F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2015-2016) – controversie allenatori – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2015-2016) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 13 October 2015, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach A, country B as “Claimant” against the club Club C, country D as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties.

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2015-2016) – controversie allenatori – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2015-2016) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 13 October 2015, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach A, country B as “Claimant” against the club Club C, country D as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 23 July 2014, the Coach A from country B (hereinafter: the coach or the Claimant) and the Club C from country D (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from 1 August 2014 until 30 June 2015, in accordance with which the coach was entitled to receive a salary of USD 25,000 per month. 2. Furthermore, art. 11 of the contract stipulates that: “Should [the club] prematurely terminate the contract, it pays a penalty of USD 100,000”. Art. 12 of the contract stipulates that: “Should [the coach] prematurely terminate the contract, it pays a penalty of USD 150,000.” 3. On 1 June 2015, the coach lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the club arguing that the latter had dismissed him on 2 May 2015. In this respect, the coach provided various internet extracts of the club’s website. 4. As a result, the coach requested to be awarded the total amount of USD 125,000, detailed as follows: - USD 25,000 regarding his outstanding salary for April 2015; - USD 100,000 regarding the “penalty clause” mentioned in art. 11 of the contract. 5. In spite of having been invited to reply to the claim of the coach, the club failed to provide its answer. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter also referred to as: the Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015). Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 1 June 2015, the Single Judge concluded that the 2015 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 in combination with art. 22 lit. c) of the 2015 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he is competent to deal with the matter at stake which concerns an employment-related dispute of an international dimension between a coach from country B and an club from country D. 3. Furthermore, the Single Judge 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, he referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 of the 2015 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged with FIFA on 1 June 2015. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2015 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the Single Judge and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence that he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. In doing so and first of all, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent had not submitted any comments in response to the claim lodged against it by the Claimant, despite having been requested to do so by FIFA. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that, in this way, the Respondent had renounced to its right of defence and, as such, accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 6. Bearing in mind the aforementioned, the Single Judge referred to art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and determined that a decision shall be taken upon the basis of the documents on file, in other words upon the allegations and documents provided by the Claimant. 7. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that on 23 July 2014, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded a contract valid as from 1 August 2014 until 30 June 2015, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive a salary of USD 25,000 per month. 8. In continuation, the Single Judge recalled that the Claimant, in his claim to FIFA, indicated that the Respondent had dismissed him on 2 May 2015. Equally, the Claimant alleged that at the time of his dismissal, the Respondent had failed to pay him his salary for the month of April 2015. 9. In view of the above and, in particular, taking into account that the Respondent had not disputed the allegations of the Claimant, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent’s decision to dismiss the coach on 2 May 2015 without apparent reason constitutes a premature termination of the contract without just cause. Hence, the Single Judge decided that the contract had been breached by the Respondent. 10. Having established the above-mentioned, the Single Judge went on to assess the financial consequences of the breach of the contractual relationship by the Respondent. 11. First of all, taking into account the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to pay the Claimant his salary of April 2015, which remained outstanding at the moment of the latter’s dismissal. As a result, the Single Judge determined that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 25,000 as outstanding remuneration. 12. In continuation, the Single Judge went on to consider the amount of compensation that the Claimant was requesting following the Respondent’s premature termination of the contract without just cause. 13. In this respect, the Single Judge underlined that art. 11 of the contract stipulates that: “Should [the club] prematurely terminate the contract, it pays a penalty of USD 100,000.” 14. Therefore, considering that the club had terminated the contract before its original expiry, the Single Judge held that, in accordance with art. 11 of the contract, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 100,000 as compensation for breach of contract. 15. In view of all of the above, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is accepted and that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 25,000 as well as compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 100,000. 16. Finally, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee, including its Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. The relevant provision further states that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings. 17. In respect of the above and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been accepted, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent shall bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. Furthermore and according to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. On that basis, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is USD 125,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 15,000. 18. In conclusion, in view of the circumstances of the present matter and taking into account that the Respondent did not reply to the claim of the Claimant, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 15,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Coach A, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 25,000, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision. 3. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 100,000, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision 4. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant in accordance with the abovementioned numbers 2. and 3 are not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limits, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limits and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. The final costs of the proceedings, amounting to CHF 15,000, are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days of notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1. The amount of CHF 12,000 has to be paid 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 5.2. The amount of CHF 3,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent directly and immediately of the account number to which the remittances are to be made in accordance with the above numbers 2., 3., and 5.2. and to notify the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 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 Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS directives