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 30 June 2015, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach A, country M represented by Mr xxxxxx as “Claimant” against the Football Federation of country B as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I.

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 30 June 2015, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach A, country M represented by Mr xxxxxx as “Claimant” against the Football Federation of country B as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On an unknown date, the coach from country M (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the Football Federation of country B (hereinafter: the Respondent or BFF) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid from 1 July 2013 until 1 July 2015 and according to which the Claimant was employed as “Assistant coach and Head of the Academy”. 2. According to article 4.1 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a yearly salary of EUR 100,000, payable in monthly instalments of EUR 8,333.33 on the 7th day of each month. 3. Furthermore, according to article 5 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to the following benefits: i. Round trip tickets from country B to country M for him or his family members “in the first degree”; ii. Flight tickets “for the first degree family members” of the Claimant in order to join him during the duration of the contract; iii. Accommodation and internet connection; iv. Health, life and medical insurance for the Claimant and his family members. 4. Article 8.6 of the contract stated that “the Parties are entitled to entirely or partially, and immediately terminate this Agreement [i.e. the contract] without judicial intervention, without prejudice to the right to reclaim any amounts which have already been paid and/or to claim indemnification, in any case if the other party, even after notice of default, fails to fulfil its obligations and such default has not been cured after a reasonable period of at least 10 working days”. 5. Furthermore, according to article 10 of the contract, “if a dispute arises out of or in relation to this Agreement [i.e. the contract], the parties will confer in good faith with a view to resolving the matter trough discussion amongst the EC and the Assistant Coach [i.e. the Claimant] for a period of seven days. If the dispute is not resolved within the allocated seven days, the matter shall be referred to the Arbitration Tribunal of the BFF for resolution. If aggrieved by the decision of the BFF Arbitration Tribunal, the aggrieved party may refer their dispute to the XY Football Confederation for resolution. Thereafter, if aggrieved by the decision of the XY, the aggrieved party may refer the matter to FIFA Disciplinary Committee, then to the FIFA Appeal Committee in accordance with the FIFA Statutes”. 6. On 18 June 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent, requesting the total amount of EUR 47,139.31, as follows: a. EUR 41,666.65 corresponding to the alleged outstanding salaries from February to June 2014 (less the sum of EUR 6,000 apparently already paid by the Respondent to the Claimant on 10 June 2014); b. EUR 831.66 corresponding to the flight ticket of the wife of the Claimant on 29 October 2013; c. EUR 338 as compensation for the internet access from July 2013 until March 2014; d. EUR 100 for unpaid medical bills; e. EUR 163 for the Visa and the costs of the “hotel in XY”. f. EUR 10,000 corresponding to “additional costs for initiating this procedure”. 7. On 14 July 2014, the Respondent primarily maintained that the Claimant had not complied with the procedure established in article 10 of the contract in case of dispute. In continuation, the Respondent stated that “all the outstanding amounts will be processed and paid to Mr A [i.e. the Claimant] by 15th September 2014” but added that the Claimant had already received a personal loan from members of the Respondent which had to be “adjusted or paid back from his salaries”. 8. Additionally, the Respondent alleged that the Claimant “was provided an advance of one month’s salary as per conditions of the agreement [i.e. the contract]. Hence his claim is inaccurate”. 9. Finally, the Respondent pointed out that “regardless partial payments have been made on a consistent basis and the B Football Federation [i.e. the Respondent] shall continue to honour the agreement [i.e. the contract]. 10. In his replica dated 29 October 2014, the Claimant maintained that the Arbitration Tribunal of the B Football Federation is not an independent tribunal and does not guarantee a fair proceeding as the Arbitration Tribunal is part of the Respondent. In continuation, the Claimant confirmed having received the payments made by the Respondent corresponding to the outstanding salaries of February, March, April and May 2014 and, therefore, decided to amend his initial claim requesting only the additional outstanding salaries from June 2014 until October 2014 in the total amount of EUR 41,666.65, plus the other costs initially claimed amounting to EUR 1,472.66. 11. Finally, the Claimant contested having received any loans whatsoever from the Respondent and was of the opinion that, in any case, such alleged loans could not be deducted from his salaries and compensation. 12. On 24 February 2015, the Claimant amended once again his claim, and informed FIFA that, by means of the correspondence sent on 20 November 2014 to the Respondent and according to article 8.6 of the contract, the Claimant had decided to terminate the contract with the Respondent. Consequently, the Claimant requested FIFA to order the Respondent to pay the total amount of EUR 101,199.96 “with due legal interests until the date of full payment”, as follows: a. EUR 47,222.20 corresponding to the outstanding salaries from June 2014 until 20 November 2014; b. EUR 52,777.76 as compensation for the termination of the contract by fault of the Respondent; c. EUR 1,200 corresponding to the flight ticket of the Claimant dated 27 September 2014. 