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 18 December 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Philippe Piat (France), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, from 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 the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 December 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Philippe Piat (France), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, from country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 July 2013, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: Claimant or player) and the club from country D, Club C (now known as Club C; hereinafter: Respondent or club) signed an employment contract valid during 18 months as from 1 July 2013 until 31 December 2014. 2. In accordance with the employment contract, the player was entitled to receive a signing-on fee of 90,000 as well as a monthly salary of 90,000. 3. In addition, the club undertook to pay one air ticket to return to the country B after the end of the season. 4. Early November 2013, allegedly after the end of the season, the player returned to the country B. 5. In January 2014, the player moved to the club from country D, Club E, with which club he signed an employment contract, on 23 January 2014, valid as from the date of signature until 31 July 2014 or the end of the 2014 league, in accordance with which the player was entitled to receive a monthly salary of 30,000. 6. As from 1 July 2014 (until 30 June 2015), the player has been bound to the club from country Y, Club X against payment of EUR 150 per month. 7. By letter dated 31 March 2014, the player terminated the employment contract with the club invoking just cause due to the latter’s alleged failure to remit the signing-on fee as well as his salary as from September 2013 onwards. 8. On 12 March 2014, with a subsequent amendment on 8 April 2014, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA maintaining that the club is to be held liable for breach of contract and payment of outstanding remuneration as well as compensation. 9. The player asked to be awarded the total amount of 1,490,225 or USD 45,850.15, plus interest, and he presented the following breakdown of his financial claim: a. 90,000 signing-on fee b. 30,000 remainder of the salary for September 2013 c. 540,000 6 months’ salary (October 2013 - March 2014) d. 810,000 compensation (salaries as from April 2014 until December 2014) e. 20,225 air ticket 10. The player explains that in spite of his payment notices to the club, the club failed to remit his remuneration as of September 2013 as well as the signing-on fee. 11. The player further points out that the club authorised his transfer to Club E on 23 January 2014, so that he could continue his career during alleged financial difficulties. However, according to the player, the club did not issue any “letter of release” nor did it terminate the employment contract, which therefore, so the player, continued to be valid. 12. In reply to the claim, the club asserts that, on 30 September 2013, it announced the dissolving of the team in the light of the transfer of former Club C’s rights to Club C, in December 2013. A copy of the relevant document was presented, according to which the club announced a re-organisation including a change of players. This document was allegedly posted at the camp and football field. Consequently, the club considers that all employment contracts had been terminated with effect as from 30 September 2013. 13. The club further refers to the transfer document signed by the player on 24 January 2014 on the occasion of his move to Club E. 14. Therefore, the club partially rejects the claim of the player. Indeed, considering that the contract was terminated on 30 September 2013, the club acknowledges that it still owes the amount of 140,225 to the player, i.e. 90,000 signing-on fee, 30,000 as the remainder of the September 2013 salary, and 20,225 related to the air ticket. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First, 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 12 March 2014. 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. 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. 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 an player from country B and a 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 12 March 2014, the 2012 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. The DRC noted that the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract on 1 July 2013, which was to run during 18 months as from 1 July 2013 until 31 December 2014. 6. The members of the Chamber took note that the Claimant maintains that the Respondent acted in breach of contract without just cause and that therefore, the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract and payment of, inter alia, compensation in addition to allegedly outstanding remuneration. 7. The Chamber further took into account that the Respondent, for its part, rejected the claim and held that the employment contract must be considered terminated with just cause on 30 September 2013 on the basis of the imminent dissolving of the club. 8. Considering the diverging position of the parties with regard to the early termination of the pertinent employment contract, the members of the Chamber highlighted that the central issue in this dispute was to determine which party is to be held liable for such early termination, whether the termination was with or without just cause as well as to decide on the consequences thereof. 9. Subsequently, the Chamber proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the present matter, the parties’ arguments as well the documentation on file, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. 10. According to the Claimant, in spite of the Respondent seriously having failed to comply with its contractual obligations towards him, the employment contract continued to remain in force until his notice of termination of 31 March 2014 addressed to the Respondent. 11. The members of the Chamber took note that the Respondent, for its part, holds the view that the employment contract was terminated on 30 September 2013, date on which all players were informed by the Respondent of the imminent dissolving of the team. In this connection, it was noted that the Respondent ceased all payments due to the Claimant subsequent to this date. 12. On account of the above, the Chamber pointed out that the Respondent’s reason for the termination of the employment contract on 30 September 2013 with immediate effect was, thus, the dissolving and reorganisation of the team due to the apparent transfer of the club’s rights to Club C in December 2013. 13. In this respect, the members of the Chamber concurred that a dissolving and reorganisation of the Respondent’s team due to the transfer of the club’s rights to another club cannot be considered a just cause for the termination of the employment contract it signed with the Claimant on 1 July 2013. 14. With respect to the Respondent’s additional argument that the Claimant had joined another team in January 2014, the Chamber stressed that due to the Respondent’s unjustified termination of the employment contract on 30 September 2013 the Claimant was free to sign on with another club following that date. 15. On account of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent unilaterally terminated the employment contract on 30 September 2013 without just cause. 16. In continuation, prior to establishing the consequences of the breach of contract without just cause by the Respondent in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber held that it had to address the issue of unpaid remuneration at the moment the contract was terminated by the Respondent. 17. Indeed, in his statement of claim, the Claimant alleges that the total amount of 140,225 had remained unpaid by the Respondent. In this regard, the DRC took into account that the Respondent confirmed that it had not paid the signing-on fee to the Claimant and that only part of the latter’s salary for September 2013 had been remitted. Consequently, the Respondent acknowledged that it owes the total amount of 140,225 to the Claimant. 18. Therefore, in virtue of the principle pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of 140,225 to the Claimant as outstanding remuneration for the period of up to 30 September 2013. 19. Having established the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the consequences of the unilateral termination of the contract by the Respondent without just cause on 30 September 2013. 20. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive compensation from the Respondent for the termination of the contract without just cause in addition to the aforementioned outstanding remuneration of 140,225. 21. In this regard, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period. 22. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the contract at the basis of the present dispute contains a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the contract at the basis of the matter at stake. 23. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasised beforehand that each request for compensation for contractual breach has to be assessed by the Chamber on a case-by-case basis taking into account all specific circumstances of the respective matter. 24. In order to estimate the amount of compensation due to the Claimant in the present case, the members of the Chamber first turned their attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contracts and/or the new contract, which criterion was considered by the Chamber to be essential. The members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and the new contract, if any, in the calculation of the amount of compensation. 25. On the basis of the contract signed by and between the Claimant and the Respondent, which was to run for 15 months more, i.e. until 31 December 2014, after the breach of contract occurred, the Chamber concluded that the amount of 1,350,000 (15 months x 90,000) serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 26. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages. 27. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Claimant signed an employment contract with the club from country D, Club E, valid as from 23 January 2014 until 31 July 2014 or the end of the 2014 league, in accordance with which the player was entitled to receive a monthly salary of 30,000. Subsequently, as from 1 July 2014 (until 30 June 2015), the player has been bound to the club from country Y, Club X against payment of EUR 150 per month. Consequently, the Chamber considered that the Claimant’s income under the new employment contracts for the period between 1 October 2013 and 31 December 2014 amounted to 190,000 approximately. 28. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and that the Respondent must pay the amount of 1,160,000 to the Claimant as compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand. 29. The Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by rejecting any further request filed by the Claimant. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C (formerly known as Club C), has to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the amount of 140,225 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the amount of 1,160,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 4. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant are not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limits, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limits and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further request filed by the Claimant is rejected. 6. 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