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 3 September 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on the matter between the player, Player A, country B as Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 and the club, Club C, country D as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, country F as Counter-Respondent 2 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 3 September 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on the matter between the player, Player A, country B as Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 and the club, Club C, country D as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, country F as Counter-Respondent 2 regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 13 January 2014, the Player A from country B (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1), and the Club C from country D (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent / Counter-Claimant), entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 13 January 2014 until 31 May 2014. 2. According to the contract, the club undertook to pay the player the total amount of EUR 300,000 in 5 installments of EUR 60,000, due on the 30th of each month. 3. Furthermore, art. 5 n) of the contract stipulated that the player was entitled to EUR 12,500 “each time he is in first 11 for 12 official Super League matches in country D for any season.” 4. On 21 May 2015, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA, requesting to be awarded the amount of EUR 252,000 plus interest as from the due dates, corresponding to: - EUR 240,000 for 4 monthly salaries of EUR 60,000; - EUR 12,500 for the bonus payment. 5. In his claim, the player indicated that he had complied with his contractual obligations until 31 May 2014 and had started in the “first 11” during 12 matches. However, the club had only paid him one month of salary. In this respect, the player submitted an extract of the website of the Football Federation of country D allegedly showing that he played in 12 matches in the starting 11. 6. On 3 July 2015, the club replied to the claim and first explained that the player had only started in 8 league matches in the “first 11”, indicating that the player included matches that were played in the Country D Cup. In this respect, the club submitted another extract from the website of the Football Federation of country D. Therefore, the club deems that the player is not entitled to the bonus payment of EUR 12,500. 7. Furthermore, the club held that the player had “let off with just a 162,647 Euro fine after without permission to went from city and got unnecessary yellow card in season by Club’s 21.05.2014 dated board decision.” In this respect, the club submitted a decision of its board dated 21 May 2014 which mentions that in accordance with the club’s disciplinary regulations the player is fined with: - EUR 145,000 for “going out of the city without permission”, and - EUR 17,647 for “actions requiring penalties”. 8. In addition, the club lodged a counterclaim against the player, providing the following documents: - an “international loan and transfer agreement” dated 7 January 2014 signed with the Club G from country H. Said agreement stipulates that the player’s registration is transferred from Club G to Club C “first for a loan period of six months (1.1.2014- 30.06.2014) and as per 1 July 2014 definitively (…), paying a transfer compensation of EUR 450,000. - an “Agreement” dated 10 January 2014 signed by Club G and the player agreeing upon the loan of the player as well as that the employment contract between the aforementioned parties is terminated as per 1 July 2014. - a “Preliminary Protocol” dated 13 January 2014 signed by Club C and the player. 9. The Preliminary Protocol contains, inter alia, the following provisions: “1) Preliminary Protocol validity: Preliminary Protocol will be valid until 28/07/2014, and will be terminated upon signing of the Main Contract. Parties have agreed that 4.8. article will be valid without that clause. “2) Preliminary Protocol’s subject Parties have agreed on subject to sign the professional football player Main Contract for the seasons consisting of 2014/2015, 2015/2016 and one year option. Parties shall sign the Main Contract until the date of 30/07/2014. 3) Payments - For the 2014-2015 football season: EUR 50,000 x 10 months / starting August 2014 - For the 2015-2016 football season: EUR 50,000 x 10 months / starting August 2015 (…) 4.8) If the PLAYER and CLUB do not sign or refuse to sign the Main Contract by the date of 30/07/2014, they accept and vow to pay a compensation fee of EUR 1,000,000 to the other party. 4.9) If the club would relegated to second league, this contract will be null according to the rules of the Football Federation of country D. Parties shall not deserve penalty or damages between others. (…) 4.11) If the main contract would be signed between the parties, this preliminary contract will be null and void. (…)”10. In this framework, the club explained that at the end of the 2013/2014 season, the player did not return to the club in order to sign the definitive employment contract. In fact, it learned in August 2014 that the player had signed a contract with the Club E from country F. 11. In this respect, the club held that the player breached the contract by not signing a definitive contract with the club which led to a “huge loss from the transfer”. In particular, the club indicated that the player was very talented, that it received many offers for him and that by not signing the definitive contract it missed out on a transfer fee. 12. As a result, the club requested to be awarded the amount of EUR 1,500,000, which is the player’s value according to www.transfermarket.com, plus 5% interest as from 1 September 2014 and to impose sporting sanctions on the player. 13. In reply to the counterclaim, the player indicated that the club relegated at the end of the 2013/2014 season, reason for which in accordance with art. 4.9 of the Preliminary Protocol, said agreement became null and void. 14. As to the fines, the player indicated that he had never been informed of such fines and had not been called to defend himself. Also, there is no proof of the alleged improper acts of the player. Finally, the fines are disproportionate and imposed while the club had only paid his first salary, which makes the whole process unacceptable. 