13. In its final position dated 23 March 2015, the Respondent maintained that the Claimant resigned after having “engaged himself in another employment contract”, without its consent and again without following the procedure stipulated in article 10 of the contract. Furthermore, the Respondent explained that they were awaiting to receive a signed copy by the Claimant of a document named “termination agreement” in order to “terminate our agreement [i.e. the contract] in good faith”. Finally, the Respondent alleged having paid the partial amount of EUR 10,000 on 11 January 2015 to the Claimant. 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 took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 18 June 2014. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution (hereinafter: “the Procedural Rules”) is applicable to the matter in 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 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he is competent to deal with the matter at stake. 3. In continuation, 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 recalled that the claim was submitted to FIFA on 18 June 2014 and concluded that the 2012 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 (cf. art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations). 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started his analysis by acknowledging the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties as well as the documents contained in the file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. In doing so and to begin with, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded a contract valid from 1 July 2013 until 1 July 2015, by means of which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a yearly salary of EUR 100,000 payable in monthly instalments of EUR 8,333.33 on the 7th day of each month. Furthermore, the Single Judge acknowledged that, according to article 5 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent further benefits (cf. point I.3/ above). 6. In continuation, the Single Judge noticed that, after having amended his initial claim several times and having put the Respondent in default of its obligations, the Claimant had terminated the contract with the Respondent by means of a correspondence dated 20 November 2014. Consequently, the Single Judge duly took note that the Claimant requested the amount of EUR 47,222.20 corresponding to the outstanding salaries from June 2014 until 20 November 2014, EUR 52,777.76 as compensation for the termination of the contract by fault of the Respondent, as well as EUR 1,200 corresponding to the flight ticket allegedly purchased by the Claimant on 27 September 2014. 7. Equally, the Single Judge observed that, for its part, the Respondent had insisted on the fact that the Claimant had terminated the contract “without following the procedure stipulated in article 10 of the contract and without its consent” and was willing to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute by offering a “termination agreement”. 8. In view of all the above, the Single Judge deemed that the first question to be addressed in the present matter was whether the contract had been terminated by the Claimant with or without just cause. 9. In this respect, the Single Judge acknowledged that, according to the Claimant, at the time of the termination of the contract on 20 November 2014 by the Claimant, the total amount of EUR 47,222.20 corresponding to the monthly salaries from June 2014 until 20 November 2014 as well as the sum of EUR 1,200 corresponding to the flight ticket, were yet to be paid by the Respondent. 10. The Single Judge then turned his attention to the arguments of the Respondent and acknowledged that, according to the latter, the Claimant had not complied with the procedure established in article 10 of the contract and that the Claimant had already received a personal loan as well as a partial payment of EUR 10,000 on 11 January 2015 . In this context, the Single Judge noted that, according to article 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”, the Respondent had failed to submit documentary evidence which would demonstrate the abovementioned payments or, in general, the payment of any of the requesting outstanding amounts. 11. Having said this, the Single Judge referred to his well-established jurisprudence in similar cases and pointed out that failure from a club to pay a coach’s salary during several months of contract has to be considered a serious violation of its contractual obligations which entitles the coach concerned to prematurely terminate their contractual relationship with immediate effect. Hence and considering that the Respondent’s failure to pay to the Claimant his salary between June 2014 and 20 November 2014, the Single Judge was of the opinion that, at the time the Claimant had terminated their contractual relationship, i.e. on 20 November 2014, the breach of contract perpetrated by the Respondent had already reached such level that clearly justified such a premature termination of contract. As a result, the Single Judge established that the contractual relationship between the parties was terminated with just cause by the Claimant on 20 November 2014 following the breach of contract committed by the Respondent. 12. On account of the above and taking into consideration the Players? Status Committee longstanding jurisprudence in this respect, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant had just cause to unilaterally terminate the contract on 20 November 2014 and that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the contract with just cause by the Claimant. 13. Having established the above-mentioned, the Single Judge went on to assess the potential financial consequences of the breach of the contractual relationship by the Respondent. 