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(DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 August 2014, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player B, from country H as Claimant against the club, Club Z, from country I as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute 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(DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 August 2014, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player B, from country H as Claimant against the club, Club Z, from country I as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 9 September 2010, Player B, from country H (hereinafter: player or Claimant), and the former Club Z (now Club Z) (hereinafter: club or Respondent), signed an employment contract valid “for one competitive season and will finish after the FA cup and the league of season (Start: after getting ITC) The player will play up to end of the league and cup championship of country I for season 2010/2011” (hereinafter: contract). 2. According to clause 4 of the contract, the player was entitled to receive a total salary of USD 100,000, to be paid as follows: - USD 20,000 after receipt of the International Transfer Certificate (ITC); - USD 80,000 split into ten monthly instalments. In addition, clause 4 of the contract states that “Bonus for qualifying to professional will be 20,000 USD. The player will be included in bonus and penalty system for winning or drawing of matches of league or cup as regulations of club.”. 3. On 7 March 2013, the player sent a letter to the country I Football Federation requesting the payment of outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 30,000 from the club. 4. On 18 March 2013, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the club claiming the amount of USD 30,000 corresponding to his outstanding remuneration for the three last months of the 2011/2012 season, i.e. for March, April and May 2012. 5. As regards the new club name, the player explained that in June 2011, former Club Z changed its name to Club Z. According to the player, Club Z is thus the legal successor of Club Z, even though it did not change its bylaws. 6. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to do so, the club has failed to respond to the player’s claim. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the DRC judge took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 18 March 2013. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2014) he is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from country H and an country I club. 3. In particular, and in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 lit. i) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC judge confirmed that he may adjudicate in the present dispute which value does not exceed currency of country C 100,000. 4. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2014), and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 18 March 2013, the 2012 edition of said Regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the present matter as to the substance. 5. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 6. First of all, DRC judge acknowledged that on 9 September 2010, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract valid “for one competitive season and will finish after the FA cup and the league of season (Start: after getting ITC) The player will play up to end of the league and cup championship of country I for season 2010/2011”. As to the financial terms of said employment contract, the DRC judge took note that it had been agreed upon between the parties that the Respondent would remunerate the Claimant, for the whole term of the contract, with the amount of USD 100,000, of which USD 20,000 was due upon receipt of the ITC and USD 80,000 was split into ten monthly instalments. 7. The DRC judge further observed that the Claimant had lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent seeking payment in the amount of USD 30,000 corresponding to outstanding remuneration for the three last months of the 2011/2012 season, i.e. for March, April and May 2012, asserting that the Respondent had not fulfilled its contractual obligations towards him. 8. Furthermore, the DRC judge observed that the Respondent failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, despite having been invited to do so. In this way, the DRC judge deemed that the Respondent renounced its right of defence. 9. As a consequence of the preceding consideration, the DRC judge 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. 10. In continuation, the DRC judge, after a careful study of the contract at hand, in particular noted that the contract provided by the Claimant, which establishes the employment relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent, stipulates a duration for the 2010/2011 season only. 11. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the parties were bound by the employment contract for the 2010/2011 season only. 12. In this regard, the DRC judge noted that according to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the sporting season 2010/2011 in country I ran as from 29 July 2010 until 20 May 2011. 13. Subsequently, the DRC judge turned his attention to the claim of the Claimant and noted that he is requesting alleged outstanding remuneration for the 2011/2012 season, in particular for the months of March, April and May 2012. 14. In this context, making reference to art 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules – which stipulates that any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof – the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant had not provided any evidence of a contractual relationship with the Respondent for the 2011/2012 season, for which he claimed outstanding remuneration. 15. As a consequence, since the Claimant had failed to prove having concluded an employment contract valid for the period for which he claims outstanding remuneration, the DRC judge decided that the claim had to be rejected. ***** III. Decision of the DRC judge The claim of the Claimant, Player B, 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 DRC judge: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives