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, country S, on 25 September 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member Santiago Nebot (Spain), member on the claim presented by the player, Player B, from country C as Claimant against the club, Club G, from country S 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 passed in Zurich, country S, on 25 September 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member Santiago Nebot (Spain), member on the claim presented by the player, Player B, from country C as Claimant against the club, Club G, from country S as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 31 January 2012, the player B from country C (hereinafter: player or Claimant), and a representative of the club from country S, Club G (hereinafter: club or Respondent), signed an annex agreement entitled “Beilage 3 zu Anhang 3 zum Arbeitsvertrag” [free translation: Enclosure 3 to Annex 3 to the contract] (hereinafter: annex). The annex states that it is valid from 1 February 2012 until 30 May 2012, with an option to extend until 30 June 2015. 2. According to the annex, the club would pay to the player, inter alia, the following amounts: - 5,000 as monthly salary; - 7,000 as monthly salary after the player has participated in 10 matches for the club, regardless of how many minutes he has played; - 8,000 as monthly salary after the player has participated in 20 matches for the club, in which he has played at least 45 minutes per match; - 9,000 as monthly salary after the player has participated in 30 matches for the club, in which he has played at least 45 minutes per match; - 10,000 as monthly salary after the player has participated in 40 matches for the club, in which he has played at least 45 minutes per match; - 500 as bonus for every match point that the first team wins. 3. On 11 July 2012, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the club for breach of contract without just cause and requested the payment of the total amount of 20,000, i.e. 4 monthly salaries of 5,000 each. 4. In his arguments, the player states that the club unilaterally terminated the annex without reason. On 19 March 2012, the player sent a letter to the club demanding payment in the amount of 28,000, corresponding to four monthly salaries and appearance bonuses. 5. The player further alleges having terminated the employment contract signed with his previous club from country C, Club Z, and as a consequence “he could not have re-registered, nor can he re-register for any other club until the start of summer transfer window in season 2012/2013”. 6. The club for its part, rejects the player’s claim arguing that it never entered into an employment contract with the player. 7. The club rejects the player’s argument that he terminated an employment contract with Club Z, arguing that it is not possible to evaluate the reason of such alleged termination and, moreover, that the player did not submit any corresponding evidence. 8. In addition, the club claims that it invited the player to a trial in January 2012, during which time it informed the player about his potential income, if he would be taken under contract. The club argues that it regularly provides its ideas about potential salary to players on trial in writing and that the players are informed that the potential salary is indicated for the purpose of information only, and that such information, even if handed out in writing, is not to be considered as a binding contractual offer. The club asserts that the player was informed accordingly and that he confirmed that he has understood everything. 9. Moreover, the club holds that the annex presented by the player along with his claim cannot legally bind the club to the player, because it was signed on behalf of the club by only one person, Mr W, who at the time was a member of the club’s management. According to the club, the Register of Commerce from country S shows that joint signatures of two representatives of the club are required and thus Mr W’s sole signature could not legally bind the club. 10. Furthermore, the club states that there was a space reserved for the second signature of the club, clearly indicating the name of Mr M and his position as CEO, which space remained empty since the annex was not signed by him. 11. In addition, the club argues that it never signed the standard labour contract provided and mandated by the Football League from country S, and that the player was never registered with the club. Moreover the club states that the player did not offer his services to the club after the end of the trial, which indicates that no employment contract was concluded. 12. In further support of its arguments, the club has provided a document, signed by the player’s “accompanying acquaintance who was also acting as a translator between the player and the club” (hereinafter witness), which states the following: “The player was given by the club the draft of a possible future labour contract. Such document was signed by Mr W. The space for the double signature of the club remained empty. I understood that the handover of such document only had the purpose to inform the player about the financial conditions of a future labour contract, in case a contract would be concluded after the trial. It was clear to me at every moment that such document was not a binding contractual offer of the club to the player. I immediately translated and explained this to the player. He confirmed to me that he understood that”. 13. In his replica, and further to FIFA’s request for additional information, the player states that he is not in possession of the employment contract to which the annex refers to. 14. Furthermore, the player reiterates that he terminated his contract with Club Z only because the club instructed him to do so. In support of this allegation the player submits a “Waiver declaration”, in which Club Z renounces any right to claim training compensation or solidarity contribution from the Respondent. 15. Moreover, the player highlights that the club unilaterally terminated the employment contract after three days. Finally, the player states that the “Witness Statement” presented by the club is not credible, because it is only signed by the witness, not by the player and because the witness is a former scout of the club. 16. In its duplica, the club contests that the player was instructed to terminate the contract with Club Z. The club argues that there is no proof that the player actually terminated said contract and submits an internet extract from the website www.transfermaket.com, which indicates that the player spent the whole season 2011/12 with Club Z. 17. The club argues that the “Waiver declaration” is irrelevant, since it concerns a legal aspect between the two clubs and not the alleged termination of the contract by the player. Moreover, the club points out that the witness never had any official role in the club. 18. According to the player he has remained unemployed as of 1 February 2012 until 30 May 2012. 19. After the closure of the investigation in the present matter, the player submitted unsolicited documentation. In particular, he filed a document named “Record of the contract termination” signed by Club Z and the player, dated 7 February 2012. 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 11 July 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. 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 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 C and a club from country S. 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 11 July 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. The members of the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant and a representative of the Respondent signed a document referred to as, in its free translation, “Enclosure 3 to Annex 3 to the employment contract” referring to a validity as from 1 February 2012 until 30 May 2012, with an option to extend until 30 June 2015. 6. The Chamber then reviewed the claim of the Claimant, who maintains that the Respondent unilaterally terminated the annex without just cause and, consequently, the Claimant asks to be awarded compensation for breach of contract in the amount of 20,000 corresponding to the total value of the annex. 7. According to the Claimant, the Respondent instructed him to terminate his contract with his previous club, Club Z. 8. The Chamber further noted that the Claimant is not in possession of the employment contract, which the submitted annex refers to. 9. The members of the Chamber took into account that the Respondent, on the other hand, rejects the claim of the Claimant primarily on the basis of the alleged fact that no valid employment contract was concluded between the parties. 10. According to the Respondent, the Claimant was only invited to a trial during which he was informed about his potential income in case a contract would be concluded. Therefore, the Respondent argues that the annex was for information purposes only and cannot be considered as a binding contractual offer. 11. Moreover, the Respondent emphasises that the annex was only signed by one representative instead of two representatives, and that according to the commercial register joint signatures of two representatives are required. Additionally, the Respondent emphasises that the annex itself, by having a reserved space for the second signature, clearly indicates that two signatures are required on the club’s behalf and as a conclusion, one signature cannot legally bind the Respondent. 12. Furthermore, the Respondent denies having instructed the Claimant to terminate his contract with Club Z. 13. In view of the contradictory position of the parties as regards the annex, which is at the basis of the Claimant’s claim, the Chamber highlighted that the main issue to be addressed is whether a legally binding written employment contract had been concluded by and between the Claimant and the Respondent. 14. With the foregoing considerations in mind, the Chamber reviewed the annex and held the view that the document, by having a reserved space with a specific name for a second signature, clearly indicates that two signatures are required on the club’s behalf. As established above, the annex was only signed by one representative of the club instead. 15. The members of the Chamber equally took into account that the further documentation presented by the Claimant along with his statement of claim does not constitute evidence of the alleged fact that the parties would have been contractually bound. 16. On account of the above, the Chamber concluded that no valid written contract had been concluded by and between the parties. 17. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the claim of the Claimant must be rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber The claim of the Claimant, Player B, 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 country S 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