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 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 club, Club S, from country A as Claimant against the player, Player P, from country A as Respondent and the club, Club B, from country T 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 theDispute 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 club, Club S, from country A as Claimant against the player, Player P, from country A as Respondent and the club, Club B, from country T as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 31 July 2008, Player P, from country A (hereinafter: player or Respondent 1), and Club S, from country A (hereinafter: Club S or Claimant), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid from the date of its signature until 30 June 2009 providing an option for Club S to unilaterally extend the duration of the contract for two additional years, in two times, of one year each. 2. In addition, the contract stipulates that Club S shall make the option of the first unilateral extension by informing the player until 31 May 2009 or for the second unilateral extension by informing the player until 30 April 2010. 3. The contract provides for a monthly remuneration of currency of country A 10,000 as well as a bonus of currency of country A 160 for ``points won in official match in which the player participated’’. 4. Furthermore, the contract stipulates that the player’s salary would be ``improved’’, in relation to the last month’s entitlement of the previous contractual year, should the unilateral option to extend the employment contract be exercised, in accordance with art. 6 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement no 430/75. 5. In July 2008, Club S, Club C, from country K (hereinafter: Club C) and the player, concluded a loan agreement valid until 30 June 2009 with the option of a definitive transfer. If Club C wanted to make use of said option of a definitive transfer it would have to pay Club S the amount of USD 400,000 until 31 December 2008 and USD 500,000 until 30 June 2009. 6. In June 2009, Club S signed an undated document entitled ``Agreement for the extension to exercise the option to acquire the economic rights’’, by means of which it extended Club C’s deadline ``to exercise the option to acquire 100% of the player’s economic rights’’ to 15 July 2009 at the latest, for the total amount of USD 500,000, payable on the date on which both clubs reach an agreement on the definitive transfer of the player. 7. On 29 April 2009, Club S sent a telegram, addressed to the player to an address in country A. The telegram reads in a free translation from language of country A ``in accordance with country A Football Association Regulations and the F.A.A. Collective Agreement [Collective Bargaining Agreement signed between the country A Player’s Union and country A Football Association], we notify the extension of the contract. Telegram with recorded delivery’’. 8. Club B, from country T (hereinafter: Club B or Respondent 2), and the player signed an employment contract valid as from 7 July 2009 until 31 May 2011. 9. On 14 August 2009, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee authorised the country T Football Federation to provisionally register the player with Club B. 10. On 8 September 2009, Club S lodged a claim before FIFA against the player and Club B, claiming that the player had breached the contract without just cause and that Club B had induced him to do so. Consequently, Club S maintains that Club B shall be jointly liable for any compensation to be paid to Club S. 11. In particular, Club S requested the following: • compensation for breach of contract, the calculation of which shall be based on the points below: USD 500,000 corresponding to the amount set in the loan agreement signed between Club S and Club C, in the event that Club S wished to exercise the option for the definitive transfer of the player; USD 50,000 for sporting damage or loss as the player represented a high value for the team of Club S and the bad influence on the future relations between Club S and Club C, since the latter club wished to keep the player; amounts paid by Club B to the player as sign-on fee and / or salary; the obligation to mitigate the damages shall not be applied in the present matter, since there are no savings by Club S, because the player’s salaries were paid by Club C during the loan period; • 5% interest p.a. as from the date of breach of contract; • sporting sanctions to be imposed on the player and on Club B; • to impose a fine of currency of country H 50,000 on Club B as a penalty due to breach of art. 18 par. 3 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players by Club B. 12. Furthermore, Club S stated that while Club B could immediately use the player’s services in its team without paying any transfer compensation, Club S had lost a player, whose immediate replacement was impossible, without receiving any financial compensation for it. According to Club S, these aspects should also be taken into account when determining the amount of compensation to be paid to Club S. 13. In this respect, Club S explained that the player had signed five employment contracts with it within the time period between June 2004 and July 2008. In these four years, the player had been transferred on a loan basis to different clubs. In spite of the fact that each loan agreement had included an option for a definitive transfer, no option had ever been exercised. Club S pointed out that the player had always returned to the club at the end of each loan agreement and that a new contract was then signed by the parties. 14. However, according to Club S, after the last loan to Club C, the player allegedly refused to stay with Club C, who had allegedly exercised the option for the definitive transfer of the player, and he did not return to Club S either, despite the contract containing a unilateral option for its extension. In particular, Club S allegedly received a fax from the player’s representative in July 2009 informing it that the player refused both options, the definitive transfer to Club C as well as the unilateral option for an extension of the contract. 15. Equally, Club S pointed out that each of the employment contracts with the player included a unilateral extension option, which had never been contested by the player. Moreover, Club S alleged that the player had accepted to return to Club S after the loan and that by doing so he actually recognised the existence of a valid employment contract with Club S for the period of time right after the loan. In this respect, Club S emphasised that in the event that Club C would not make use of its option to definitively acquire the player’s services, he had to return to Club S. 16. In his reply to the Club S’s claim, the player rejected the club’s allegations and sustained to have never received any communication from Club C and/or the club regarding an alleged decision to exercise the option set out in the loan agreement. Moreover, the player stated that, in fact, the club failed to provide any proof in this regard. According to the player, he was verbally informed by the country A Football Association that the club had exercised the unilateral option set out in the contract when he returned to country A, in July 2009, after the end of the loan and the employment contract. 17. The player added that, on 15 July 2009, the country A Football Associatiion formally refused the issuance of the international transfer certificate requested by the country T Football Federation, inter alia, pursuant to the allegation that Club C ``had exercised the option to hire the player on a permanent basis before the club, despite of the fact that the player has neither been officially informed by Club C about it’’. 18. Furthermore, according to the player, no agreement was signed between him and Club C regarding the terms and conditions of a new employment contract to be fulfilled in the event that the mentioned option was exercised by Club C at the end of the loan agreement. 19. In addition, the player argued that this unilateral extension option in favour of Club S is invalid and contrary to FIFA jurisprudence, curtails the freedom of the player in an excessive manner, and it led to an unjustified disadvantage of the player’s right towards the club for years. In this respect, the player indicated that three of the five prerequisites that the Dispute Resolution Chamber allegedly has identified as decisive in order to establish whether an option in favour of a club can be valid were not met by Club S. According to the player, these pre-requisites are the following: a) the potential maximal duration of the labour relationship shall not be excessive; b) the option shall be exercised within an acceptable deadline before the expiry of the contract; c) the salary rewarded deriving from the option right has to be defined in the original contract; d) one party shall not be at the mercy of the other party with regard to the contents of the employment contract; and e) the option shall be clearly established and emphasised in the original contract so that the player is conscious of it at the moment of signing the contract. 20. The player sustained that Club S did not have a real interest in his services and the only reason to keep him under contract was to obtain compensation. In this regard, the player referred to the Club S’s allegations in its statement of claim that between 2004 and 2009 the player was loaned to several clubs. 21. In the event that the Dispute Resolution Chamber deems the unilateral extension option to be valid and duly exercised by Club S, the player requests the Dispute Resolution Chamber to determine that Club S is entitled to an amount of compensation to be established on the basis of the remaining amount due as salaries until the end of the new term of the contract set out in accordance with the unilateral extension clause, that is 12 months; hence, an amount not higher than currency of country A 138,000. In addition, the player requests the DRC not to take into consideration, as objective criteria, the amount established by the option for the definitive transfer of the player to Club C, allegedly exercised by Club C, since Club S failed to submit evidence that the option was exercised and communicated to the player accordingly. Finally, the player asks the DRC to establish that there is no legal basis to apply any sporting sanctions and that the player shall not be responsible to pay any expense or legal costs regarding the dispute at hand. 22. In its reply to the claim, Club B held that Club S intended to unilaterally extend the contract signed with the player until 30 June 2010 and allegedly informed the player on 3 July 2009. However, the player allegedly manifestly did not accept such unilateral extension and sent a letter to Club S on 6 July 2009 stating his position on the matter. 23. Club B sustained that unilateral options violate main principles of labour law and referred to the decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee on 14 August 2009, which stated that, in general, a unilateral option in favour of the club cannot be considered valid since it limits the freedom of the player in an excessive manner and leads to an unjustified disadvantage of the player’s right towards the club. 24. Finally, Club B emphasized that it signed a contract with a player who was not contractually bound to another club and requested that the club’s claim be rejected. 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 matter at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 8 September 2009. 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. art. 21 par. 1 and par. 2 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 and par. 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. a of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns a dispute between an country A club and an country A player in relation to the maintenance of contractual stability where there has been an ITC request. 3. 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 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 8 September 2009, the 2009 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: 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 Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. 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. 5. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that, on 31 July 2008, the Claimant and the Respondent 1 signed an employment contract valid from the date of its signature until 30 June 2009 providing an option for Club S to unilaterally extend the duration of the contract for two additional years, in two times of one year each. As regards the unilateral extension option, the members of the Chamber duly noted that according to the employment contract, Club S had to exercise the option of the first unilateral yearly extension by informing the Respondent 1 until 31 May 2009. 6. The Chamber further took into account that the player was transferred on a loan basis from the Claimant to Club C, from country K, as from July 2008 until 30 June 2009, with the option for Club C to acquire the player’s services on a definitive basis. 7. In this connection, the Chamber noted that it has remained uncontested that the Respondent 1 rendered his services to Club C at least until the contractual expiry of the aforementioned loan, i.e. until 30 June 2009. 8. In continuation, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant, on the one hand, maintains that the Respondent 1 acted in breach of the employment contract without just cause by failing to return to the Claimant after expiry of the above-mentioned loan at Club C and after allegedly having refused to remain registered with Club C in the light of the buying option that allegedly was exercised by Club C. Consequently, the Claimant asks that the Respondent 1 be ordered to pay compensation for breach of contract and that the Respondent 2, the club with which the Respondent 1 signed an employment contract valid as from 7 July 2009, be held liable for inducement to breach of contract and be held jointly liable for the payment of such compensation. 9. The Respondent 1, for his part, rejects the claim and holds inter alia that he never received any communication from Club C and/or the Claimant regarding an alleged decision to exercise the option set out in the loan agreement. The Respondent 1 furthermore sustains that he was only informed orally by the country A Football Association, after his return to country A following the expiry of the relevant loan at Club C and of the employment contract with the Claimant, that the Claimant exercised the unilateral option set out in the employment contract. 10. The Chamber further noted that the Respondent 2 equally rejects the claim of the Claimant and sustains that when it signed an employment contract with the Respondent 1, the latter was no longer contractually bound to any other club. 11. In order to be able to establish as to whether, as claimed by the Claimant and contested by the Respondent 1, the player had acted in breach of the employment contract without just cause, the Chamber first turned its attention to the unilateral extension option, in accordance with which the Claimant had the contractual right to extend the relevant employment contract, which was set to expire on 30 June 2009, for at least another year. 12. In continuation, the members of the Chamber, without analysing the question as to whether such unilateral extension option could, in fact, be considered valid and enforceable, referred to the contractual requirement stipulating that in order to duly exercise such option, the Claimant had to inform the Respondent 1 accordingly until 31 May 2009. 13. The Chamber noted that, on 29 April 2009, the Claimant sent a telegram to the Respondent 1, to an address in country A. In this context, the members of the Chamber took into account that it has remained uncontested that, at that time, the Respondent 1 rendered his services to Club U, in country K, on a loan basis. 14. Moreover, the Respondent 1 sustains that he was not informed of the fact that the Claimant exercised the unilateral extension option until he returned to country A after the expiry of the loan period and that he was informed accordingly by the country A Football Association. 15. On account of these considerations, in particular bearing in mind that the Respondent 1 was in country K in the context of the loan agreement signed by and between the Claimant, the Respondent 1 and the country K club, Club C, at the time when the Claimant addressed a telegram to the player to an address in country K, the members of the Chamber concurred that the Claimant failed to fulfil the formal requirement of informing the Claimant until 31 May 2009 in order for it to exercise the option to extend the employment contract by another year, i.e. the Claimant failed to inform the Respondent 1 accordingly in a timely manner. 16. At this point, the members of the Chamber agreed that, having established that the contractual requirement in order for the unilateral extension option to be duly exercised had not been fulfilled, the question as to whether the relevant unilateral extension option as such is be considered valid and legally binding does not need to be further examined. However, the members of the Chamber deemed it fit to express their strong doubts as regards the validity of such unilateral clauses referring to its constant jurisprudence in such matters. 17. On account of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the employment contract between the Claimant and the Respondent 1 was not extended and, thus, came to an end on 30 June 2009. As a result, the Respondent 1 was enabled to sign the employment contract with the Respondent 2 valid as of 7 July 2009. 18. For these reasons, the Chamber decided to reject the claim of the Claimant. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber The claim of the Claimant, Club S, is rejected. ***** 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