F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 July 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), 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 (2015-2016) - controversie di lavoro – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 July 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), 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 (hereinafter contract) valid as from 10 July 2012 until 31 May 2015, i.e. three sporting seasons. 2. According to art. 3 of the contract, the player was entitled to the following remuneration: • A total amount of EUR 700,000 for the sporting season 2012/2013,composed of a signing-on fee in the net amount of EUR 200,000 as well as ten equal monthly salaries of EUR 50,000 net each, payable as from 30 August 2012 until 30 May 2013; • A total amount of EUR 700,000 for the sporting season 2013/2014, composed of a down payment in the net amount of EUR 200,000 payable on 1 July 2013 as well as ten equal monthly salaries of EUR 50,000 net each, payable as from 30 August 2013 until 30 May 2014; • A total amount of EUR 700,000 for sporting season 2014/2015, composed of a down payment in the net amount of EUR 200,000 payable on 1 July 2014 as well as ten equal monthly salaries of EUR 50,000 net each, payable as from 30 August 2014 until 30 May 2015. 3. On 6 May 2013, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the club for compensation for breach of contract. In this context, the player requested that the club be ordered to pay him the following amounts, totalling EUR 1,750,000 net: • EUR 250,000 corresponding to the remaining value of the player’s remuneration for the first sporting season, calculated as from January 2013 up and until May 2013 included; • EUR 700,000 corresponding to the entire player’s remuneration for the second sporting season; • EUR 700,000 corresponding to the entire player’s remuneration for the third sporting season; • EUR 100,000 as damages for the loss of a chance to receive additional incomes based on contractual bonuses, such as match bonuses or ranking bonuses; • 5% interest p.a. to be applied on the aforementioned amounts; • An (unspecified) allowance for the player’s legal expenses. 4. In his statement of claim, the player explained that as the team’s results were not satisfactory, the club’s management decided to hire a new coach on 18 October 2012. However, and according to the player, the club’s new coach was not interested in the player’s profile. 5. Additionally, and whereas the player was earning one of the highest salaries of the club, the club would have taken the decision to diminish the club’s aggregate payroll. 6. In this context, the club informed the player as well as the media of its intention to put an end to the contract signed with the player and that, alternatively, and should the player refuse to leave, he would have to play with the club’s B team. Eventually, and on 29 December 2012, the club published on its Facebook account the information that the contract signed with the player was officially terminated. The player further specified in this respect having obtained a confirmation of said news by the club over the phone. 7. In this context, the player stressed that for his part, he always fully complied with all his obligations. 8. On the other hand, the player underlined that the club’s announcement, i.e. “we have separated our paths with [the player]” does not refer to any reason for the termination of the contract. In the player’s opinion, the club’s termination of the contract is not based on any just cause and stands as a violation of the FIFA Regulations, in particular art. 14 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfers of Players. Accordingly, the club shall be ordered to pay compensation to the player. 9. In spite of having been invited to present its position in relation to the player’s claim, no reply was received from the club. 10. On 31 January 2013, the player and the club from country B, Club E, signed an employment contract valid until 30 June 2013. According to said contract, the player was to receive a monthly remuneration in the gross amount of EUR 70,000. According to the player, the aforementioned corresponds to a net monthly salary of EUR 37,345 and totals EUR 186,725 net over five months. 11. The aforementioned contract further contains an automatic renewal clause for two additional sporting seasons, i.e. until 30 June 2015, and in accordance with which the player would receive a gross monthly remuneration of EUR 60,000 during the sporting season 2013/2014 as well as during the sporting season 2014/2015. According to the player, the aforementioned corresponds to a net monthly salary of EUR 32,010 and totals EUR 384,120 net over twelve months. 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, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 6 May 2013. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (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 and par. 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a 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 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 6 May 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, 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 documentation available on 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 DRC acknowledged that on an unspecified date, the parties to the present dispute signed an employment contract that entered into force on 10 July 2012 and was to expire on 31 May 2015, in accordance with which the Respondent would pay the Claimant a total guaranteed remuneration in the amount of EUR 2,100,000 over three sporting seasons, i.e. EUR 700,000 per sporting season. 6. Subsequently, the DRC noted that the Respondent failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so. By not presenting its position to the claim within said time limit, the DRC was of the opinion that the Respondent renounced its right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 7. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, it shall take a decision upon the basis of the documentation already on file; in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 8. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it had to examine whether the reasons surrounding the termination of the contract by the Respondent, if any, could justify the termination of the contract in the present matter. 9. In this respect, the Chamber first of all recalled that as it did not present any response to the claim lodged against it, the Respondent never brought any justification regarding its apparent unilateral decision to early terminate the employment contract signed with the Claimant. 10. Equally, the Chamber observed that in the document by means of which the Respondent disclosed to the Claimant/public that the contract the parties had signed was terminated, the Respondent did not bring forward any explanation of any kind in support of its decision. 11. On account of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent had no just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent and, therefore, concluded that the Respondent had terminated the employment contract without just cause on 29 December 2012. Consequently, the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact without just cause. 12. Having established the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the consequences of the unilateral termination of the employment contract by the Respondent without just cause on 29 December 2012. 13. 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 contracts 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 contracts at the basis of the matter at stake. 15. 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 nonexhaustive 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. 16. 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. 17. On the basis of the contract signed by the Claimant and the Respondent, which was to run for two and a half seasons more, i.e. until 31 May 2015, after the breach of contract occurred, as well as the claim of the Claimant, which includes the total amount of EUR 1,650,000 in relation to his guaranteed remuneration until the end of the 2014/2015 season, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 1,650,000 serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 18. Indeed, and as regards the Claimant’s claim relating to the estimated loss of EUR 100,000 for matches and ranking bonuses relating to the upcoming seasons, the members of the Chamber stressed that the payment and the amount of such bonuses are linked to matches to be played in the future, i.e. after the termination of the relevant contract, and, therefore, are fully hypothetical. Consequently, and as per its long standing and well-established jurisprudence, the Chamber decided not to include said claim in the calculation of the amount of compensation to be received by the Claimant and, more generally, to reject such claim. 19. 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. 20. The Chamber recalled that, on 31 January 2013, the player signed an employment contract with the club from country B Club E, valid until 30 June 2015, in accordance with which the player was to receive a net monthly salary of EUR 37,345 during the five months pertaining to the sporting season 2012/2013 and a net monthly salary of EUR 32,010 during both the sporting seasons 2013/2014 and 2014/2015. This employment contract therefore enabled the Claimant to earn an income of EUR 954,965 (i.e. 5 months x EUR 37,345 plus 24 months x EUR 32,010) until 30 June 2015, which is only one month more than the initial duration of the contract signed with the Respondent. 21. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand as well as the Claimant’s general obligation to mitigate his damage, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and that the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 695,035. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e. 6 May 2013, until the date of effective payment. 22. Moreover, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s claim pertaining to legal expenses in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 pf the Procedural Rules and its constant practice. 23. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Claimant are 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, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 695,035 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 May 2013 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claim lodged 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