F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2014-2015) – controversie allenatori –———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2014-2015) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 14 January 2015, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach A, country S represented by Mr xxxxx as “Claimant” against the club B, country R represented by Mr xxxxxx as “Respondent” regarding a dispute arisen between the parties.

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2014-2015) – controversie allenatori –---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2014-2015) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 14 January 2015, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach A, country S represented by Mr xxxxx as “Claimant” against the club B, country R represented by Mr xxxxxx as “Respondent” regarding a dispute arisen between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 23 December 2011, the club from R, B (hereinafter: “the Respondent”) issued a work offer (hereinafter: “the offer”) to the coach from S, A (hereinafter: “the Claimant”) as “B Team Senior Coach” valid as from 1 March 2012. 2. Point 7 of the offer stated: “The terms of this offer shall come into effect on your first day of employment with the B [i.e. the Respondent]”. 3. On 28 August 2012, the Claimant lodged a complaint against the Respondent and requested FIFA “to award the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] $ 68,000 in unpaid/outstanding remuneration” plus interest, legal fees and “any other further remedy” that “the FIFA deciding bodies would deem appropriate”. 4. In this respect, the Claimant alleged that the offer was signed by him and sent back to the Respondent in due course. The Claimant further explained to have rejected other proposals from other clubs. 5. Moreover, the Claimant stated that, during the month of February 2012, the Respondent notified him about the unilateral cancellation of the offer. The Claimant added that, due to the relevant dismissal, he remained jobless. According to the Claimant, he only managed to be employed for two months in March and in April 2012 as a coach of a second division team in xxxxxx receiving a monthly wage equal to EUR 2,000. 6. The Respondent presented its position and stated that the signature of Mr X in the offer was not genuine as such since it was written in a paper with a Respondent’s letterhead that never existed. The Respondent further argued that the email?s address the Claimant alleged having communicated with Mr X has never been used by the Respondent. 7. Moreover, the Respondent stated that Mr X was the manager of the Respondent fulfilling only administrative functions but he was not authorised to sign on its behalf documents such as employment contracts. 8. Furthermore, the Respondent alleged that, based on xxxxx law, a work offer cannot be considered as a document that would entail mutual rights and obligations of the parties involved. 9. In his response to the Respondent?s statement, the Claimant rejected the Respondent?s position in its entirety and stated that the evidence provided by the Respondent are “insufficient and unreasonable”. In particular, the Claimant underlined that Mr X was acting on behalf of the Respondent and that the Respondent’s letter head is the same that the one provided by the Respondent. 10. In sum, the Claimant stated that the intention of the parties was to create a legal and binding agreement. Finally, the Claimant stated that, according to the FIFA regulations and decisions, a document which contains the relevant elements of a contract has the legal effect of an employment contract. 11. The Respondent presented its final position by reiterating all its previous arguments and stating that the Claimant had not been able to demonstrate his assertions in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players? Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players? Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players? Status Committee (hereinafter: “the Single Judge”) analysed which procedural rules are applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 of the 2008, 2012 and 2014 editions of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: “the Procedural Rules”). Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 28 August 2012, thus after 1 July 2008 and before 30 November 2012, the Single Judge concluded that the 2008 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand. 2. Subsequently, 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 par. 1 and 2 of the 2010, 2012 and 2014 editions of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was originally lodged with FIFA on 28 August 2012. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2010 edition of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance. 3. Furthermore and with regard to his competence, the Single Judge confirmed that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 as well as art. 22 c) of the 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he was competent to deal with the present matter since it concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a coach from S and a club from R. 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge entered into the substance of the matter and started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments provided by the parties and the documentation contained in the file. 5. In doing so and first of all, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant and the Respondent had antagonistic positions as to whether an employment relationship existed between them. 6. In this respect, the Single Judge observed that, on the one hand, the Claimant had argued that the offer was a document which contained all elements of an employment contract and thus had a legal effect between the Claimant and the Respondent, whereas, on the other hand, the Respondent had maintained inter alia that it had not signed any employment contract whatsoever with the Claimant and that the offer had only been granted by a Respondent?s official without legal power to conclude employment contracts. 7. At this stage, the Single Judge referred to the content of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which states that “any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”, and underlined that the Claimant had only presented the offer as main evidence to prove his alleged employment relationship with the Respondent. 8. Having said this, the Single Judge focussed his attention to the content of the offer and, in particular, to its point 7, which expressly provided that the terms of such offer would start having effect on the first day of the employment contract with the Respondent. 9. In continuation, the Single Judge was keen to emphasise that it was undisputed by the parties that the offer had been cancelled by the Respondent during the month of February 2012, i.e. before the Claimant would effectively start working for the Respondent. 10. In view of the aforementioned, taking into account the wording of point 7 of the offer as well as the fact that the Respondent had cancelled such offer before 1 March 2012, i.e. before the offer would come into force, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that the terms and conditions of the offer did not come into force since the Claimant never started performing his duties as “Head Coach” of the Respondent. 11. Furthermore, the Single Judge stressed that the parties did not sign an employment contract. 12. On account of all the above, the Single Judge concluded that, based on the evidence at disposal, there was no contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent and thus held that the claim of the Claimant lacked legal basis. 13. In view of all the above, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is rejected. 14. The Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 15 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules according to which in the proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and are normally to be paid by the unsuccessful party. 15. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is rejected. Therefore, Single Judge concluded that the Claimant has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 16. According to Annex A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 68,000. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000. 17. Considering that the present matter did not show particular factual difficulty and that it did not involve specific legal complexity, the Committee determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 7,000. 18. In conclusion, the amount of CHF 7,000 has to be paid by the Claimant to cover the costs of the present proceedings. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players? Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, A, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 7,000 has to be paid by the Claimant, A to FIFA. Taking into account that the latter has already paid the amount of CHF 2,000 as advance of costs at the beginning of the present proceedings, the Claimant should pay within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision the remaining amount of CHF 5,000 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 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 Marco Villiger Acting Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives