber remarked that there had been no documentation provided by the Respondent from which it could be established that the parties had intended to conclude one contract only. 18. As a consequence, the Chamber decided that the private agreement is valid and binding upon the parties and noted that it had been undisputed that the instalments due on 30 May 2011 and 30 June 2011 had not been paid by the Respondent. In view of the foregoing, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts of EUR 10,000 and EUR 15,000 corresponding to the instalments that fell due on 30 May 2011 and 30 June 2011. 19. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the members of the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount of EUR 25,000 as from 8 January 2012 until the date of effective payment. 20. Finally, the Chamber decided that in view of the fact that the country G national arbitration bodies had already determined that the employment relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent had been terminated by the Respondent with just cause on 31 January 2012, the Chamber could not award any of the amounts stipulated in the private agreement that fell due after 31 January 2012. 21. 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, Player T, is partially accepted, insofar as it is admissible. 2. The Respondent, Club L, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 25,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 8 January 2012 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid by the Respondent 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