F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – debiti scaduti – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – overdue payables – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed by way of circulars on 18 December 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), 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 between the parties in connection with overdue payables

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – debiti scaduti – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – overdue payables – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed by way of circulars on 18 December 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), 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 between the parties in connection with overdue payables I. Facts of the case 1. On 3 December 2013, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed an employment contract valid as of 1 January 2014 until 30 June 2015. 2. In accordance with the employment contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant USD 500 per month “to ensure the residence of the player”. 3. Moreover, according to the employment contract, the Claimant “has right to receive money for two times trip to homeland”. 4. On the same date, the parties concluded a document titled “The appendix No. 2 to the contract” (hereinafter: the appendix) which governs the financial aspects of the employment contract and according to which the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant, inter alia, the following amounts: a. USD 400,000 as total salary payable in 16 monthly instalments of USD 25,000 “for the term from 01.01.2014 till 30.06.2015”; b. USD 50,000 payable on “the date of signing the document”. 5. According to the Claimant, on 31 January 2015, the Respondent terminated the employment contract. 6. By correspondence dated 2 October 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of USD 313,009.236 setting a time limit expiring on 12 October 2015 in order to remedy the default. 7. On 29 October 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA asking that the Respondent be ordered to pay to him overdue payables in the total amount of USD 313,000 corresponding to outstanding salary payments up to January 2015 (USD 238,500), the “the sign-on fee” payable on “the date of signing the document” (USD 50,000), 10 instalments of accommodation fees (USD 5,000), reimbursement of flight tickets, “Visa fees” and an “unsettled debt from the previous season with the [Respondent]” in the alleged amount of USD 14,000. 8. The Claimant further asks to be awarded interest as of the “date of termination”. 9. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent has not replied to the claim. 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 29 October 2015. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are 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 conjunction 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 an 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 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 29 October 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, 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 documentation 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. Having said this, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract valid as of 1 January 2014 until 30 June 2015, whereby the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant a monthly USD 500 “to ensure the residence of the player”, as well as an appendix, in accordance with which the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant, inter alia, USD 50,000 on “the date of signing the document” as well as USD 25,000 as a monthly salary “for the term from 01.01.2014 till 30.06.2015”. 6. Furthermore, the DRC took note that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, maintaining that the Respondent has overdue payables towards him in the total amount of USD 313,000 corresponding to outstanding salary payments up to January 2015 (USD 238,500), the “the sign-on fee” payable on “the date of signing the document” (USD 50,000), 10 instalments of accommodation fees (USD 5,000), reimbursement of flight tickets, “Visa fees” and an “unsettled debt from the previous season with the [Respondent]” in the alleged amount of USD 14,000. In addition to the amount of USD 313,000, the Claimant asks to be awarded interest as of the date of termination of the employment contract on 31 January 2015. 7. In this context, the members of the DRC took particular note of the fact that, on 2 October 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of USD 313,009.236, setting a time limit expiring on 12 October 2015 in order to remedy the default. 8. Consequently, the DRC concluded that the Claimant had duly proceeded in accordance with art. 12bis par. 3 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the creditor (player or club) must have put the debtor club in default in writing and have granted a deadline of at least ten days for the debtor club to comply with its financial obligation(s). 9. Subsequently, the DRC took into account that the Respondent, for its part, failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so. In this way, the DRC considered that the Respondent renounced its right to defence and thus accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 10. 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 documents already on file, in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 11. Having said this, the DRC acknowledged that in accordance with the employment contract and the appendix provided by the Claimant, the Respondent was obliged to pay to the Claimant USD 500 per month “to ensure the residence of the player”, USD 50,000 on “the date of signing the document” as well as USD 25,000 as a monthly salary “for the term from 01.01.2014 till 30.06.2015”. 12. On account of the aforementioned considerations and the documentary evidence provided by the Claimant, the DRC established that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s remuneration in the total amount of USD 293,500, comprised of 10 accommodation fees in the amount of USD 500 each, the USD 50,000 due on “the date of signing the document”, and outstanding salary payments up to January 2015 in the amount of USD 238,500. 13. In addition, the DRC established that the Respondent had delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis. 4. Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his petition, the DRC concluded that the Claimant had only partially substantiated his claim pertaining to overdue payables with pertinent documentary evidence in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules. That is, there is no contractual basis relating to the Claimant’s claim pertaining to “Visa fees” and the alleged “unsettled debt from the previous season with the [Respondent]”. Moreover, the members of the Chamber took note that the Claimant stated that “the last return flight ticket due to the Claimant in accordance with the contract, was used before the contract was terminated”, which statement the Chamber considered to be contradictory to his request. Moreover, the Claimant’s request to be awarded reimbursement of flight tickets was not supported by documentary evidence. Consequently, the DRC decided to reject the Claimant’s claim relating to flight tickets, visa fees and the alleged “unsettled debt”. 15. On account of the above, the DRC decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant overdue payables in the total amount of USD 293,500. 16. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 293,500 as from 31 January 2015 until the date of effective payment. 17. Moreover, the Chamber decided that any further request filed by the Claimant is rejected. 18. In continuation, taking into account the consideration under number II./13. above, the DRC referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations which stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations. 19. The Chamber established that in virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations it has competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. In this context, the members of the Chamber highlighted that, on 3 July 2015, the Respondent had already been found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis and without the Respondent having responded to the relevant claim, as a result of which a fine had been imposed on the Respondent by the DRC judge. 20. Moreover, the DRC referred to art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations, which establishes that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty. 21. Bearing in mind that the Respondent did not reply to the claim of the Claimant as well as the considerations under numbers II./19. and II./20. above, the DRC decided to impose a more severe fine on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. c) of the Regulations. Furthermore, taking into consideration the amount due of USD 293,500 as well as the aggravating circumstance of a repeated offence, the DRC regarded a fine amounting to CHF 60,000 as appropriate and hence decided to impose said fine on the Respondent. 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, overdue payables in the amount of USD 293,500 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 31 January 2015 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA 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 DRC of every payment received. 6. The Respondent is ordered to pay a fine in the amount of CHF 60,000. The fine is to be paid within 30 days of notification of the present decision to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A ***** 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 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