F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 March 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Zola Majavu (South Africa), member Philippe Piat (France), member John Bramhall (England), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I.

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) - controversie di lavoro – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 March 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Zola Majavu (South Africa), member Philippe Piat (France), member John Bramhall (England), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 11 June 2012, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: Claimant or player), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: Respondent or club), signed an employment contract valid from 11 June 2012 until 31 May 2014. 2. According to the employment contract, the club undertook to pay to the player the following amounts: - EUR 65,000 as salary for the season 2012/2013, payable in 12 instalments of EUR 5,416; - EUR 67,500 as salary for the season 2013/2014, payable in 12 instalments of EUR 5,625. 3. On 12 June 2012, the player and the club signed an “image rights contract”, according to which the club undertook to pay to the player the following amounts: - EUR 10,000 as “Image Rights advance fee” payable upon signing of the “image rights contract”; - EUR 55,000 as “Annual Image Rights fee” for the season season 2012/2013, payable in 12 instalments of EUR 4,583; - EUR 10,000 as “Image Rights advance fee” payable on 15 June 2013; - EUR 57,500 as “Annual Image Rights fee” for the season season 2013/2014, payable in 12 instalments of EUR 4,791. 4. The remuneration according to the “image rights contract” further included the following “prims and Bonuses”: - “20euro/minute for championship games, provided that the team wins the championship”; - “30euro/minute for cup games, provided that the team wins the cup”; - “30,000euro to be distributed among the players, provided the team wins the super cup”; - “180euro/minute for CHL qualifying games, provided that the team qualifies for the group stage”; - “90euro/minute for EL qualifying games, provided that the team qualifies for the group stage”; - “30% of income gained as prim win/draw by UEFA, in the group stage of the CHL or EL to be distributed among the players”. 5. On 28 June 2013, the player and the club signed an agreement by means of which they terminated their employment relationship (hereinafter: termination agreement) and in accordance with which the club undertook to pay to the player the following amounts “for full and final settlement of any outstanding amount”: - EUR 13,600 upon signing of the termination agreement; - EUR 63,315 payable in 12 monthly instalments of EUR 5,276.25 starting on 31 July 2013. 6. Furthermore, Art. 6 of the termination agreement defines that “Any delay by the Employer [the club] to execute any of the instalments within 30 days from its due date, will allow the Employee [the player] to apply to the FIFA DRC for the whole amount of his contract for season 2013/2014 (135,000 Euros) by deductions of the amount he received (for the 2013/2014 football season), if at all.” 7. The termination agreement further defines that “This agreement settles all the outstanding issues concerning the employment contract dated 11/06/2012 between the parties and/or any other contract and/or agreement between the two parties which is signed on an earlier date than this contract.” 8. On 17 January 2014, with a subsequent amendment on 18 April 2014, the player lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the club for outstanding remuneration and requested payment of EUR 102,500, plus interest and reimbursement of his legal fees. 9. The player stated that the club failed to pay the instalments due to him on 31 October 2013, 30 November 2013 and 31 December 2013 in accordance with the termination agreement and, therefore, “breached” the termination agreement. 10. In light of the above, the player requested to be awarded outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 102,500, which was detailed as follows: EUR 130,000 as remuneration due to the player during the season 2012/2013 - EUR 85,585 as acknowledged payments before the termination agreement - EUR 29,428.75 as acknowledged payments under the termination agreement = EUR 14,986.25 + EUR 135,000 as remuneration due to the player during the season 2013/2014 - EUR 47,486.25 as acknowledged payment of 28 March 2014 = EUR 102,500 11. In its answer, the club requested that the player’s claim be rejected. 12. The club held that, on the basis of the termination agreement, the total amount of EUR 76,915 was due to the player and that this amount represented a “full and final settlement of the all contracts between the parties”. The club further held that it fulfilled its financial obligations towards the player with the final payment in the amount of EUR 47,486.25 on 28 March 2014. 13. Moreover, the club acknowledged that due to “cash flow problems” and the lack of a board of directors during a certain period of time, as of 31 October 2013 it had failed to pay instalments in accordance with the termination agreement. In this context, the club pointed out that, on 28 March 2014, it paid the entire outstanding amount to the player. 14. In addition, the club alleged that in accordance with Art. 6 of the termination agreement the player could only claim “the whole amount of the second year of the contract”. 15. Due to the wording of the termination agreement, the club denied that it would need to pay such amount since the player cannot claim amounts based on the employment contract “and/or any other contracts”. 16. The club argued that FIFA has no competence to deal with the part of the dispute concerning the “image rights contract” and that the amount resulting thereof, EUR 67,500, must be deducted. 17. Finally, the club stated that in case the DRC would decide that the player is entitled to amounts of the “contract for 2013/2014”, the player would need to mitigate his damages since he allegedly signed a new employment contract. 18. In his replica, the player insisted that FIFA is competent to deal with the present matter since the subject of the dispute is the termination agreement and not the “image rights contract”, the provisions of which would be irrelevant. 19. Moreover, the player argued that the total amount of EUR 76,915 defined in the termination agreement included the amounts of EUR 44,415, which remained outstanding during the 2012/2013 season, and EUR 32,500, which represented a “settlement” for the player’s “waiver for the 2013/2014 season contract”. 20. In addition, the player pointed out that the club’s payment of 28 March 2014 was “very late” and that such delay triggered the terms of Art. 6 of the termination agreement. 21. Furthermore, the player held that according to Art. 6 of the termination agreement due to the delay in the remittance of the instalments, he would be entitled to receive the amount of EUR 102,500, i.e. EUR 135,000 minus EUR 32,500, which was received as settlement for the 2013/2014 season under the termination agreement, plus interest. 22. Finally, the player contested the club’s argumentation regarding the deduction of salaries received under his new employment contract. 23. In its duplica, the club reiterated its position. 24. On 13 August 2013, the player signed a new employment contract with the club from country E, Club F, valid as of 13 August 2013 until 31 May 2014, including a total salary of 346,620. 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 matter at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 17 January 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. art. 21 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 in combination with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015) 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 B and a club from country D. 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 (edition 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 17 January 2014, the 2012 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. 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. 5. First and foremost, the Chamber acknowledged that the parties had terminated their employment relation by mutual consent by signing the termination agreement on 28 June 2013. In accordance with the termination agreement, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 13,600 upon signing of the termination agreement and EUR 63,315 in twelve monthly instalments of EUR 5,276.25 each, starting on 31 July 2013. 6. The members further took into account that in accordance with the termination agreement, the parties had agreed that “Any delay by the Employer [the club] to execute any of the instalments within 30 days from its due date, will allow the Employee [the player] to apply to the FIFA DRC for the whole amount of his contract for season 2013/2014 (135,000 Euros) by deductions of the amount he received (for the 2013/2014 football season), if at all.” 7. In continuation, the DRC noted that according to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to remit the instalments due on 31 October 2013, 30 November 2013 and 31 December 2013. Consequently, the Claimant asks to be awarded EUR 102,500, corresponding to the total amount resulting from the termination agreement, i.e. EUR 135,000, minus EUR 32,500, which, according to the Claimant, was due as settlement for the season 2013/2014. 8. In continuation, the DRC took into account that the Respondent rejected the claim. In its arguments, the club acknowledged having failed to pay the instalments of the termination agreement as of 31 October 2013, but pointed out that it fulfilled all of its financial obligations with a final payment on 28 March 2014. 9. Furthermore, the Respondent held that according to Art. 6 of the termination agreement, the Claimant could only claim the amount of the “second year of the contract” and that the amount resulting of the “image rights contract”, i.e. EUR 67,500 must be deducted. Moreover, the club highlighted that any salaries received during the season 2013/2014 under a new employment contract shall be deducted as well. 10. Subsequently, the Chamber focussed its attention on the terms of the termination agreement of 28 June 2013, in particular, its article 6, which establishes that in case one of the instalments would be delayed for more than 30 days, the Claimant is entitled to the amount of EUR 135,000 less any amounts the Claimant received for the 2013/2014 season. 11. In this regard, in spite of the instalments having been paid off with a final payment by the end of March 2014, the Chamber took into account that it is undisputed that the Respondent delayed payment of certain instalments for more than 30 days and concluded that, therefore, Art. 6 of the termination agreement finds application. 12. In continuation, the Chamber turned to the argument put forward by the Respondent in its defence, in particular, that the amount of EUR 67,500 based on the “image rights contract” should be deducted from the EUR 135,000 indicated in the termination agreement, since the DRC allegedly has no competence to consider the “image rights contract”. In this regard, the members of the Chamber stressed that the contract at the basis of the present matter is the termination agreement. What is more, the termination agreement does not contain any clause stipulating that remuneration based on the “image rights contract” was to be deducted from the “… whole amount of his contract for season 2013/2014 (135,000 Euros) …” as set out in Art. 6 of the termination agreement. On the contrary, Art. 6 of the termination agreement clearly establishes that the entire amount of the Claimant’s contract for the 2013-14 season was of EUR 135,000, which, in fact, constitutes the amount payable by the Respondent to the Claimant under both the employment contract and the “image rights contract”, excluding bonuses. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the Respondent’s argument in this respect could not be upheld. 13. Having said that and bearing in mind that, as stated above, Art. 6 of the termination agreement finds application, the Chamber turned its attention to the calculation of the Claimant’s entitlement in accordance with the termination agreement. In this respect, the DRC agreed that the amount of EUR 135,000 as set out in Art. 6 of the termination agreement is the basis for said calculation. 14. The members of the Chamber further took into account that, from the amount of EUR 135,000, the Claimant himself deducted EUR 32,500, which he acknowledged having received in relation to the 2013/2014 season, as a consequence of which he requested to be awarded EUR 102,500. 15. In continuation, the Chamber took into consideration that Art. 6 of the termination agreement further establishes that “… the amount he received (for the 2013/2014 football season), if at all.” shall be deducted from the amount of EUR 135,000. Therefore, the Chamber concurred that the remuneration received by the Claimant for the 2013/2014 season under his new employment contract signed with Club F, valid as of 13 August 2013 until 31 May 2014, i.e. EUR 73,487, shall equally be deducted from the amount of EUR 135,000. 16. Consequently, the Chamber decided that in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the total amount of EUR 29,013. 17. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim relating to interest, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date on which the amended claim was lodged, i.e. 18 April 2014. 18. In addition, as regards the claimed legal expenses, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to its long-standing and well-established jurisprudence, in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s request relating to legal expenses. 19. The Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by rejecting any further claim lodged by the Claimant. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 29,013 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 18 April 2014 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the aforementioned amount and interest due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. ***** 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber: Marco Villiger Deputy Secretary General Encl: CAS directives