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 lodged 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 lodged 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 1 February 2014, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the player or Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the club or Respondent), entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 1 February 2014 until 30 June 2015. 2. According to the contract, the club undertook to pay the player the net amount of USD 300,000 as follows: - USD 60,000 as a “prepayment” 10 days after the signature of the contract; - USD 240,000 in 16 monthly instalments of USD 15,000, the last one to be paid in May 2015. 3. Equally, the player was entitled to USD 500 per month as rent. 4. On 21 July 2014 and 7 August 2014, the player put the club in default for the total amount of USD 137,500 and USD 153,000 respectively, after which he was paid the amount of USD 47,500 corresponding to 3 salaries and 5 rent payments. 5. On 17 December 2014 and 29 December 2014, the player again put the club in default for the amount of USD 167,500, corresponding to: - the “prepayment” (USD 60,000); - the salaries of May to November 2014 (USD 105,000); - the rent of July to November 2014 (USD 2,500). In said letters, the club was given a deadline until 27 December 2014 and 7 January 2015, respectively, to pay the outstanding amount. 6. On 13 January 2015, and since no payment had been received, the player terminated the contract with the club in writing, invoking just cause. 7. On 19 March 2015, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA, requesting to be awarded the following amounts: - USD 183,000 as outstanding remuneration corresponding to:  USD 60,000 as the sign-on fee;  USD 120,000 as 8 monthly salaries for May to December 2014;  USD 3,000 as 6 rent payments for July to December 2014. - USD 78,000 as compensation for breach of contract. 8. Equally, the player requested 5% interest as from the due dates as well as the imposition of sporting sanctions on the club. 9. In his claim, the player explained that he was paid only 3 months of salary and 5 rent payments after having put the club in default on 7 August 2014. Afterwards, he was not paid any other amount and all of his default letters remained unanswered. As a result, the player decided to terminate the contract on 13 January 2015. 10. Although having been invited to do so, the club did not provide its reply to the claim of the player. 11. Upon request of FIFA, the player indicated that on 30 January 2015, he signed a new contract with the club from country F, Club E, valid as from 22 January 2015 until 30 June 2015 in accordance with which he was entitled to the total amount of EUR 23,000. Nevertheless, the player indicated that the parties agreed upon the mutual termination of the contract on 30 May 2015, by means of which he “renounced to get the amount of EUR 9,460 out of EUR 23,000”, therefore alleging he only received an amount of EUR 13,540. 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 19 March 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 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 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 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 and reiterating that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 19 March 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. First of all, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that it was undisputed that the player and club had concluded an employment contract valid for the period as from 1 February 2014 until 30 June 2015. As to the financial terms of the contract, the Chamber took note that it had been agreed upon that the club would remunerate the player with the total amount of USD 300,000 as follows: - USD 60,000 as a “prepayment” payable 10 days after the signature of the contract; - USD 240,000 payable in 16 monthly instalments of USD 15,000. 6. In continuation, the members of the Chamber noted that the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA maintaining that he had terminated the employment contract with just cause on 13 January 2015, after having previously put the club in default by means of his letters sent on 21 July 2014, 7 August 2014, 17 December 2014 and 29 December 2014. 7. In this context, the player asserted that at the time he terminated the employment contract with the club, the latter had only paid him his salary for 3 months and his rent for 5 months, whereas he was supposed to receive his salary and rent for 11 months as well as a sign-on fee of USD 60,000. The Chamber duly observed that, as a consequence, the player deemed to have a just cause to terminate the contract prematurely. 8. Furthermore, the Chamber observed that the club failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, despite having been invited to do so. In this way, so the Chamber deemed, the Respondent renounced its right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 9. As a consequence of the preceding consideration, the Chamber established that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, it shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents on file. 10. In this respect, the Chamber concluded that it had remained uncontested by the club that it failed to pay the player 8 months of salary, 6 rent payments as well as the sign-on fee. 11. Having taken into consideration the previous consideration, the Chamber decided that it could be established that the Respondent had seriously neglected its contractual obligations towards the Claimant in a continuous and constant manner, i.e. the Respondent had failed to remunerate the Claimant for a substantial period of time. Therefore, the Chamber considered that the Respondent was found to be in breach of the employment contract and that the breach was of such seriousness that, in line with the Chamber’s long-standing and well-established jurisprudence, the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the contractual relationship with the Respondent on 13 January 2015, having previously put the Respondent in default of payment of the outstanding amounts. 12. On account of the above, the Chamber established that the Claimant had terminated the employment contract with just cause on 13 January 2015 and that, consequently, the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact with just cause by the Claimant. 13. Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber went on to deal with the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant. 14. First of all, the members of the Chamber concurred that the club must fulfill its obligations as per employment contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay to the player the remuneration that was outstanding at the time of the termination i.e. the amount of USD 183,000, consisting of the monthly salaries of May to December 2014 (USD 120,000), rent for the months of July to December 2014 (USD 3,000) as well as the sign-on fee (USD 60,000). 15. Furthermore, and considering the player’s claim for interest, the Chamber ruled that the club must pay 5% interest on the amount of USD 183,000 as from the respective due dates. 16. In continuation, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the player is entitled to receive from the club compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding salaries on the basis of the relevant employment contract. 17. In this context, the Chamber outlined that, in accordance with said provision, 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. 18. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained 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 employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake. 19. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the club to the player 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 non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable. 20. 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 30 June 2015, taking into account that according to the contract no salary was due for June 2015. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 78,000 (i.e. 5 salary payments and 6 rent payments) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 21. In continuation, the Chamber remarked that the player had found new employment with the club from country F, Club E. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, which has been made available by the player, he was entitled to receive a total salary of EUR 23,000 until 30 June 2015, which corresponds to approximately USD 27,000. The Chamber wished to point out that it decided to take into account the full amount of EUR 23,000 and not the EUR 13,540 as sustained by the player, since he voluntarily renounced to the full payment of his salaries with the new club. 22. Consequently, 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. 23. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of USD 51,000 to the player as compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interest as from the date on which the claim was lodged. 24. In conclusion, 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 amount of USD 183,000 as outstanding remuneration as well as the amount of USD 51,000 as compensation for breach of contract. 25. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the further consequences of the breach of contract in question and, in this respect, addressed the question of sporting sanctions in accordance with art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations. The cited provision stipulates inter alia that, in addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions shall be imposed on a club found to be in breach of contract during the protected period. 26. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to item 7 of the “Definitions” section of the Regulations, which stipulates, inter alia, that the protected period shall last “for three entire seasons or three years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such contract is concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the professional, or two entire seasons or two years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such contract is concluded after the 28th birthday of the professional”. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the breach of the employment contract by the club had occurred from the very start of the contractual relationship and that, as a result, on 13 January 2015, the player had terminated the contract. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that, irrespective of the player’s age, the breach of contract by the Respondent had occurred within the protected period. 27. As a result, by virtue of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations and considering that the club had been found in breach of an employment contract without just cause, the Chamber decided that the club shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the two next entire and consecutive registration periods following the notification of the present decision. In this regard, the Chamber emphasized that apart from the club having clearly acted in breach of the contract within the protected period in the present matter, the club had also on several occasions in the recent past been held liable by the Chamber for the early termination of the employment contracts with, for example, the Player W (case. Ref. nr. XX-XXXX, decided on 16 October 2014), Player X (case. Ref. nr. XX-XXXX, decided on 16 October 2014), Player Y (case. Ref. nr. XX-XXXX, decided on 27 November 2014) and Player Z (case. Ref. nr. XX-XXXX, decided on 21 January 2015). The Chamber considers this to be an aggravating circumstance. 28. 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, 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, outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 183,000, plus 5% interest until the date of effective payment as follows: - 5% p.a. as of 12 February 2014 on the amount of USD 60,000; - 5% p.a. as of 1 June 2014 on the amount of USD 15,000; - 5% p.a. as of 1 July 2015 on the amount of USD 15,000; - 5% p.a. as of 1 August 2014 on the amount of USD 15,500; - 5% p.a. as of 1 September 2014 on the amount of USD 15,500; - 5% p.a. as of 1 October 2014 on the amount of USD 15,500; - 5% p.a. as of 1 November 2014 on the amount of USD 15,500; - 5% p.a. as of 1 December 2014 on the amount of USD 15,500; - 5% p.a. as of 1 January 2015 on the amount of USD 15,500. 3. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 51,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 19 March 2015 until the date of effective payment. 4. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant in accordance with the abovementioned numbers 3. and 4. are not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limits, 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 is rejected. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. 7. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the two next entire and consecutive registration periods following the notification of the present decision. ***** 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 Encl. CAS directives