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 26 March 2015, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England), Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by A, country M represented by Mr xxxxxxxxx as “Claimant” against the club B, country T as “Respondent” regarding an employment-related contractual 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 26 March 2015, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England), Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by A, country M represented by Mr xxxxxxxxx as “Claimant” against the club B, country T as “Respondent” regarding an employment-related contractual dispute arisen between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 January 2013, the coach from M, A (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the club from T, B (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed a document entitled “Confirmation Letter” (hereinafter: the contract), valid from the date of its signature until 31 December 2015 and according to which the Respondent hired the Claimant as “Academy Director”. 2. Pursuant to the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a monthly salary of EUR 5,500 in 2013, EUR 6,000 in 2014 and EUR 6,500 in 2015 as well as other benefits. 3. According to the contract, the “Standard terms of Participation and the Rules and Regulations [hereinafter: the Standard Terms] […] shall be integral parts hereof […]”. 4. On 3 March 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, arguing that, although he was still working for the Respondent, the latter had not paid his salary of January and February 2014. 5. On 3 May 2014, FIFA informed the Claimant that it could not intervene in the present dispute according to art. 6 par. 1 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, since it appeared that the Respondent in question had been hired by the club as “Academy Director” and not as a coach. 6. On 11 April 2014, the Claimant insisted on FIFA passing a formal decision in the matter in hand and insisted that he was hired as a “coach” for the youth teams of the Respondent. In support of his allegation, the Claimant provided FIFA with pictures of him training some young players. In this regard, the Claimant emphasised that “in the contract they [i.e. the Respondent] tricked him [i.e. the Claimant] to sign as an academy director because they knew he does not understand English language very well and its terminology […] the sole purpose […] is to deny him the opportunity to get justice before FIFA in case of litigation”. 7. Equally, the Claimant argued that, in the meantime, on 9 April 2014, the Respondent decided to unilaterally terminate the contract with him. The Claimant further added that the sum of EUR 1,300 remained outstanding at the time the Respondent allegedly decided to unilaterally terminate the contract with him. 8. Consequently, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the sum of EUR 1,300 as outstanding salaries for part of his salary of February 2014 as well as the amount of EUR 156,000 as compensation “for unfair termination of the contract” which corresponded to the remaining value of the contract (EUR 6,000 x 10 months in 2014 and EUR 6,500 x 12 months in 2015). 9. In its reply to the Claimant’s complaint, the Respondent rejected it in its entirety. In this respect and firstly, the Respondent stated to have hired the Claimant as “Academy Director”. Moreover, the Respondent confirmed having terminated the contract with the Claimant with just cause on 9 April 2014 by means of a termination letter dated the same day. The Respondent deemed that the employment relationship with the Claimant was terminated “due to failure of Mr. A [i.e. the Claimant] to comply with rules and regulations of the club [i.e. the Respondent]” and, therefore, that it “shall not pay for any compensation or damage” to the Claimant based on the Standard Terms as well as on the “T labour law”. 10. On 5 August 2014, the Claimant presented his comments to the Respondent’s reply and first of all reiterated his previous statements. In this respect, the Claimant insisted that he was hired as a coach and added that the Respondent had proposed him a new employment contract in January 2014 with a lower salary which he rejected. According to the latter, this was the reason of his dismissal on 9 April 2014. 11. In its last position in the present dispute, the Respondent reiterated its previous allegations and added that, according to the Standard Terms, the Claimant’s duties were the following: “planning, organizing and coordinating a strong base and strategy to start-up well established academy, and provide valuable knowledge and experience to the academy’s players and staff as well”. The Respondent further emphasised that the Claimant’s responsibilities were, according to art. 8 of the Standard Terms, to “organize friendly matches and tournament, to working in harmony with the management and the first team, to recruit players and academy trainers, to have good communication with School, MOU partner of the Academy, to provide excellent care for academy players and trainers, to report daily events and match results to the management team, to assist Academy manager in respect budget, contract and academy schedule, to advise academy trainers to improve their training program and to guide the academy on the right direction”. Therefore and since the Claimant “failed to do his own duty that is regarded as violating the contract term”, the Respondent reiterated that it had no other choice than to terminate the contract with just cause with immediate effect. 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 (editions 2012 and 2014). Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 3 March 2014, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 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 remarked that according to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules in combination with art. 23 par. 1 and art. 22 lit. c) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012; hereinafter: the Regulations) he is in principle competent to deal with employment-related disputes between a club or an association and a coach of an international dimension. In this regard, the Single Judge was eager to underline that the question of his competence to hear the present case must be tackled in view of the fact that the contract at the basis of the dispute was concluded between, on the one hand, the Claimant, who is referred to as an “Academy Director” under the contract, and, on the other hand, the club B. 3. With the foregoing in mind, the Single Judge also recalled the provisions of art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, which establishes that “[P]arties are members of FIFA, clubs, players, coaches or licensed match and players’ agents”. Thus, in neither art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules nor art. 22 c) of the Regulations or any other provision in any of FIFA’s regulations is there a basis to establish FIFA’s competence to hear disputes involving academy directors. 4. At this stage, the Single Judge paid close attention to the argumentation of the Claimant, who had alleged that in spite of the terms of the employment contract which provide that he was employed as an academy director, he had in fact been the Respondent’s coach. In this regard, the Single Judge determined that in accordance with the rule of burden of proof mentioned under art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which provides that “any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”, it undoubtedly fell upon the Claimant to prove that he was in fact exercising the duties of a coach and that he could thus be considered as a party in front of FIFA in the sense of art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules. However, after a thorough analysis of the arguments as well as the documentation submitted by the Claimant, the Single Judge found that the Claimant had not provided any evidence whatsoever proving that he was working as a coach for the Respondent. Therefore, the Single Judge had no other alternative than to rely on the contents of the contract, where the Claimant is referred to as an academy director, and of the Standard Terms, which are an integral part of the contract. 5. In this respect, the Single Judge remarked that the duties of the Claimant were not specified in the contract itself but rather in the Standard Terms which form an integral part of the contract. In this regard, the Single Judge observed that, according to the aforementioned Standard Terms, the duties of the Claimant are, inter alia, described as follows: • planning, organizing and coordinating a strong base and strategy to start-up well established academy, and provide valuable knowledge and experience to the academy’s players and staff […] • organize friendly matches and tournament ; • to working in harmony with the management and the first team; • to recruit players and academy trainers; • to have good communication with School, MOU partner of the Academy; • to provide excellent care for academy players and trainers; • to report daily events and match results to the management team; • to assist Academy manager in respect budget, contract and academy schedule; • to advise academy trainers to improve their training program and to guide the academy on the right direction. 6. In this regard, the Single Judge was eager to note that the duties as described above are clearly not the ones of a coach and rather refer to the position of academy director with general managing tasks. 7. In light of the above, the Single Judge had no doubt that the contract at the basis of the present dispute was concluded in order to acquire the services of the Claimant as an academy director and not as a coach. 8. In view of all of the above, the Single Judge, referring once again to art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules in combination with art. 22 c) of the Regulations, decided that the claim of the Claimant is not admissible in view of the fact that the latter, being an academy director, cannot be viewed as a party who is entitled to seek redress in front of the decision-making bodies of FIFA, in accordance with art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules. In any case, the dispute is based on an employment contract signed by and between an academy director and a Thai club and also therefore does not fall within the competence of the decision-making bodies of FIFA. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee The claim of the claimant, A, is inadmissible. ***** 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 Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives