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 25 September 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), 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 25 September 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), 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 an unspecified date, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: player or Claimant) and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: club or Respondent) signed an employment contract valid as from 18 June 2012 until “31 November 2014” (hereinafter: the contract). 2. According to article 7 of the contract, the player was entitled to receive, inter alia: a sign-on fee of USD 50,000, due 7 days after the signing of the contract; a sign-on fee of USD 50,000, due in January 2013; a sign-on fee of USD 50,000, due in January 2014; a monthly salary of USD 25,000. 3. On 10 January 2013, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the club, claiming compensation for breach of contract by the club, requesting the total amount of USD 871,226.35, broken down as follows: USD 50,000 as sign-on fee; USD 100,000 as sign-on fees for the second and third year of the contract; USD 128,333 as the difference between the monthly salaries he would have received at the club and the monthly salary he received under the (new) contract with Club E between 18 June 2012 and 21 August 2012; USD 57,447.33 as the difference between the monthly salaries he would have received at the club and the monthly salary he received under the (new) contract with Club E between 22 August 2012 and 30 November 2012; USD 60,446.02 as monthly salaries for the period between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2014; USD 475,000 as monthly salaries for the period between 1 May 2013 and 31 December 2014. Further, the player requested 5% interest on the afore-mentioned amounts and asked for sporting sanctions to be imposed on the club. 4. The player states that on or ‘about’ 18 June 2012, he signed a contract with the club, and that, after he arrived on 28 June 2012 in country D, he was immediately informed that he had to train alone and that he had to undergo a medical examination. According to the player, the medical examination took place on 4 July 2012 and afterwards, he trained with the club’s team. Further, the player states that after the training session, he was informed by his agent that he had to undergo a MRI-scan. 5. In addition, the player argues that after the MRI-scan, he was informed that he had liver cancer, as a result of which his contract was terminated by the club. The player concludes that the club told him to leave the hotel room where he was staying, that he was sent home by the club and did not receive any payments. 6. Finally, the player states that he returned to country B, where he asked a second opinion from a medical expert. According to the player, the medical expert, Dr F, concluded that he had no liver cancer and that he could play professional football. 7. In its reply, the club stated that the player arrived on 29 June 2012 in country D and that – after having rested on 30 June 2012 – he participated in a ‘recovering training with the reserve team coach’. Further, the club argues that the player complained he felt ‘physically unwell’ and that on 3 July 2012 – on the initiative of the club – he was brought to a hospital where a ‘physical exam’ took place. 8. In this respect, the club states that it refused the player to participate in the ‘high intensity combat training’, because it wanted to avoid the player to be ‘unnecessary injured’. Further, according to the club, no formal contract was signed (the club later adapted this allegation and argued that on 4 July 2012 the player and the club signed a ‘formal contract’). In addition, the club stated that the player played a ‘teaching game’ on 6 July 2012, after which game he left country D on 8 July 2012 without any notice. The club states that the player did not have permission from the club to leave the country and that by doing so, he unilaterally terminated the contract. 9. In addition, the club denied that it informed the player that he had liver cancer, since it is not possible to diagnose cancer ‘through basic check-ups’. 10. Finally, the club concludes that on 16 August 2012, the player concluded an employment contract with the club from country B, Club E, despite still having a contract with the club. 11. In his replica, the player acknowledged the club’s statements about his arrival in country D and the training sessions. The player argues that after the medical examination on 4 July 2012, it turned out that there was an irregularity in his liver, which would require a further MRI-scan. After the MRI-scan, according to the player, the club told him that he had liver cancer and that he had to leave the hotel room, due to the termination of the contract. 12. According to the player, said circumstances have to be considered as a unilateral termination of the contract by the club without just cause. 13. In its duplica, the club stated that after the player and the club first signed a contract of intention, on 4 July 2012, a ‘final contract’ was concluded. In addition, the club reiterates that the player left country D on 8 July 2012, without informing the club and without permission from the club. 14. Further, according to the club, the outcome of the medical check on “3 July 2012” was that the player was ‘physically normal’. Also, the club states the player did not provide any evidence of his allegations. The club concludes that the player unilaterally violated the terms of the contract. Further, the club asks for the rejection of all the claims of the player. 15. According to the player, he signed new contracts with: the club from country B, Club E, valid from 21 August 2012 until 30 April 2013, according to which the player was entitled to receive a gross weekly salary of 2,307.70, which corresponds to a weekly salary of 1,649.69 net. For the period between 21 August 2012 and 30 April 2013, this equals an amount of 61,038.53 net. the club from country B, Club G, valid from 1 September 2013 until 7 May 2014, according to which the player was entitled to receive a gross weekly salary of 3,802.15. For the period between 1 September 2013 and 7 May 2014, this equals an amount of 136,877 gross. the club from country B, Club H, valid from 1 August 2014 until 31 May 2016, according to which the player was entitled to receive a gross monthly salary of 11,441.67. For the period between 1 August 2014 and 30 November 2014, this equals an amount of 45,766.68 gross. Together with submitting the above-mentioned contracts, the player adapted his claim from the original amount of USD 871,226.35, to the amount of USD 723,119.34. 