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 in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 January 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), 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 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 in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 January 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), 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 between the parties in connection with overdue payables I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 July 2013, the Player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: Claimant), and the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: Respondent) signed an employment contract valid as of the date of signature until 30 June 2014. 2. According to the first contract, the Claimant was to receive for the relevant season a fixed-remuneration amounting to USD 150,000 broken-down as follows:  USD 30,000 by 30 August 2013;  USD 120,000 as total salary from 1 September 2013 until 30 June 2014, payable in 10 monthly instalments of USD 12,000 each. 3. On 1 August 2014, the parties signed a second contract valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2015. 4. Pursuant to the second contract, the Respondent was to pay the Claimant for the relevant season a total salary amounting to USD 76,500 payable in ten monthly instalments of “USD 6,375” each. 5. By correspondence dated 20 August 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the amount of USD 118,392, granting a deadline of 10 days in order to remedy the default. 6. On 21 October 2015, and completed on 23 October 2015, the Claimant lodged a complaint before FIFA against the Respondent, requesting that the Respondent be ordered to pay him overdue payables in the amount of USD 118,257.02 (cf. point I.7 and I.8 below). The Claimant further asks to be awarded interest of 5% p.a. as of the due date of each payment. 7. The player alleged that, on 29 January 2015, the club acknowledged a debt of 63,487, equivalent to USD 80,937.02, towards the player. In this respect, the player provided a document signed by the club, stating the following: “According to the contract dated July 01, 2013 conducted between Club C and Player A the balance payroll of Player A as follows; February 2014 14797 March 2014 16230 April 2014 16230 May 2014 0 June 2014 0 July 2014 16230 Total 63487”. 8. Moreover, the Claimant sustained that, on 25 May 2015, the club acknowledged a further unpaid amount of USD 37,320 and provided the relevant document signed by the club which stated the following: “It is issued to Player A having contract with Club C since 01.08.2014 to certify that indeed the club had debt to him in the following manner; 2014; October – 7650$ December – 7650$ 2015 January – 7650$ March – 4790$ April – 4790$ May – 4790$ Total; 37320$ (thirty seven thousand three hundred and twenty) USA dollars”. 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: 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 21 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 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), it is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Player of Country B and a Club of Country D. 3. Furthermore, the DRC 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 21 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 DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the 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, on 1 July 2013, the Claimant and the Respondent signed a first employment contract valid for the season 2013- 2014, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a total remuneration of USD 150,000 payable as follows:  USD 30,000 by 30 August 2013;  USD 120,000 as total salary from 1 September 2013 until 30 June 2014, payable in 10 monthly instalments of USD 12,000 each. 6. The DRC also noted that, on 1 August 2014, the parties signed a second contract valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2015, according to which the Claimant’s total salary amounted to USD 76,500 payable in ten monthly instalments. In this respect, the Chamber underlined that the intention of the parties of the contract was to establish ten monthly instalments of USD 7,650 instead of “USD 6,375” each. Therefore, the DRC will take into account ten monthly instalments of USD 7,650. 7. 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 118,257.02 corresponding to 63,487, equivalent to USD 80,937.02 as per the document dated 29 January 2015 and USD 37,320 as per the document dated 25 May 2015. 8. In this context, the DRC took particular note of the fact that, on 20 August 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the amount of USD 118,392, setting a time limit of ten days in order to remedy the default. 9. 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). 10. 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. 11. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the Chamber 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. 12. Having said this, the DRC acknowledged that, in accordance with the employment contract provided by the Claimant, the Respondent was obliged to pay to the Claimant USD 150,000 for the season 2013-2014 and USD 76,500 for the season 2014-2015. 13. The Chamber also took into consideration the documents signed by the Respondent, but provided by the Claimant, dated 29 January 2015 and 25 May 2015 respectively, which state the amount of 63,487 for the period from February 2014 to July 2014 and the amount of USD 37,320 for the period from October 2014 to May 2015. 14. Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his petition, the DRC concluded that the Claimant had substantiated his claim pertaining to overdue payables with sufficient documentary evidence. 15. This being said, the Chamber referred to the document dated 29 January 2015 signed by the club, which stated the overdue amount of 63,487 equivalent to USD 80,937.02, according to the Claimant, and concluded that the amount in Currency E is to be taken into account over the equivalence in USD. 16. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC established that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s remuneration in the total amount of 63,487 and USD 37,320. 17. In addition, the Chamber established that the Respondent had delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis. 18. Consequently, 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 63,487 and USD 37,320. 19. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on each of the relevant payment(s), as of the day following the day on which the relevant payment(s) fell due, until the date of effective payment. 20. In continuation, taking into account the consideration under number II./17. 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. 21. The DRC further established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations it has competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. On account of the above and bearing in mind that the Respondent did not reply to the claim, the DRC decided to impose a fine on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. c) of the Regulations. Furthermore, taking into consideration the amount due of 63,487 and USD 37,320, the DRC regarded a fine amounting to CHF 15,000 as appropriate and hence decided to impose said fine on the Respondent. 22. In this connection, the DRC wished to highlight that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty in accordance with art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, overdue payables in the amount of 63,487 and USD 37,320, plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. on the amount of 14,797 as from 1 March 2014; b. 5% p.a. on the amount of 16,230 as from 1 April 2014; c. 5% p.a. on the amount of 16,230 as from 1 May 2014; d. 5% p.a. on the amount of 16,230 as from 1 August 2014; e. 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 7,650 as from 1 November 2014; f. 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 7,650 as from 1 January 2015; g. 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 7,650 as from 1 February 2015; h. 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 4,790 as from 1 April 2015; i. 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 4,790 as from 1 May 2015; j. 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 4,790 as from 1 June 2015. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant, plus interest, 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 request filed 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 15,000. The fine is to be paid within 30 days of notification of the present decision to FIFA to the following bank account: 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: Marco Villiger Acting Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives