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 19 February 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), 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 19 February 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), 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 15 April 2013, the player from country B, Player A born on 17 March 1995 (hereinafter: the Claimant), lodged a claim against the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), alleging that he signed an employment contract with said club. 2. To its claim, the Claimant enclosed a copy of an undated document drafted on the club’s letterhead and named “Contract Proposal” only signed by the club, with the following content: “Club C proposes a contract for 3 seasons as from the 18th birthday of the player, as from 17.03.2013 with the following financial conditions: Monthly salary: First season (2012/2013 as from 18.03.2013)-›6.000 euro net per month Second season (2013/2014) -› 7.000 euro net per month Third season (2014/2015) -› 8.000 euro net per month Signature fee: 20.000 euro to be paid as soon as all the transfer documents are available such as ITC (International Transfer Certificate) Additional fees: (…) Advantages: A furnished apartment A car leased by the club 4 flight tickets per season For Club C Player A The player” 3. Having been asked by the FIFA administration to provide a copy of the above-mentioned document signed by both parties, the Claimant, on 22 April 2013, provided FIFA with a copy signed by both parties. 4. The Claimant explained that the Respondent had offered him a contract for 3 seasons “to be signed on March 17, 2013, date in which the athlete will comply 18 years old, and, therefore, will not be subject anymore to the deterrent provided in article 19.1 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.” 5. The Claimant further stated that “The conditions of the future contract to be signed were duly established in the pre-contract signed between the parties, which was elaborated precisely by the [club], and presented to the [player].” 6. On 8 January 2013 and upon request of the Respondent, the Claimant travelled to country D, according to him to “present himself to the club and start the training even before complying 18 years, with the aim of, with that, expediting his adaption and, at the same time, prevent the eventual harassment of other clubs.” The Claimant stated that it was verbally agreed that, for the months of January and February 2013, he would receive 50% of the monthly salary for the first year, i.e. EUR 3,000. 7. Subsequently, after having trained with the Respondent for around 50 days, the Claimant indicated that he was dismissed by the Respondent and had to leave country D by 27 February 2013, without receiving any salary and without any further information. 8. On 4 March 2013, the Respondent informed a certain Mr X that the Claimant had “some adaption problems and did not succeed to encounter the club and trainer requirements. Therefore, the contract proposals (…) are no longer subject to any officialization either for you nor the player. The contract proposals are thus void and cancelled.” 9. On 12, 20 and 27 March 2013, the Claimant requested the fulfillment of the contract, which allegedly remained without reply. Therefore, he terminated the contract in writing on 1 April 2013, invoking just cause. 10. In particular, the Claimant held that: - The “Contract Proposal” has all the main elements which “compose a negotiation for the hiring of a player by a club (…). The document, it must be noted, had even a designated place for the Claimant’s signature”. - There was a verbal agreement for January and February 2013. Since he was hired on 8 January 2013 and fired on 27 February 2013, the club owes him EUR 5,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest as from the due dates. - The dismissal was without just cause and therefore the Respondent has to pay him EUR 201,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest. - Sporting sanctions must be imposed on the Respondent. - The club has to pay for his legal costs. 11. In reply to the claim lodged against it, the Respondent explained that it was agreed with the Claimant that he could “complete a trial period and tests with a view of (thereafter) potentially hiring him on an employment contract with [the Respondent].” In order to show its interest in the future sporting career of the Claimant, the Respondent, on 7 December 2012, sent the Claimant and his agent a proposal for an employment contract containing the signature of the Respondent, however, neither the agent, nor the Claimant nor his legal representative “endorsed this contractual offer.” 12. The Respondent explained that during the Claimant’s trial, it provided accommodation, transport, food etc. to the player, however, no salary was agreed upon. Since the player experienced major difficulties in adjusting, he expressed his desire to return to country B, to which the club agreed. Therefore, on 27 February 2013, accompanied by the Respondent’s social manager, the Claimant went to the airport and travelled home. 13. Furthermore, the club holds that in his claim to FIFA, the Claimant himself submitted the “Contract Proposal” without his own signature, which proves that the contract offer was never endorsed in tempore non suspecto. Equally, the Claimant submitted the “Contract Proposal” without his own signature in his communications dated 12 March 2013, 20 March 2013 and 27 March 2013. Only after the Claimant was requested by FIFA to produce a duly signed version by both parties, he a posteriori signed the offer on 22 April 2013 for the first time. Hence, no employment contract was signed between the parties at the time. 14. The Respondent further mentioned that it did reply to the notifications sent in March 2013 and submitted a letter dated 29 March 2013, in which it, among others, indicated that the Claimant had never signed the proposal. 15. However, should the DRC consider the document to be an employment contract, the Respondent holds that the amount for compensation should be reduced to around EUR 15,000, since the Claimant found a new club and the contract was never executed. In any case, the request for EUR 5,000 regarding the months of January and February 2013 must be rejected, since there was no verbal agreement in place between the parties. 16. In a correspondence dated 19 September 2014, the Claimant reverted to FIFA stating that “one copy of the contract signed by the player was attached to the case file, and the Respondent always kept a copy duly signed by the player since the moment of the signature of the document.” 17. Nevertheless, the Claimant asserts that even if no contract was signed by him, the fact that the Respondent sent a pre-contact and that he travelled to country D and started training, shows that he accepted the terms of the pre-contract. 