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 10 January 2013. 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 10 January 2013, 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. In this respect, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent, maintaining that the Respondent had terminated the contract without just cause, because it told the Claimant that he had liver cancer, that he had to leave his hotel room and that consequently he was ‘sent home’. The Chamber further noted that, according to the Claimant, after a second opinion it turned out that he had no liver cancer. 6. The Respondent, for its part, stated that it never told the Claimant that he had liver cancer and that the Claimant left country D on 8 July 2012 without notice and without authorization. The Respondent further argued that the Claimant did not submit evidence of his allegations that the contract was terminated by the Respondent without just cause. 7. In this respect, the members of the Chamber firstly referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. The application of the said principle in the present matter led the members of the Chamber to conclude that it was up to the Claimant to prove that the Respondent terminated the contract without just cause, as alleged by the Claimant. The Chamber duly noted that on the basis of the aforementioned circumstances, the Claimant claims compensation for breach of contract from the Respondent. 8. In this regard, the Chamber reiterated that the Claimant stated that he was informed by the Respondent that after a medical examination on 4 July 2012, it turned out that he had liver cancer. As a result thereof, according to the Claimant, the Respondent told him that he had to leave his hotel room and was sent home. The Claimant considers these circumstances as a termination of the contract by the Respondent and further argued that he did not receive any of the payments agreed upon. The Respondent however categorically denied these allegations of the Claimant. 9. In this context, the members of the Chamber highlighted that the Claimant did not submit any documentation in support of his allegations, on the basis of which it could be established that the Respondent informed the Claimant after the medical examination on 4 July 2012 that he had liver cancer and/or that the contract should be considered as terminated. In particular, no documentation has been provided by means of which the Claimant would have informed the Respondent that its findings were incorrect and that he was at the club’s disposal to perform his obligations under the contract. 10. Based on the abovementioned considerations, the DRC recalled once more the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and noted that the Claimant did not substantiate his claim, as he did not provide any evidence on the basis of which it could be concluded that the contract was effectively terminated by the Respondent. 11. On account of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had not been able to prove that the contract was terminated by the Respondent in July 2012 and that the Respondent should therefore be held liable for paying the total amount of USD 723,119.34 as requested by the Claimant. 12. Having stated the above and bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber went on to deal with the further consequences of the (short) execution of the contract. 13. In this respect, the members of the Chamber recalled that the Claimant and the Respondent agreed upon a sign-on fee of USD 50,000, which should be paid within 7 days after the signing of the contract. 14. In this context, the members of the Chamber underlined that the Claimant stated that on or around 18 June 2012, he signed a contract with the Respondent. Further, the Claimant submitted a copy of the contract, signed by both the Claimant and the Respondent and starting on 18 June 2012, on the basis of which the parties started executing the contract until 8 July 2012 at the latest. 15. The members of the Chamber further noted that the Respondent in its first submission stated that it did not sign a ‘formal contract’ with the Claimant, but that in a second submission, it stated that it signed a ‘formal contract’ with the Claimant on 4 July 2012. In this respect, the members of the Chamber underlined that there is only one contract on file signed between the Claimant and the Respondent and that contract contains the date of 18 June 2012. 16. Based on the aforementioned considerations, the members of the Chamber noted that it remained undisputed that an employment contract between the parties was signed and executed and that the Claimant rendered his services towards the Respondent in the period between 30 June 2012 and 8 July 2012. 17. As a result, the members of the Chamber established that the Claimant is entitled to the instalment of USD 50,000, which should have been paid 7 days after the signature of the contract. 18. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant?s claim and that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 50,000 as outstanding remuneration. 19. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the DRC, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 50,0000 as of the date the claim was lodged, i.e. 10 January 2013 until the date of effective payment. 20. 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, 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, outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 50,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 10 January 2013 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid 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 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