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 30 August 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the club, Club L, from country A as Claimant against the player, Player W, from country S as Respondent and the club, Club M, from country E as Intervening party 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 30 August 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the club, Club L, from country A as Claimant against the player, Player W, from country S as Respondent and the club, Club M, from country E as Intervening party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 4 February 2011 Club L, from country A (hereinafter: the club or the Claimant), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the country A contract) with Player W, from country S, (hereinafter: the player or also referred to as the Respondent) in country A language duly authenticated before a notary public, valid as from the date of its signature until 31 December 2012. 2. Article 7 of said contract stipulates that the monthly wage of the player is of currency of country A 2,100. 3. Country A contract does not contain any clause relating to the payment of compensation in the event of breach of contract by either of the contractual parties. 4. On 5 February 2011 the player and the country A club signed an employment contract in English language (hereinafter: the English contract) valid as from the date of its signature until 31 December 2011. 5. Article 3 of the English contract establishes that “the first party [the club] undertakes to remunerate the second party [the player] with a total amount of US 535,000 … to be paid as follows”: • USD 325,000 “… will be paid to the [former] club for the transfer certificate”; • USD 50,000 in February 2011; • USD 100,000 as salaries in 10 monthly instalments for the period of the contract; • USD 60,000 in October 2011; • “The second party agrees will be pay to the first party only [USD] 300,000 … for his transfer certificate, if the second party left the club after 5 or 10 months”. 6. On 30 January 2012, the club sent a complaint, based on the country A contract, in front of FIFA particularly requesting that the player be obliged to return to them and to prevent from signing with another club. 7. The club maintained that the player committed several times disciplinary faults. In particular, he allegedly left the team in March 2011 and was unavailable for a crucial league match against Club B on 4 April 2012, came back from his vacation to country A on 15 January 2012 instead of 6 January 2012 without any reasonable grounds and then refused to join the team in the training-preparation camp in country T, on 17 January 2012. 8. The club stated that on 29 January 2012 they found out that the player had signed a contract with Club M, from country E, although he still had a valid contract with them until 31 December 2012. 9. The club held that on 24 February 2012, they received a copy of the decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, according to which the country E Football Association was authorised to provisionally register the player. 10. Moreover, the club sustained that after the country E league was suspended due to riots in a match of 1 February 2012, they contacted the player and organised him a visa and flight tickets so that on 13 April 2012 he finally returned to the camp of the club and started to train with the first team. In this regard, the club highlighted that they continued to fulfil all their contractual obligations towards the player. In this respect, the club argued having paid the player’s monthly salaries. 11. On 6 May 2012 the club found apparently out from the media that the player had signed with Club N, from country A, and that the player was of the opinion that he was not bound to the club anymore according to the relevant decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee. 12. On 15 May 2012, the club lodged an amended claim against the player in front of FIFA asserting that the player had breached the contract concluded with them unlawfully. Therefore the club requested that the player be obliged to pay compensation in the amount of USD 325,000, which is equivalent to the amount paid for the transfer of the player up to this day, and “currency of country A 24,126.10 (USD 30,698.56)”, which is the total amount of salaries paid to the player up to this day. In addition, the club requests that the player should be banned from taking part in any football related activity for the period of one year. 13. In reply to the claim, the player requested to fully dismiss the claim filed by the club and to fix a sum to be paid by the club to him, in order to pay his defence fees and costs. In particular, the player stated that in January 2011 he concluded two contracts with the club, one in English language and one in country A language. In this respect, the player emphasised that on 4 February 2011 he concluded a contract with the club in country A language for administrative purposes. However, he stated that despite of the contract being signed before a notary, no translator assisted him during the signing of the contract in country A language. According to the player, on 5 February 2011, he and the president of the club signed the English contract, which he thought was the same as the country A version signed the day before. In this regard, the player sustained that he accepted to sign the country A contract on 4 February 2011 in good faith but with a fundamental error that renders it invalid, null and void. According to the player, the club actually induced him by fraud to sign two documents. The player emphasised that the English contract expired on 31 December 2011, and thus he was free to sign with any other team. 14. Furthermore, the player denied to have ever committed any disciplinary infringement during his stay in the club and stated that he was therefore never sanctioned. 15. According to the player, the last paragraph of art. 3 of the English contract is unclear and confusing and seems to provide for a penalty clause in case he unilaterally terminates the contract with the club. In this case this did not happen, since he remained in the club until 31 December 2011. However, the paragraph in question is to be considered null in application of the principle “in dubio pro operario”. 16. The player further stated that the club never paid him the amount of USD 352,000 and he did not know whether the amount was paid to his former Club U, from country R for the transfer certificate. Furthermore, the player held that the monthly agreed salaries were paid to him partly in cash and partly through the salary card that the club provided. 17. In addition, the player pointed out that as of August 2011 the club approached him on several occasions and proposed him to extend the contract for one more year. However, the player maintained that he refused to sign the extension of the contract and thus the club denied him the access to the premises of the club and the training sessions. On 12 August 2011, the player sent a first fax to the club, in which he requested the club to immediately cease all the abusive actions towards him. According to the player, he sent a second fax on 18 August 2011, as the club persisted with the abovementioned actions. 18. According to the player, he was allowed to join the team again as of October 2011 and was fielded to play official matches. The player stated that as of 31 December 2012 he left the club since his contract had expired and that his plane ticket was paid by the club as agreed by art. 4.C of the contract. 19. The player asserted that on 15 January 2012, he and Club M, from country E, concluded an employment contract. However, a few weeks later the football league ceased in country E due to an event that occurred during a football match on 2 February 2012. 