F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 11 June 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Santiago Nebot (Spain), member Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member Zola Majavu (South Africa), member on the claim presented by the player, A, country L, represented by Mr xxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country T, represented by Mr xxxx as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I.

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) - controversie di lavoro – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 11 June 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Santiago Nebot (Spain), member Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member Zola Majavu (South Africa), member on the claim presented by the player, A, country L, represented by Mr xxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country T, represented by Mr xxxx as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 8 January 2013, the player from country L, A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club from country T, B (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2016. 2. According to art. 3 of the contract, the Respondent undertook to provide the Claimant, inter alia, with the following amounts: a. EUR 100,000, for the second half of the season 2012/2013 broken down as follows: ii. EUR 10,000 as advance payment, payable on 30 July 2013; iii. EUR 90,000 divided in four monthly salaries (4 x EUR 22,500), payable on the 10th day of each month, from 10 February 2013 until 10 May 2013. b. EUR 350,000, for the season 2013/2014, divided in ten monthly salaries (10 x EUR 35,000), the first salary is due on 30 August 2013, then, every following salaries are payable on the last day of each month until 31 May 2014; c. EUR 400,000, for the season 2014/2015, divided in ten monthly salaries (10 x EUR 40,000), the first salary is due on 30 August 2014, then, every following salaries are payable on the last day of each month until 31 May 2015; d. EUR 450,000, for the season 2015/2016, divided in ten monthly salaries (10 x EUR 45,000), the first salary is due on 30 August 2015, then, every following salaries are payable on the last day of each month until 31 May 2016. 3. According to art. 3, section “Special Provisions”, of the contract “In the event that the Club fails to comply with a part of its payment obligation at least 60 days, the player shall notify the Club in writing. If the Club does not pay the outstanding amounts within 30 days upon the receipt of the written notice, the player will be entitled to terminate the employment contract with Cause”. 4. Furthermore, this article stipulates that “For purposes of this Contract, Cause shall mean (A) Permanent violation of the provisions and conditions of the Contract by the Club hereunder, (B) Non-payment of salaries, benefits and any other monetary obligations of the Company in the amount of at least two instalments (C) Sportive just causes defined under the regulations of FIFA, or (D) any other valid and just causes specified under the FIFA regulations. The Player shall not be entitled to any compensation if he terminates the Contract before the lapse of the term of sixty days mentioned above”. 5. On 15 January 2014, the parties signed a document (hereinafter: the agreement) by means of which the Claimant was loaned to the club, P and the Respondent acknowledged a debt of EUR 175,000 regarding outstanding salaries towards the Claimant. The Respondent agreed to pay the amount of EUR 75,000 by no later than 5 April 2014 and the remaining sum amounting EUR 100,000, until 5 August 2014, “unless the transfer of the Player on a permanent basis to the New club [P] or any other football club is agreed and occurs before 5 August 2014 – in this case this amount established in this Clause hereof must be paid within 5 days after the Player’s transfer to the respective football club”. 6. In addition, according to the agreement, the Respondent agreed to pay the Claimant EUR 75,000 as salaries during his loan period (cf. point I.7. below), broken down as follows: a. EUR 50,000, payable on 5 February 2014; b. EUR 25,000, payable on 5 April 2014. 7. On 20 January 2014, the Claimant was loaned to P for the period of 20 January 2014 until 31 May 2014. 8. On 25 April 2014, the Claimant sent a notice to the Respondent by means of which he reminded it of its arrears, claiming that the Respondent “has paid to the Player no amount after the conclusion of the Agreement and thus missed the term of payment of EUR 150 000”. In addition the Claimant “request the Club to cover the Club’s indebtedness (EUR 150 000) to the Player under the Contract and the Agreement not later that until 02 May 2014” and holds that the Claimant “will not hesitate to take further necessary legal steps” and would refer to FIFA in case of non-compliance until 2 May 2014. 9. On 12 June 2014, the Claimant sent a second reminder to the Respondent warning it that, in case of failure to comply with the special provisions of the contract (cf. point I.3. above) and the agreement, within 30 days, the Claimant would terminate the contract with just cause. 10. On 14 July 2014, the Claimant terminated the employment contract in writing with immediate effect, alleging that the Respondent has not made any payment and requesting the amount of EUR 1,100,000 payable within ten days as from receipt of the notification letter. 11. On 31 July 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract without just cause, requesting the payment of the total amount of EUR 1,102,684.70 plus 5% interest p.a. as from the date of the claim, broken down as follows: iv. EUR 250,000 as outstanding remuneration (corresponding to the amounts due as per the agreement (cf. point I.5. and I.6. above); v. EUR 850,000 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the residual value of the contract for the seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 (cf. point I.2.c. and d.); vi. EUR 2,684.79 as “penalty for late payment of salaries” corresponding to an interest of 5% as from due dates until the date of claim, on the amounts stipulated in point I.4. and I.5. 12. In his claim, the Claimant states that he fully respected all his contractual obligations. However, the Respondent failed to pay him as per the contract and the agreement (cf. point I.11. above). Despite having not been paid, the Claimant was until the end willing to maintain his contractual relationship with the Respondent and came back for the team’s reunion on 10 July 2014 to prepare for the upcoming season. He further holds that he stayed with the Respondent until the expiry of the deadline given to it to pay the outstanding amounts i.e. 13 July 2014, but had no other choice but to leave the Respondent to preserve his interests (cf. point I.9. above). 13. Based on the foregoing, the Claimant deems that he had just cause to terminate the contract with the Respondent after sending a final notice, after waiting “for the performance of obligations of the Club” and having received no payment from the Respondent for more than one year. 14. Despite having been invited by FIFA to provide its comments on the present matter, the Respondent did not answer to the Claimant’s claim. 15. Finally, the Claimant informed FIFA that after the termination of the contract with the Respondent, he found new employment with the club, S, from 1 August 2014 until 30 June 2015, for which he is entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 1,000. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 31 July 2014. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 21 of the 2012, 2014 and 2015 editions of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the members of 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 combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from country L and a club from country T. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber 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 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012, 2014 and 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 31 July 2014, the 2012 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 Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, it started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. 5. 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. 6. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that the Claimant and the Respondent had signed on 8 January 2013 an employment contract valid as from the date of the signature until 31 May 2016. In addition, the parties also signed on 15 January 2014 a supplementary agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) (cf. point I.5 above), by means of which the parties agreed that the Claimant will be loaned to another club. Furthermore, in the agreement, the Respondent recognized a debt of EUR 175,000 in favor of the Claimant and agreed to pay the player during his loan the amounts stipulated in point I.6 above. 7. In continuation, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent maintaining that he had terminated the employment contract with just cause on 14 July 2014, after having previously put the club in default, since the Respondent allegedly failed to pay the Claimant’s remuneration. In this respect, the Claimant submits that the Respondent at the time he terminated the employment contract, owed him the amounts stipulated in the agreement, i.e. the debt recognised by the Respondent as well as his salaries payable on 5 February and 5 April 2014 (cf. point I.5. and I.6. above). Consequently, the Claimant asks to be awarded his outstanding dues as well as the payment of compensation for breach of the employment contract. 8. 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. Consequently, the Chamber deemed that the Respondent had renounced to its right of defence and, thus, had accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 9. As a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the members of the Chamber concurred that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, a decision shall be taken upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 10. In accordance with the employment contract and the agreement, the Respondent, was obliged to pay to the Claimant at the time the contract was terminated by the player, i.e. on 14 July 2014, the amount of EUR 75,000 due on 5 April 2014, the amount of EUR 50,000 due on 5 February 2014, and the amount of EUR 25,000 due on 5 April 2014 as per the agreement. 11. On account of the aforementioned, in particular in view of the considerations under point II.7. and II.8. above, the Chamber established that the Respondent, without any valid reason, failed to remit to the Claimant, until 14 July 2014, date on which the Claimant terminated the contract, the total amount of EUR 150,000. Consequently, and considering that the Respondent had repeatedly and for a significant period of time been in breach of its contractual obligations towards the Claimant, the Chamber decided that the Claimant had just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract on 14 July 2014 and that, as a result, the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact with just cause by the Claimant. 12. Furthermore, as per the agreement (cf. point I.5. above), an amount of EUR 100,000 was not yet due to the player at the time of the termination of the employment contract, but only on 5 August 2014. However, this amount is part of an old acknowledged debt of the Respondent and as such, it is also payable to the Claimant. 13. Consequently, the members of the Chamber concluded that, in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”, the Respondent is liable to pay the Claimant as outstanding remuneration the amount of EUR 150,000 plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 31 July 2014 until the date of effective payment, as per the Claimant’s claim, and the amount of EUR 100,000 plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 6 August 2014 until the date of effective payment. 14. In continuation, having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of such termination. In this regard, the members of the Chamber determined that the Respondent was not only to pay the amount of EUR 150,000 plus EUR 100,000 to the Claimant (cf. point. II.13. above), but also to pay compensation for breach of contract in conformity with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. 15. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation payable to the Claimant by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period. 16. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment 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 Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake. 17. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable. 18. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract until 31 May 2016, taking into account that the player?s remuneration until 14 July 2014, as well as old acknowledged debts recognized by the Respondent before that date, is included in the calculation of the outstanding remuneration (cf. point. II.13. above). Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 850,000 (i.e. the entire remuneration of the Claimant for the 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons, cf. point I.2.c. and d. above) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 19. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages. 20. Indeed, on 1 August 2014, the Claimant found employment with the club, S. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, which has been made available by the Claimant, valid until 30 June 2015, the Claimant was entitled to receive a monthly salary of EUR 1,000. The DRC further noted that contract with S was terminated in January 2015. Consequently, the Chamber established that the value of the new employment contract concluded between the Claimant and S for the period as from 1 August 2014 until and including January 2015 amounted to EUR 6,000. 21. Moreover, the DRC took note that the Claimant found employment with the club R, as from 26 January 2015 until 10 June 2015 according to which he earned a total amount of approximately EUR 40,000 until the original end of the contract with the Respondent. 22. Subsequently, the DRC noted that the Claimant’s last contract with R had expired on 10 June 2015 and no further information about the Claimant’s contractual situation until 31 May 2016 was yet available. Thus, the Chamber deemed that the amount of EUR 804,000 should be further mitigated to EUR 750,000. 23. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 750,000 to the Claimant, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter. 24. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 750,000 as from 31 July 2014, i.e. the date of claim, until the date of effective payment 25. In conclusion, for all the above reasons, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant?s claim and that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 150,000 as outstanding remuneration, the amount of EUR 100,000 as acknowledged debt and EUR 750,000 as compensation for breach of contract. 26. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, B, is ordered to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 150,000 plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 31 July 2014 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 100,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 August 2014, until the date of effective payment. 4. The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 750,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 31 July 2014 until the date of effective payment. 5. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant in accordance with the abovementioned numbers 2. , 3. and 4. are not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 6. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 7. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS directives