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 6 November 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D 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 6 November 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On an unspecified date, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: player or Claimant) and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter club or Respondent) signed an employment contract valid as from 23 July 2011 until 23 July 2012. 2. According to art. 3 of the contract, the player’s total remuneration over the duration of the contract amounted to USD 225,000. 3. On 20 August 2012, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA in relation to non-payment of his remuneration. 4. In this respect, the player held that as from the beginning of the execution of the contract “until March 2012”, he only received USD 113,360. 5. The player explained that on 18 March 2012, one game before the end of the season, the club asked him to travel back to country B and to wait there until his “visa status would be solved”. 6. On 20 June 2012, the player allegedly sent a letter to the club and requested it to pay him USD 111,640. However, according to the player, no response was received from the club. 7. As a result, the player requested that the club be ordered to pay him allegedly outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 111,640. 8. In its reply to the claim, the club explained that as the player violated the laws of country D, the player’s visa could not be extended and that the player had to leave country D. 9. In this respect, the club submitted a document dated 18 March 2012 sent by the “Public Security Police of Disciplinary Commander of Province X in country D” to the “Director of Sport and Youth of Province X in country D”. 10. Said document reads, inter alia, that as the player was found guilty on 17 January 2012 of being in possession of alcoholic drinks, his visa could not be extended and that the player was given a 72 hours’ time limit to leave the country as from the date of notification of the document at stake to the club. 11. Additionally, said document mentions that the player is imposed a fine of 300 per day based on his illegal stay in country D as from 17 January 2012 until 18 March 2012. 12. The club further reported that on 6 march 2012, the Disciplinary Committee “of the provincial board of football” informed it that said Committee decided on 17 October 2011 that the player’s contract was terminated. 13. The club submitted a copy of the correspondence received from said Committee, which reads that as a consequence of the player’s situation, the latter was imposed a 20% deduction of his wages and a cash fine in the amount of 30,000,000. 14. In this context, the club stressed that it is the player’s behaviour that led to the termination of the contract and that the player’s request for the payment of an “excessive” amount of money is unacceptable. The club underlined that it is the club that suffered from the situation. 15. In continuation, the club denied the player’s assertion that he was told by the club to travel back to country B and stressed that it can be seen from the stamps on the player’s passport that the player was being expelled from the country by the police of country D and not just traveling out of the country. 16. In his replica, the player rejected the club’s argumentation and held that if the contract was terminated in October 2011, the club should have informed the player, which it has not. 17. Furthermore, in such case, the club would not have been in the position to use his services until March 2012. 18. In continuation, the player held that “because of authoritarianism and concentration of power that occurs in [country D], and the fact that all the teams, officials and the Justice Agencies are subordinate to the Government, the documents presented by the Club does not have any veracity”. 19. The player further held that the club did not satisfy with the rule of the burden of proof, as did not submit any copy of the decision finding him in possession of alcohol. 20. Additionally, and should there be such decision, the player claimed that (i) he never was informed of such proceedings, which stands as a violation of his rights and, (ii), even if he had taken part to said proceedings, “the verdict against him was already prepared”. 21. With regard to the question of his visa, the player stressed that the club, contrary to its obligations, did not help him as the club’s intention was to “exploit” the player. 22. Also, the player underlined that the documents submitted in relation to his forced departure from country D are not signed by him and that said documents do not prove the club’s assertion that the player was expelled. 23. In its final comments, the club rejected the player’s position and maintained that the contract was terminated in October 2011. In this respect, the club held that (i) it paid the player what it owed him until the termination date, (ii) that the player’s assertion that he was forced to render his services for the club until March 2012 is untrue and unproven, (iii) the player’s description of the collusion between clubs / Government / judicial bodies is unproven and a pure invention, (iv) the documents submitted by the club are official documents. 24. In continuation, the club asserted that the player inter alia actively participated to the proceedings in which he was involved, that the club assisted him in this respect and, reportedly, that the player “had asked for the case to be appealed”. 25. In this regard, the club further stated that the player’s allegations that the verdict was prepared in advance is untrue. 26. In conclusion, the club held that the player’s claim is abusive and his arguments unproven. 27. As it is the player’s behaviour that led to his being expelled from country D, he has no right to any payment and the club does not have any obligations towards him. 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 20 August 2012. 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. 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. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2014), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from country B and an club from country D. 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 2014), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 20 June 2012, the 2010 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 members of the Chamber duly noted that the Claimant submits to have only received part of his contractual remuneration in the amount of USD 113,360, and consequently asks to be awarded outstanding remuneration in the total amount of USD 111,640. 6. In continuation, the members of the Chamber noted that the Respondent, for its part, asserted that its non-payment of the Claimant’s remuneration is justified by the fact that the player was found guilty on 17 January 2012 of being in possession of alcoholic drinks and that, consequently, he had to leave country D. 7. Having recalled the aforementioned parties’ respective positions, the Chamber deemed that in order to assess the parties’ potential respective accountabilities, if any, it firstly had to clarify the circumstances of the Claimant’s departure from the club during the month of March 2012. 8. In this context, the DRC firstly focussed its attention on the fact that according to the Respondent, the Disciplinary Committee of the provincial board of football decided on 17 October 2011 that the player’s employment contract with the club was terminated. 9. Nevertheless, the Chamber pointed out that, according to the Respondent, it is only on 17 January 2012 that the Claimant was found guilty of having been in possession of alcoholic drinks and ordered to leave country D within a 72 hours’ time limit following the date of notification of the relevant aforementioned ruling. 10. In this respect, the Chamber duly noted that based on the Respondent’s statement, as well as on the basis of the documents available on file, said ruling appears to have been notified to the Director of Sport and Youth of Province X in country D on or about 18 March 2012, i.e. two months after the ruling of 17 January 2012 was rendered. 11. On account of the above, the Chamber concluded that if it can be read from the documents available on file that the employment contract concluded between by the parties was terminated on 17 October 2011, the actual information in accordance with which the player had to leave the country D, which derives from the decision dated 17 January 2012, was only notified to the Director of Sport and Youth of Province X in country D on or about 18 March 2012. 12. Accordingly, the members of the Chamber unanimously agreed that as far as the parties are concerned, it was relevant to consider that the termination of the employment contract at hand occurred on or about 18 March 2012, i.e. the date on which the notification of the ruling dated 17 January 2012 was received by the Director of Sport and Youth of Province X in country D. 13. Having established the aforementioned, the members of the Chamber continued their analysis of the matter at hand and unanimously agreed that on the basis of the documents available on file, it appeared that the early termination of the parties’ contractual relationship was triggered by the Claimant’s violation of the country D domestic law and his ensuing obligation to leave said country within a 72 hours’ time-limit of the notification of the relevant ruling on 18 March 2012. 14. In other words, the members of the Chamber considered that the contract was de facto terminated due to the Claimant leaving the country in March 2012. 15. As a consequence of the aforementioned, the members of the Chamber decided that the Claimant shall not be entitled to receive his remuneration for the period of time during which he was, as a result of his own responsibility, unable to render his services for the Respondent, that is, approximately as from 18 March 2012 up and until 23 July 2012. 16. However, the DRC held that in spite of the aforementioned, and considering that the Claimant stayed at the club’s disposal until his departure from country D, it did not appear to be any valid reason justifying that the Claimant should not have received his contractual remuneration at least up and until 18 March 2012. 17. In this respect, the members of the Chamber agreed that although it submitted two statements and documentary evidence in support thereof, the Respondent had failed to present conclusive explanations in relation to its allegation that it fully complied with its financial obligations towards the Claimant until the latter left country D. 18. Against such background, the DRC decided to turn its attention to the calculation of the remuneration payable to the Claimant by the Respondent until the contract was terminated. 19. In this respect, the Chamber firstly considered that as the employment contract between the parties was signed for a duration of twelve months but only contained a general stipulation that the Claimant was entitled to a total remuneration of USD 225,000, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant was entitled to an average monthly contractual remuneration of USD 18,750. 20. In continuation, the Chamber was eager to recall the undisputed fact that the Claimant declared having received the amount of USD 113,360 from the Respondent as from the beginning of the execution of the contract until his departure from the club, i.e. on or about 18 March 2012. 21. On the basis of the aforementioned considerations, the Chamber found that as from the beginning of the execution of the contract and until the end of the month of February 2012, the Respondent should have paid the Claimant the contractual amount of USD 131,250, hence leaving a balance of USD 17,890 in the Claimant’s favour. 22. In continuation, the Chamber considered that the player was also entitled to receive a remuneration in the amount of USD 10,887, calculated 18 days pro rata temporis, in relation to the month of March 2012. 23. In conclusion, and on account of all the above-mentioned, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant´s claim and that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 28,777 as outstanding remuneration. 24. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the amount USD 28,777 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further request filed by the Claimant is rejected. 5. 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 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: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS directives