20. On April 2012, according to the player, the club contacted him and proposed him to sign a new contract and thus invited him to travel to country A assuming all the costs. The player maintained that he accepted the invitation and travelled to country A. However, the player clarified that he never returned to be at the disposition of the club, but just to negotiate with the club. The player further stated that since those negotiations were not successful he signed an employment contract with the Club N, from country A. 21. The player pointed out that the bank account provided by the club belongs to the club and not to the player, thus the club can withdraw the money that is paid through bank transfer. He further maintained that the bank excerpts are neither complete nor sealed by the bank and do not show what amounts were credited or debited. Thus, the player requests that the Chamber does not accept the relevant documents as evidence unless a full, original and clear version is filed. 22. Moreover, with regard to the salary stipulated in the country A contract, the player held that he would never have accepted moving from the country R first division to country A for a monthly salary of currency of country A 2.100 and neither the club would have paid USD 325,000 for the transfer of a player with “a value of only currency of country A 2.100 per month”. 23. The club submitted his replica, stating that it paid USD 325,000 to the former club of the player, which was accomplished through its official bank account. The club added that it had sent the contract in country A language and its notary certified translation via e-mail to the player’s lawyer Mr M before the player signed it. The club also argued that the player indeed returned to the disposition of the club. The club further maintained that, since their contract with the player was valid until 31 December 2012, the transfer of the player to Club N was realised by fraud with the help of the Association of Football Federations of country A. 24. The player claimed in his duplica that the club attached as Annexes some illegible pages, most of which were irrelevant and not listed nor identified. He further stated with regard to the alleged payment of a transfer fee from the club to Club C that such payment had no relevance in the present case and merely confirmed that the parties agreed exclusively on the terms of the English contract. The player vehemently denied having ever received any other translation of the country A contract than the English contract of 5 February 2011. The player reiterated that the sole purpose of flying back to country A was to negotiate with the club and that the Annexe attached by the club with press articles are of no evidentiary value. Finally, the player sustained that the claim of the club seemed to be a true act of revenge against him for the fact that he decided to join the club N. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter referred to as the DRC or the Chamber) 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 30 January 2012. Consequently, the previous edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 3 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 shall adjudicate on employment-related disputes between a club and a player that have an international dimension. 3. In continuation, the Chamber analysed which edition of the regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010 and 2012), and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 30 January 2012. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the 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 members of the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The member of the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case, the arguments of the parties as well as the documentation contained in the file. 5. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the club claims to be entitled to receive compensation in the amount of USD 325,000 and the amount of currency of country A 24,126.10 as a result of the player’s breach of his contractual obligations contained in the country A contract, more precisely due to the fact that the player left the club when he still had a valid contract with them. Moreover, the Chamber took into account that the Claimant equally requests that sporting sanctions be imposed on the player. 6. On the other hand, the Chamber also noted that the player asserted that the Claimant induced him by fraud to sign two contracts. In this regard, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that according to the Respondent, the country A contract was signed before a notary, but no translator assisted him during the signing process and he thought that the English contract was the same he signed in country A language. Hence, the Respondent held that the country A contract was signed with a fundamental error that renders it invalid and he was free to sign with another club upon expiry of the English contract on 31 December 2011. 7. In continuation, the DRC took note that the parties had submitted two different employment contracts both signed by the Claimant and the Respondent. In this respect, the members acknowledged that neither of the parties contested to have signed the contracts. Therefore, the members concluded that the signatures on the contracts were authentic. 8. Nevertheless, the Chamber referred to the fact that according to the Respondent only the English contract was valid, while the Claimant considered the country A contract to be valid. Hence, there was a disagreement with regard to the validity of the first employment contract signed on 4 February 2011 in country A language. 9. The members of the Chamber therefore turned their attention to both employment contracts which were submitted. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that the first contract concluded on 4 February 2011 is in country A language, uploaded in the transfer matching system (TMS) and provides for a period of validity of approximately two years with a remuneration of currency of country A 2,100 per month. The second contract dated 5 February 2011 is in English language, stipulates a period of validity of approximately one year with a remuneration of approx. USD 10,000 per month. 10. After a careful analysis of the aforementioned contracts, the members acknowledged that both employment contracts do not refer to each other and stipulate a different period of validity as well as a different remuneration. 11. With regard to the country A contract signed by the parties on 4 February 2013 with a period of validity until 31 December 2012, the Chamber added that it was a general legal principle that more recent contracts supersede older ones. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that since the country A contract was signed previous to the English contract, the latter superseded the country A contract. 12. What is more, the Chamber noted that the Claimant had never contested the existence or the validity of the English contract. 13. Having said that, the DRC took also note of the fact that in August 2011 the Claimant appeared to have offered to the Respondent an extension of their contract and relationship for another season, which the Respondent refused. In this regard, the members of the Chamber considered that, if the contract and relationship had had a term of validity until December 2012, there would not have been any reason for such offer. 14. On account of all the above, the members of the Chamber concluded that the English contract with a period of validity until 31 December 2011 was the one to be considered as valid in the matter at stake. 15. Consequently, having established that that the English contract is the one binding for the parties, the members of the Chamber decided that the player was free to sign a new contract as of 15 January 2012 and, thus, the claim put forward by the Claimant is rejected. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber The claim of the Claimant, Club L, 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: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives