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 16 October 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Todd Durbin (USA), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member John Bramhall (England), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, from country G as Claimant against the club, Club S, from country E 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 16 October 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Todd Durbin (USA), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member John Bramhall (England), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, from country G as Claimant against the club, Club S, from country E as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 17 June 2010, Player A, from country G (hereinafter: the Claimant) and Club S, from country E (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed a contract (hereinafter: the pre-contract) valid from June 2010 until June 2013. 2. The pre-contract specifies, inter alia, that the Claimant is entitled to a total remuneration amounting to US Dollars (USD) 1,350,000 payable as follows: USD 400,000 for the season 2010-2011; USD 450,000 for the season 2011-2012; USD 500,000 for the season 2012-2013. 3. Subsequently, in July 2010, the parties concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid for three seasons, starting from the season 2010-2011 and set to run until the end of the season 2012-2013. 4. The contract stipulates that the Claimant is to receive a total remuneration of currency of country E 1,671,375 broken down as follows: currency of country E 494,625 for the season 2010-2011, payable in the following instalments: - Currency of country E 247,000 due on 10 July 2010; - Currency of country E 12,000 due on the first day of the month from August 2010 through to May 2011; - Currency of country E 127,625 due on 1 June 2011. Currency of country E 557,125 for the season 2011-2012, payable in the following instalments: - Currency of country E 278,000 due on 1 July 2011; - Currency of country E 17,000 due on the first day of the month from August 2011 through to February 2012; - Currency of country E 17,000 due on 1 April 2012; - Currency of country E 143,125 due on 1 June 2012. Currency of country E 619,625 for the season 2012-2013, payable in the following instalments: - Currency of country E 309,000 due on 1 July 2012; - Currency of country E 19,000 due on the first day of the month from August 2012 through to February 2013; - Currency of country E 19,000 due on 1 April 2013; - Currency of country E 158,625 due on 1 June 2013. 5. The contract also states that “the two parties declare their capacity to contract and they have read the regulation of the player [the Claimant] affairs which is valid during the signing of this contract and this regulation supersedes any other considered as part of this contract and complement for it”. 6. On 21 May 2012, the Respondent terminated the contract with the Claimant. 7. On 9 May 2014, the Claimant lodged a complaint before FIFA against the Respondent, claiming compensation amounting to USD 749,437.50, plus 5% interest p.a. as of the date of the decision passed by the Dispute Resolution Chamber, broken down as follows: USD 619,625 corresponding to the residual value of the contract, i.e. salaries for the season 2012-2013; USD 309,812.50 as additional compensation for the specificity of sport; minus the amount of USD 180,000 corresponding to the Claimant’s salary with his new clubs. The Claimant also requests the imposition of sporting sanctions on the Respondent. 8. The Claimant alleges having complied with his contractual obligations and asserts that he aimed to complete his engagement until the original date of expiry of the contract. Therefore, he deems that the Respondent terminated the contract without just cause. 9. Furthermore, the Claimant states that the Respondent put an end to the contract within the protected period since he had been playing with the Respondent for less than two entire seasons. According to the Claimant, this should be regarded as an aggravating circumstance. 10. In addition, the Claimant argues that in spite of the fact that the contract stipulates his remuneration in currency of country E currency, his remuneration is actually due in USD. In this respect, the Claimant points out that: the contract is drafted on a “pre-printed” standard document from the country E Football Association; the pre-contract explicitly provides for a total remuneration of USD 1,350,000; the gross remuneration in USD provided for in the contract corresponds to the amount foreseen as net remuneration as per the pre-contract, i.e. 20% tax; the amount of currency of country E 49,502.85 to be paid as “approval fee” to the country E Football Association is supposed to correspond to 1% of the contract; and all the payments made by the Respondent to the Claimant were made in USD. 11. In its statement of defence, the Respondent first of all recalls that by signing the contract, the Claimant agreed to comply with the 2005 Regulations edited by the country E Football Association (hereinafter: the country E Football Association Regulations) as stipulated in the contract. According to article 14 of the country E Football Association Regulations, “if a club ends a contract with one of his players during the season or after the end of the season, the player gets his dues for the rest of the season according to the payments stipulated in his contract if the club ends the contract during the season. If the club do not notify the player of the end of his contract within fifteen days from the date of the last official match for the club (last match was 10th May 2012), the player receives 50% of the amounts provided of the contract until the beginning of the second registration period if he did not move to another club and 50% of the down payment if the player moved to any other club”. 12. Therefore, the Respondent deems a contrario that it had the right to notify the Claimant of the termination of the contract without any compensation being due, provided the said notification was given within fifteen days following the last official match. The Respondent holds that the last official match was on 10 May 2012, as decided by the Executive Committee of the country E Football Association on 23 April 2012. The Respondent provided the circular of the country E Football Association dated 24 April 2012 notifying its members about said decision. 13. In this context, the Respondent maintains having terminated the contract with the Claimant in good faith and in line with the country E Football Association Regulations on 21 May 2012 and considers that it should not bear any financial consequences in relation thereto. 14. Regarding the aggravating circumstance related to the alleged breach within the protected period, the Respondent recalls that the Claimant was over 28 years of age at the time of the signature of the contract and the contract ended after the official end of the second season. In this context, the Respondent maintains that the termination did not occur during the protected period and therefore rejects the claim of the Claimant. 15. Upon FIFA’s request, the Claimant confirmed that he signed a contract with Club H on 15 July 2012, valid as of the date of signature until 14 July 2013. The contract states that the Claimant is entitled to a sign-on fee of USD 70,000 and a total salary amounting to USD 130,000, payable in ten monthly instalments. 16. On 25 December 2012, Club H and the Claimant mutually agreed upon the termination of their contract. 17. Subsequently, the Claimant concluded a contract with Club B valid from 1 February 2013 until 30 April 2013. Pursuant to said contract, the Claimant is entitled to a total amount of USD 30,000. 18. In this context, the Claimant alleges that he received from his new clubs a total amount of USD 200,000, thus amending his statement of claim. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 9 May 2014. Consequently, the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at stake (cf. art. 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 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 country G player and a country E club. 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 (editions 2012 and 2014), and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 9 May 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 DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered the substance of the present matter. In doing so, it started by acknowledging the abovementioned facts of the matter 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 Claimant and the Respondent signed a pre-contract on 17 June 2010, followed by the signature of an employment contract in July 2010, which was to run as from the season 2010-2011 until the end of the season 2012-2013. Said contract sets forth inter alia a fixed remuneration amounting to currency of country E 619,625 for the season 2012-2013. 6. The DRC also took due note of the termination of the contract by the Respondent by means of a written notice, dated 21 May 2012, sent to the Claimant. 7. Subsequently, the DRC observed that the Claimant, on the one hand, maintains that the Respondent terminated the employment contract without just cause and therefore asks to be awarded, inter alia, compensation for breach of contract. The Respondent, on the other hand, rejects such claim and holds that it duly terminated the employment contract on 21 May 2012 in accordance with art. 14 of the country E Football Association Regulations. In particular, based on an interpretation a contrario of said article of the country E Football Association Regulations, the Respondent deemed that it was entitled to notify the Claimant of the termination of the contract without any compensation being due, provided the said notification was given within fifteen days following the last official match. 8. In order to be able to establish, first and foremost, as to whether, as claimed by the Claimant and contested by the Respondent, the club terminated the employment contract without just cause, the Chamber turned its attention to art. 14 of the country E Football Association Regulations, which was invoked by the Respondent in its defence. 9. As stated above, according to art. 14 of the country E Football Association Regulations, “if a club ends a contract with one of his players during the season or after the end of the season, the player gets his dues for the rest of the season according to the payments stipulated in his contract if the club ends the contract during the season. If the club do not notify the player of the end of his contract within fifteen days from the date of the last official match for the club (last match was 10th May 2012), the player receives 50% of the amounts provided of the contract until the beginning of the second registration period if he did not move to another club and 50% of the down payment if the player moved to any other club”. 10. In this respect, the Chamber held that it could not recognise said article, as it provides for a unilateral termination right to the club only and the Respondent did not submit any other document evidencing that the country E Football Association Regulations do contain a reciprocal provision for players to terminate the contract in a similar way. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the Respondent could not legitimately terminate the contractual relation with the Claimant by making use of art. 14 of the country E Football Association Regulations. 11. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent terminated the contract with the Claimant without just cause on 21 May 2012. 12. Having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract without just cause, the Chamber focussed its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant would, in principle, be entitled to receive from the Respondent an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract. 13. Subsequently, 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. 14. 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 contain 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. 15. 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. 16. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract until June 2013 and, in this respect, took due note of the Claimant’s claim in a currency different from the one established in the contract, i.e. in USD. However, after a thorough analysis of the contract in question and in absence of conclusive evidence on the contrary, the Chamber referred to article 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and concluded that the amounts stipulated in the contract are indicated in currency of country E and, therefore, the amounts to be taken into consideration for the calculation of compensation should be in currency of country E. 17. Taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant would have received a total remuneration of currency of country E 619,625, i.e. equivalent to approximately USD 108,270, had the contract been executed until its expiry date. 18. 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. 19. Indeed, on 15 July 2012, the Claimant found employment with Club H, form country R and subsequently with the Club B, from country B. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged the Claimant’s allegations according to which he effectively received from his new clubs a total amount of USD 200,000. Consequently, the Chamber established that the value of the new employment contracts concluded between the Claimant and the new clubs for the period as from July 2012 until and including April 2013 amounted to USD 200,000. 20. In accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the general obligation of the player to mitigate his damages, such remuneration under the new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 21. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that, even though the Respondent is considered liable for the breach of the relevant employment contract, the Claimant did not suffer any financial loss from the violation of the contractual obligations by the Respondent and, therefore, the Chamber decided that there is no amount that should be awarded to the Claimant as compensation for breach of contract in the matter at hand. 22. Subsequently, the DRC analysed the request of the Claimant corresponding to compensation for “specifity of sport”. In this regard, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to point out that the request for said compensation presented by the Claimant had no legal or regulatory basis and pointed out that no corroborating evidence had been submitted that demonstrated the damage suffered or its quantity. In this regard, the members of the Chamber reiterated their previous consideration and outlined that the Claimant had not suffered any financial loss from the early termination of the employment contract. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the request for compensation related to moral damages shall be rejected. 23. Therefore, the DRC concluded his deliberations by establishing that the claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber The claim of the Claimant 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Player A, from country G / Club S, from country E 10/9 Encl. CAS directives