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 theDispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 August 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Taku Nomiya (Japan), member on the claim presented by the player, Player G, from country N as Claimant against the club, Club I, from country E as Respondent regarding an employment-related contractual 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 theDispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 August 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Taku Nomiya (Japan), member on the claim presented by the player, Player G, from country N as Claimant against the club, Club I, from country E as Respondent regarding an employment-related contractual dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 30 April 2011, Player G, from country N (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club I, from country E (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid for 3 years, i.e. “begins from season 2010/2011 [and] “expires on the end of season 2012/2013”. 2. According to clause 3 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive the amount of USD 375,000 during the course of each season, totalling USD 1,125,000 for the entire validity of the contract. 3. The parties also signed an undated agreement, which stated the following: “This agreement is to reduce my contract for 2012/2013 season from 375,000 USD to 312,500 USD. This will be valid after is translated to English language”. 4. Equally, clause 4 of the contract stipulated that “the [Claimant] will incur the taxes of the total amount of the contract according to law. The [Respondent] will settle the taxes to the concerned tax administration and inform the [Claimant] for the document of paying after the end of the season and before the beginning of the next season”. 5. On 15 May 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, requesting the payment of outstanding salaries amounting to USD 224,000. 6. In this context, the Claimant noted that the Respondent had only made partial payments of the salaries stipulated in the contract in the total amount of USD 26,000 during the term of the season. In this regard, he explained that the Respondent “deducted income tax at source which left a net contract value payable of $ 250,000 […]”. In this respect, the Claimant allegedly tried to contact the Respondent and the country E Football Association on 12 and 29 July in order to receive his outstanding salaries, however, with no success. 7. Despite having been invited by FIFA to do so, the Respondent never replied to the claim of the Claimant. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 21 par. 1 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 15 May 2012. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the edition 2008 of the Procedural Rules was applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010), it is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension, between a country N player and an country E club. 3. In particular, and in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010), the members of the DRC confirmed that they may adjudicate in the presence of three members. 4. 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 (editions 2010, 2012 and 2014), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 15 May 2012, the 2010 edition of said regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 5. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, it started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. 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. 6. In continuation, before starting to acknowledge and to analyse the Claimant’s claim, the DRC wished to point out that the Respondent, in spite of having been given the opportunity to reply to the claim submitted by the Claimant, failed to present its response in this respect and, by doing so, it renounced to its right of defence. 7. As a consequence of the preceding consideration, the Chamber established that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, it shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents on file. 8. Having said that, the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that, on 30 April 2011, they had signed an employment contract valid for 3 years, i.e. “begins from season 2010/2011 [and] “expires on the end of season 2012/2013”, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive the amount of USD 375,000 during the course of each season, totalling USD 1,125,000 for the entire validity of the contract. 9. Equally, the Chamber further noted that, in accordance with clause 4 of the contract, “the [Claimant] will incur the taxes of the total amount of the contract according to law. The [Respondent] will settle the taxes to the concerned tax administration and inform the [Claimant] for the document of paying after the end of the season and before the beginning of the next season”. 10. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Claimant alleged that the Respondent had only made partial payments of the salaries stipulated in the contract for the season 2011/2012 in the total amount of USD 26,000. 11. Subsequently, the DRC acknowledged the Claimant’s specification with regard to the final amount due to him for each season after the relevant tax deductions (cf. point I.4 above) and duly noted that, according to the Claimant, the net contract value ascended to USD 250,000. As a consequence, the DRC took due note that the Claimant asked to be awarded the total outstanding amount of USD 224,000. 12. In this regard, the DRC decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, as well as the Claimant’s assertion regarding the contract’s net value, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the total amount of USD 224,000. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player G, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club I, is ordered to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 224,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned number 2. is not paid within the above-mentioned time limit, an interest rate of 5% p.a. will apply on said amount as of expiry of the above-mentioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a formal decision. 4. 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 article 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