18. Finally, the Claimant argues that there are no reasons to mitigate the amount of compensation for breach of contract and that one should consider that he was young, talented and interrupted his promising career to go to country D. 19. In its final comments, the Respondent reiterated its previous position. 20. Upon request, the Claimant indicated that he signed the following two contracts after his departure from country D: - With Club Y as from 1 September 2013 until 1 September 2014, which was terminated by mutual consent on 15 May 2014, receiving a monthly salary of 1,200. - With Club Z on loan from 29 April 2014 until 13 May 2014, also receiving a monthly salary of 1,200. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as the 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 15 April 2013. Consequently, the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 21 of the 2012 and 2014 edition 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 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 a club from country D. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players 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 2014) and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 15 April 2013, 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, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation 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. 5. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent sent a document named “Contract Proposal” to the Claimant by means of which the Respondent offered a contract to the Claimant for 3 seasons. 6. According to the “Contract Proposal”, the parties established, among other details, that the employment would run for 3 seasons and that the Claimant would be entitled to receive, inter alia, a signing-on fee of EUR 20,000 and a salary of EUR 72,000 for the first season, EUR 84,000 for the second season and EUR 96,000 for the third season. The Claimant maintained that, in fact, an employment contract had been entered into between the parties and that, as such, the Respondent is to be held liable for its early termination by having failed to execute the terms of the employment contract, including the failure to pay the Claimant’s remuneration. 7. In this respect, the members of the Chamber took note that on 8 January 2013, the Claimant travelled to country D, according to the Claimant to expedite his adaption. However, according to the Respondent, the Claimant travelled to country D in January 2013 merely to complete a trial period. 8. In this context, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the fundamental disagreement between the Claimant and the Respondent – and the central issue to the present dispute – is whether the “Contract Proposal” established a valid and binding employment contract between the parties. 9. The Chamber noted that according to the Respondent, as opposed to the Claimant, no legally binding employment contract had come into effect between the parties, primarily since the employment contract had never been signed by the Claimant before lodging his claim with FIFA. In fact, the Respondent held that the first time that the Claimant had signed the contract was when he was requested by FIFA to provide a duly signed copy of the “Contract Proposal”. 10. The Claimant insisted however that he had signed the “Contract Proposal” and stated that “the conditions of the future contract to be signed were duly established in the pre-contract signed between the parties, which was elaborated precisely by the [Respondent], and presented to the [Claimant]”. Notwithstanding the foregoing, even if no contract was signed by him, the Claimant emphasized that the fact that the club sent a pre-contact and that he travelled to country D and started training, showed that he accepted the terms of the pre-contract. 11. Consequently, the Chamber, first and foremost, focused its attention on the question as to whether a legally binding employment contract had been concluded by and between the Claimant and the Respondent. 12. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that in order for an employment contract to be considered as valid and binding, apart from the signature of both the employer and the employee, it should contain the essentialia negotii of an employment contract, such as the parties to the contract and their role, the duration of the employment relationship and the remuneration. However, the Chamber concluded that it was not necessary to examine whether the “Contract Proposal” indeed contained all the essentialia negotii since, after having analysed the timeline of the present matter as well as the documentation provided by both parties, the Chamber came to the unanimous conclusion that the Claimant had not been able to prove that he had indeed signed the “Contract Proposal”, prior to lodging his claim in front of FIFA. 13. The Chamber was comforted in its conclusion by three elements: i) the “Contract Proposal” submitted by the Claimant to FIFA on 15 April 2013 did not contain the player’s signature, ii) the notifications sent to the Respondent on 12 March 2013, i.e. the first time the Claimant formally contacted the Respondent, also only contained the “Contract Proposal” exclusively signed by the club, and iii) the fact that on 29 March 2013, the Respondent had already replied to the Claimant that the latter never signed the “Contract Proposal”. 14. On account of all of the above, the members of the Chamber concluded that, by failing to prove that he signed the relevant “Contract Proposal” prior to lodging his claim in front of FIFA, the Claimant had failed to prove that the parties had entered into a valid and legally binding employment contract. As such, the Chamber decided to reject the claim of the Claimant in relation to the “Contract Proposal”. 15. As to the alleged verbal agreement reached between the parties regarding the months of January and February 2013, the Chamber referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which states that any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. In view of the fact that the Respondent rejected that any verbal agreement for January and February 2013 had been agreed with the Claimant as well as considering that the Claimant had not provided any documentation in this respect, the Chamber was also unanimous in its opinion that the Claimant had not been able to prove that a verbal agreement was in place for the months of January and February 2013. As a result, the Chamber decided to also reject this part of the claim of the Claimant. 16. The Chamber concluded its deliberations be rejecting any further claim lodged by the Claimant. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives