F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 July 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member on the claim presented by the player, Player F, from country C as Claimant against the club, Club G, from country P as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 July 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member on the claim presented by the player, Player F, from country C as Claimant against the club, Club G, from country P as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 July 2008, Player F, from country C (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club G, from country P (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from date of signature until 30 June 2010. 2. The contract stipulated, inter alia, that the Respondent would pay the Claimant the following: - Currency of country P 291,744 for the season 2008/2009; - Currency of country P 350,400 for the season 2009/2010. 3. §4 of the contract established inter alia that “all the amounts mentioned in the present contract are equal to the amounts in Euro according to the exchange rate from 2nd July 2008 in the amount of 3,36; all paid amounts shall be revalued according to the Euro exchange rate of National Bank of country P actual for the date of payment”. 4. On 5 March 2009, the Claimant put the Respondent in default, requesting the outstanding payments of “over 3 months” regarding season 2008/2009, accommodation and flight tickets. 5. On 15 April 2009, the Claimant filed a motion to the “Department of Gaming country P Football Association” (hereinafter: the country P FA), by means of which he requested the “termination of agreement for professional practice of football of 1 July 2008 concluded by and between the Football Training Center Club G and Player F player with the Club’s fault from 30 June 2009 – on the basis of article 14 point 6 of the Rules regulating relations between sport club and professional player”. 6. On 5 May 2009, the country P FA took a decision, by means of which it recognized that the Claimant had “submitted the motion to dissolve the contract” and that he based his request on three reasons: “1. Breach of the contract based in non-payment of salary for the period exceeding three months, 2. Non providing of player’s accommodation; 3. Non providing of plane ticket as specified in the contract”. Furthermore, the country P FA went through all the arguments and evidence provided by both parties and decided to “Dissolve the contract on professional football play between Player F and Club G club, on ground of club’s fault”. 7. Additionally, the country P FA considered that the club had the obligation to revalue the salary, “obligation is described in §4 of the contract, which requires to revaluate all amounts paid on the ground of the contract” as well as that “the total salary due to the player is the salary for 9 months – from 1.07.2008 to 30.03.2009 including the monthly revaluation. The total amount of the salary equals to the quota of 191,360 currency of country P net. The back payment of three months period, which entitle the player to submit the motion of dissolution of the contract is 21.262 currency of country P x 3 = 63.786 currency of country P”. Finally, it considered that “so far the player was paid the amount of 117.600 currency of country P. It means that the total club’s due payment for the player equals to 191.360 – 117.600 = 73.760 currency of country P” and thus, “the motion is justified”. 8. In particular, the country P FA accepted the calculation provided by the Claimant regarding the revaluation of the monthly salaries, taking into account the change in the Euro rate exchange, considering the following amounts as monthly salaries for the period between July 2008 and March 2009: - Currency of country P 17,489.21 for July 2008; - Currency of country P 18,616.31 for August 2008; - Currency of country P 19,045.77 for September 2008; - Currency of country P 19,528.67 for October 2008; - Currency of country P 21,245.53 for November 2008; - Currency of country P 21,936.42 for December 2008; - Currency of country P 24,265.05 for January 2009; - Currency of country P 25,618.89 for February 2009; - Currency of country P 23,614.86 for March 2009. 9. On 10 February 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent for breach of contract before FIFA requesting the following: - Currency of country P 185,709 as compensation for the season 2009/2010, corresponding to the residual value of the contract deducting the remuneration received by his new club during this period; - Interest as from the date of the claim; - Legal costs. 10. In this respect, the Claimant held that the contract was considered as terminated by the country P FA. However, the consequences of the early termination and compensation due to the breach of the contract for the 2009/2010 season were allegedly not determined by the country P FA. In this context, and considering that the decision-making bodies of the country P FA do not comply with the minimum procedural standards required by the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Claimant decided to lodge a claim before FIFA to receive the compensation from the Respondent for the 2009/2010 season. 11. According to the Claimant, based on §4 of the contract, the monthly salary for the season 2009/2010 was equivalent to EUR 8,690.47, which corresponds to currency of country P 350,400 divided in 12 instalments divided by 3,36, i.e. the exchange rate contractually agreed. Considering that the payment shall be in currency of country P, each monthly salary shall be recalculated, taking into account the applicable exchange rate on each due date, i.e. the 10th of the following month. 12. Consequently, for the season 2009/2010, the Claimant alleged that the he would be entitled to receive the total remuneration of currency of country P 425,748.72 as follows: Date Current Euro exchange (currency of country P) attributable to the due date Monthly amount of due remuneration Monthly gross amount in currency of country P payable with the adjustment of the euro exchange rate on maturity (monthly remuneration x rate for the euro from due date) 10.08.09 4,1053 8,690,47 35,676.99 Currency of country P 10.09.09 4,1699 8,690,47 36,238.39 Currency of country P 09.10.09 4,264 8,690,47 37,056.16 Currency of country P 10.11.09 4,2043 8,690,47 36,537.34 Currency of country P 10.12.09 4,1437 8,690,47 36,010.70 Currency of country P 08.01.10 4,1084 8,690,47 35,703.93 Currency of country P 10.02.10 4,0595 8,690,47 35,278.96 Currency of country P 10.03.10 3,875 8,690,47 33,675.57 Currency of country P 09.04.10 3,8405 8,690,47 33,375.75 Currency of country P 10.05.10 3,9998 8,690,47 34,670,14 Currency of country P 10.06.10 4,1338 8,690,47 35,924.66 Currency of country P 10.07.10 4,0860 8,690,47 35,510,12 Currency of country P SUM 425,748.72 Currency of country P 13. Moreover, the Claimant informed about his contractual situation for the season 2009/2010, and stated that he was firstly under an amateur contract with the Club V, from country C, without receiving any remuneration. The Claimant further informed having signed a new employment contract and an agreement with Club G, from country K, valid as from 1 March 2010 until 31 October 2010. In this regard, the new employment contract provided that the Claimant would be entitled to a monthly salary of USD 3,000, plus bonuses and the agreement provided an additional monthly salary of USD 15,750. 