14. In doing so, the Single Judge analysed the first part of the Claimant’s claim, i.e. his request for payment of outstanding remuneration between June 2014 and 20 November 2014 for a total amount of EUR 47,222.20. 15. In this regard, the Single Judge first of all referred to the contract and stressed that it provided for the Claimant to receive from the Respondent a monthly salary of EUR 8,333.33. 16. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. on 20 November 2014. 17. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the sum of EUR 38,888.87 corresponding to the outstanding salaries from June to 20 November 2014 has to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. 18. The Single Judge then turned his attention to the Claimant’s request pertaining to the reimbursement of the air ticket. In this context, taking into account the lack of evidence presented by the Claimant, the information provided by FIFA Travel as well as referring to the relevant terms of the contract concluded between the parties concerned which entitled the Claimant to flight tickets, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent the amount of EUR 784 for one flight ticket from Xxxxx to Yyyyy. 19. Having stated the above, the Single Judge went to address the question of the calculation of the amount of compensation payable to the Claimant by the Respondent in the matter at stake. 20. In doing so, the Single Judge held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent contract contained a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Single Judge was keen to stress out that no such compensation clause was included in the contract at the basis of the matter at stake. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of compensation due to the Claimant had to be assessed in accordance with other criteria. 21. Equally, the Single Judge observed that, between 1 November 2014 and 30 June 2015, the Claimant had been employed by the club N earning the total salary of EUR 15,750. 22. On account of the above and considering his constant jurisprudence, the Single Judge decided that it was fair and reasonable to take into account in the calculation of the amount due by the Respondent as compensation for breach of contract the remuneration that the Claimant had received from his new employer, i.e. from the club N. 23. In view of the above and in particular considering the original duration of the contract as well as the Claimant’s financial claim and taking into account the general obligation of the Claimant to mitigate his damages, the Single Judge concluded that in casu, the amount EUR 40,000 had to be considered reasonable and justified as compensation for breach of contract without just cause. 24. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Players? Status Committee in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award an interest at the rate of 5% p.a. over the outstanding amount of EUR 38,888.87 and over the amount of compensation of EUR 40,000 as of the date of the amended Claimant’s claim, i.e. of 24 February 2015, until the date of effective payment. 25. As a consequence of all the above, the Single Judge ruled that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 784 as reimbursement of the flight ticket, EUR 38,888 as outstanding salaries together with 5% interest per year on the said amount as from 24 February 2015 until the date of effective payment as well as compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 40,000 together with 5% interest per year on the relevant amount as from 24 February 2015 until the date of effective payment. 26. Lastly, 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 the proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee and the Single Judge, 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. 27. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is only partially accepted and that the Respondent is the party at fault. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 28. 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. Consequently and taking into account that the total amount at dispute in the present matter does not exceed CHF 150,000, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 15,000. 29. In conclusion and in view of the numerous submissions that had to be analysed in the present matter but taking into account that the present decision was taken by the Single Judge and not by the Players’ Status in corpore, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 8,000. 30. Consequently, the amount of CHF 8,000 has to be paid by the Respondent 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 partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Football Federation of country B, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the sum of EUR 784 as reimbursement of flight ticket as well as the amount of EUR 38,888 as outstanding salaries, plus 5% interest p.a. on the said amount as from 24 February 2015 until the date of effective payment. 3. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 40,000 as compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interest p.a. on the said amount as from 24 February 2015 until the date of effective payment. 4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected. 5. If the aforementioned sums, plus interests as specified above, are not paid within the aforementioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 8,000 are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the notification of the present decision, as follows: 6.1 The amount of CHF 5,000 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 6.2 The amount of CHF 3,000 has to be paid to the Claimant. 7. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2., 3. and 6.2. above are to be made and to notify 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