15. In its position, Standard Liege indicated that it signed a contract with the player on 30 August 2014 after having been informed that the player terminated his contract with just cause. According to the contract signed with Standard Liege, which is valid until 30 June 2016, the player was entitled to a gross signing bonus of EUR 420,000 as well as a gross monthly salary of EUR 12,400. 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 21 May 2015. Consequently, the 2015 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 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 2015), 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, a club from country D and a club from country F. 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 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015) and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 21 May 2015, the 2015 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, taking into account the claim of the player as well as the counterclaim of the club, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the following two questions needed to be addressed: i) Does the club have any outstanding remuneration towards the player regarding the period 13 January 2014 – 31 May 2014? ii) Did the player breach the “Preliminary Protocol” by not signing a definitive employment contract with the club after the 2013/2014 season? 6. In relation to the first question, the Chamber acknowledged that whereas the player is of the opinion that the club still owes him EUR 252,000 in salaries and bonus payments, the club deems that the player is not entitled to any bonus payment and, in addition, that he was fined with an amount of EUR 162,647. 7. In this respect, the Chamber first went on to analyse the two fines imposed by the club on the player and noted that the club held that said fines were imposed on the player in accordance with the club’s disciplinary regulations. However, and whilst referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which stipulates that any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof, the members of the Chamber stressed that the club had failed to submit said disciplinary regulations. As a result, the DRC is of the opinion that the club per se failed to prove the legal basis for imposing the relevant fines on the player. Apart from the foregoing, the Chamber also emphasised that a fine amounting to EUR 145,000 for the alleged infringement of “leaving the city without permission” is manifestly excessive and disproportionate and can, in any case, not be upheld. Hence, the Chamber was unanimous in its conclusion that the fines imposed by the club on the player on 21 May 2014 must be disregarded. 8. For the sake of good order, and recalling that the fines were imposed on the player merely 10 days before the expiry of the contract, the Chamber pointed out that the club, by that time, had already been in severe violation of the contract by not paying the player his salaries for February, March and April 2014, totalling an amount of EUR 180,000. In this context, the Chamber wished to stress that the imposition of a fine, or any other available financial sanction in general, shall not be used by clubs as a means to set off outstanding financial obligations towards its players. 9. In conclusion, the Chamber determined that the club could not set-off its debt towards the player by means of the two fines imposed on him and that thus, the amount of EUR 240,000 is due to the player as his outstanding remuneration for the months of February to May 2014. 10. In relation to the bonus payment, the Chamber finds that the club has been able to prove that the triggering element for such payment did not occur. Indeed, the club was able to substantiate its allegation that the player only played in 8 matches in the National League of country D. Since art. 5 n) of the contract clearly stipulates that the player was only entitled to EUR 12,500 if he participated in 12 matches played in the “Super League in country D” the Chamber is of the opinion that the club does not owe the player any bonus payments. 11. Turning to the second question, the Chamber, after having thoroughly examined the “Preliminary Protocol”, came to the conclusion that the player did not breach said document by not signing a definitive employment contract with the club after the 2013/2014 season. In coming to this conclusion, the Chamber referred in particular to art. 4.9 of the “Preliminary Protocol” which clearly stipulates that the contract would be null if the club would be relegated to the second league. Since it is undisputed that the club relegated to the second league at the end of the 2013/2014 season, the Chamber finds that there was no obligation for the player to return to the club after 31 May 2014. As such, the Chamber came to the unanimous conclusion that the counterclaim of the club is to be rejected. 12. For all the above reasons, the Chamber decided to partially accept the player?s claim and determined that the club must pay to the player the total amount of EUR 240,000 as outstanding remuneration. 13. In addition, taking into account the player’s request, the Chamber decided that the club must pay to the player interest of 5% p.a. as follows: - 5% p.a. as of 1 March 2014 on the amount of EUR 60,000; - 5% p.a. as of 31 March 2014 on the amount of EUR 60,000; - 5% p.a. as of 1 May 2014 on the amount of EUR 60,000; - 5% p.a. as of 31 May 2014 on the amount of EUR 60,000. 14. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the player is rejected. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1, Player A, is partially accepted. 2. The claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C, is rejected. 3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent 1, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, the amount of EUR 240,000 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: - 5% p.a. as of 1 March 2014 on the amount of EUR 60,000; - 5% p.a. as of 31 March 2014 on the amount of EUR 60,000; - 5% p.a. as of 1 May 2014 on the amount of EUR 60,000; - 5% p.a. as of 31 May 2014 on the amount of EUR 60,000. 4. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 is not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 is rejected. 6. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant 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