14. In this regard, the Claimant informed having received a remuneration of USD 18,750 per month, considering the employment contract and the agreement concluded with Club G, from March until June 2010, resulting in the aggregate amount of currency of country P 233,250. In addition to this value, the player also alleged having received USD 2,000 as bonus, which equals to approximately currency of country P 6,789. 15. In this respect the Claimant held that for season 2009/2010, if the contract had not been terminated, he would have received EUR 8,690 monthly from August 2009 until July 2010, amounting to currency of country P 425,748, considering the conversion of EUR to currency of country P on the date of the claim. Therefore, the Claimant held that considering he received a total amount of currency of country P 240,039 from the Chinese club, he would still be entitled to receive currency of country P 185,709 from the club as compensation. 16. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to do so, the club failed to respond to the claim and did not make any statements during the course of the investigation, although it was informed that, in absence of a reply, the Dispute Resolution Chamber would take a decision on the basis of the information and evidence at disposal. 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 10 February 2011. 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. article 21 of the Procedural Rules). 2. In continuation, 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 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012) 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 C player and a country P club. 3. However, the Chamber noted that the Claimant first lodged a claim before the country P FA on 15 April 2009, by means of which he requested the termination of the agreement by the club’s fault (cf. point I.5). 4. In this regard, the Chamber took note that, on 5 May 2009, the country P FA adopted a decision and went through all the arguments and evidence provided by both parties (cf. point I.6). 5. On account of the above, the members of the DRC established that they had to first analyse the competence of the DRC, considering the existence of a decision issued by the country P FA regarding the employment contract on the basis of the present dispute. 6. In this respect, the Chamber took note that, according to the Claimant, by means of the claim lodged before FIFA, the only contentious matter is the “settlement of compensation of season 2009/2010” and not the matter of termination of the contract concluded on 1 July 2008 or the settlement of the remuneration concerning season 2008/2009. 7. Notwithstanding the argument of the Claimant, the DRC highlighted that the Claimant had lodged a claim before the country P FA on 15 April 2009 expressly requesting the “termination of agreement for professional practice of football of 1 July 2008 concluded by and between the Football Training Center Club G and Player F player with the Club’s fault from 30 June 2009”. Therefore, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant decided to seek redress regarding the breach of contract by the Respondent before the deciding bodies of the country P FA. 8. Subsequently, the members of the DRC highlighted that the country P FA rendered a decision establishing that the Respondent had breached the contract, however without addressing the consequences of such breach. In particular, the Chamber took note that the country P FA decided to “Dissolve the contract on professional football play between Player F and Club G, on ground of club’s fault” (emphasis added). 9. Finally, the members of the Chamber recalled that, the decision rendered by the country P FA, on 5 May 2009, was final and binding. 10. Considering all the above, the Chamber concluded that the country P FA had undoubtedly decided on the issue of breach of the contract, fact that is also accepted by the Claimant. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that, on the one hand, the Claimant himself initiated legal proceedings in front of the country P FA against the Respondent in order to obtain a decision regarding the termination of the contractual relationship “by the club’s fault”. On the other hand, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA requesting compensation for the breach of the contract by the Respondent already determined by the country P FA. In this context, the DRC Player F, from country C / Club G, from country P Page 7 of 8 emphasised that both claims lodged by the Claimant, before the country P FA and before FIFA were against the Respondent for the breach of the contract by the latter. 11. Having in mind all the above, the members of the DRC recalled that the Claimant himself reverted to the deciding body within the country P FA as well as that, on 5 May 2009, the country P FA rendered a decision establishing that the Respondent had breached the contract, without addressing the consequences of such breach for the 2009/2010 season. 12. Moreover, the members of the DRC pointed out that the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA almost two years later, i.e. on 10 February 2011, requesting compensation for breach of contract for the 2009/2010 season. 13. In this context, the Chamber highlighted that the Regulations do not foresee the possibility that the DRC solely decides on the consequences of a termination of an employment contract without having previously decided whether a contractual breach indeed occurred, whether such breach was with or without just cause and which party is to be deemed responsible. 14. In others words, for jurisdictional purposes, there cannot be a distinction between the “triggering elements” and the “remedies” stages in relation to a particular claim. It is not desirable that a party first seeks recourse to an NDRC and obtains there a favourable decision, and only then reverts to FIFA to adjudicate on the financial part of his/its claim. 15. Accordingly, the Chamber recalled that the country P FA already analysed and decided on the breach of the contract by the Respondent´s fault as a consequence of the claim lodged by the Claimant himself on 15 April 2009. 16. Considering the above-mentioned, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant should have pursued his claim for compensation for the breach of contract in front of the country P FA. As a consequence, the claim of the Claimant before FIFA for the consequences of the breach of contract already established by the country P FA is inadmissible. ************ II. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player F, 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