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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 September 2015, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, 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 contractual dispute arisen 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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 September 2015, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, 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 contractual dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 6 February 2015, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the player or Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the club or Respondent), signed an employment contract valid as from 6 February 2015 until 6 May 2015. 2. In accordance with the contract, the player was entitled to receive total remuneration of USD 60,000, payable as follows: a. USD 15,000 after signing the contract and approval of the Football Federation of country D “on registering him with [the club]”; b. USD 45,000 divided into monthly salaries of USD 15,000 as from 6 February 2015 until 6 May 2015. 3. On 16 February 2015 the club and the player signed a mutual termination agreement of the employment contract, the content of which indicates that the player declares having received all financial dues from the club until the date of contract termination, i.e. 16 February 2015, and that he is not entitled to ask for any other financial dues from the club in relation to the contract. 4. On 25 March 2015, the player lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the club asking that he be paid the entire value of the contract in the amount of USD 60,000 in relation to the alleged termination without just cause by the club. The player does not claim interest. 5. The player claims that the termination by the club was without just cause, and he should be entitled to the total pecuniary value of the contract. 6. In its reply, the club first refers to the declaration of the player dated 8 February 2015 in which he certifies “that in case of not passing the physical examination, Club C shall be entitled to terminate this contract”. The club further asserts that the player’s medical examination showed signs of a torn ACL, which was the reason why the player and the club signed a mutual termination agreement on 16 February 2015 (cf. point I.3 above), by means of which all financial obligations between the parties were settled. 7. In his replica, the player quoted article 18 paragraph 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, which relates to the fact that the validity of a contract may not be made subject to a successful medical examination. 8. With regard to the documentation provided by the club, the player asserts that they should be considered null and invalid, since the grounds of the termination are clear, i.e. the failed medical examination which does not amount to just cause for termination. 9. Finally, the club refers to the content of the termination agreement stating that the player signed it voluntarily using his free will and clearly declared that no financial dues were owed to the player. Thus, the player’s claim should be rejected. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First, the DRC 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 25 March 2015. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014 edition; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (2015 edition) he 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 DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (2014 edition), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 25 March 2015, the 2015 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC judge started by acknowledging all the aforementioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. The DRC judge however 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. The DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent had signed an employment contract valid from 6 February 2015 until 6 May 2015, and that on 16 February 2015, the parties had signed an agreement by means of which the employment contract was terminated by mutual consent. 6. The DRC judge then reviewed the claim of the Claimant who maintains that he is entitled to the entire amount of remuneration provided for in the employment contract on the basis that the termination was without just cause as it was based on the injury he had sustained. He therefore claims that the Respondent should pay him USD 60,000. 7. In continuation, the DRC judge noted that for its part the Respondent rejects the claim of the Claimant. In this regard, the Respondent invokes the aforementioned stipulations of the termination agreement in accordance with which the Claimant had acknowledged that all financial obligations owed to the player had been fulfilled. It was also noted that the Respondent referred to the declaration signed by the player on 8 February 2015 in accordance with which “in case of not passing the physical examination, Club C shall be entitled to terminate this contract”. 8. At this point, the DRC judge recalled that the termination agreement states “it has been agreed to terminate the contract (…) with the consent and satisfaction of both two parties”. In addition, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant had “declared that he received all his financial dues from Club C” and finally that the “the above-mentioned player is not entitled to ask for any other financial dues from Club C, regarding this contract”. 9. In this regard, the DRC judge, without entering into the discussion of the grounds given for the termination, highlighted that the Claimant had signed the termination agreement on 16 February 2015 whilst being fully aware of the content of the aforementioned declarations. Consequently, should the Claimant have considered that he was entitled to receive compensation for the alleged termination without just cause by the Respondent, the DRC judge agreed that the Claimant had the option to not sign the termination agreement or to negotiate compensation of some description. 10. On account of the aforementioned termination agreement, the DRC judge could not uphold the Claimant’s arguments. 11. On account of the above, and in particular in light of the very clear wording of the termination agreement, the DRC judge decided to reject the claim of the Claimant in its entirety. III. Decision of the DRC judge The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is rejected. ***** 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 DRC judge: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS directives