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 15 October 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Taku Nomiya (Japan), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), 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 15 October 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Taku Nomiya (Japan), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), 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 Facts relating to the preliminary issue of competence: 1. On 28 August 2013, the player from country B, Player A, (hereinafter: player or Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: club or Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) which stipulates in its article 16 that “In case of any dispute for any reason between two parties of contract, firstly Disciplinary Committee of Club will resolve it, if dispute wasn’t solved, the Disciplinary Committee of the relevant federation as the impartial judge will resolve it and the sentence of the Federation’s Disciplinary Committee will be definite and both parties can not object about it or if dispute was not yet resolved, it would be submitted to FIFA Arbitral Tribunal FIFA Bodies (FIFA Player’s Status and FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber) accordance with FIFA Regulations”. 2. The club contested the competence of FIFA to deal with the claim lodged by the player against it in front of FIFA, arguing that due to art. 16 of the contract, the player “was obliged to submit the dispute to the Club’s Disciplinary Committee and in case the dispute remained unsolved he would be entitled to submit it to the following body and so”. 3. Moreover, the club indicated that it started parallel legal proceedings against the player in country D. 4. The player, for his part, contested that any procedure is pending in country D and held that FIFA is competent to deal with the present matter. Facts relating to the substance of the matter: 5. On 28 August 2013, the player and the club signed the contract valid from 28 August 2013 until the end of the season 2013/2014. 6. According to the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the football season 2013/2014 in country D ended on 22 May 2014. 7. According to the contract, the club undertook to pay the player the total amount of 4,050,000,000 for the sporting season 2013/2014, payable as follows: - 1,620,000,000 “will be paid to the player after doing successfully medical tests”; - 2,430,000,000 in 9 monthly instalments of 270,000,000 (September 2013 to May 2014). 8. Art. 6 of the contract states that: “If the goalkeeper does not receive any goals in home or away matches, club will pay (20,000,000) as rewards. It should be noted that rewards by Article 6 will be made on monthly basis.” 9. Art. 9.2 of the contract defines that: “Club is allowed to deduct the fine stated by team’s supervisor based on attendance report which indicates player does not pay attention to educational goals and instructions and that he malingers or result poorly in the matches”. 10. On 1 July 2014, the player lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the club for outstanding remuneration and requested to be awarded payment of 2,020,000,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 28 August 2013. In addition, the player requested that the club should be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings and “to compensate the Claimant for all costs in connection with the present proceedings.” 11. The player claimed outstanding salary payments in the amount of 1,920,000,000 and bonus payments in the amount of 100,000,000. 12. In his arguments, the player stated that he only received a total of 2,130,000.000 in various payments, between 17 October 2013 to 10 April 2014, instead of the contractually agreed 4,050,000,000, which results in outstanding salaries of 1,920,000,000. 13. Moreover, the player claimed not having received match bonuses in connection with art. 6 of the contract in the amount of 100,000,000 for the following matches: - 20,000,000 for the game against Club E on 12 September 2013 (2:0 victory); - 20,000,000 for the game against Club F on 3 October 2013 (0:0 draw); - 20,000,000 for the game against Club G on 9 January 2014 (1:0 victory); - 20,000,000 for the game against Club H on 16 January 2014 (0:0 draw); - 20,000,000 for the game against Club I on 31 January 2014 (0:0 draw). 14. In its reply, the club stated that it deducted 20% of the player’s salary due to alleged low performances of the player. 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 1 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. 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 would, in principle, be 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 an club from country D. 3. In continuation, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding body on the basis of art. 16 of the employment contract. 4. In this regard, the DRC noted that the Claimant rejected such position and insisted that FIFA has jurisdiction to deal with the present matter. 5. Taking into account the above, the Chamber emphasised that, in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, it is competent to deal with a matter such as the one at hand, unless an independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs, has been established at national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to the standards to be imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings, the Chamber referred to the FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. 6. While analysing whether it was competent to decide on the matter at hand, the members of the Chamber outlined that the Respondent has not submitted any documentation demonstrating that the deciding body under the Football Federation of country D meets the aforementioned standards. 7. Moreover, the DRC noted that the Respondent alleged having started parallel proceedings regarding the present matter in country D, which was contested by the Claimant. In this context, the members of the Chamber pointed out that the Respondent failed to provide any evidence in support of said allegation. 8. Subsequently, the DRC referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which the any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. 9. In addition, the Chamber outlined that article 16 of the employment contract does not explicitly refer to a national dispute resolution chamber or any similar arbitration body in the sense of art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations. The members of the Chamber further took into account that article 16 of the employment contract includes a reference to FIFA. 10. On account of the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent’s objection to the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance. 11. In continuation, 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 1 July 2014, the 2012 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 12. 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. 13. Having said this, the Chamber recalled that the parties had signed an employment contract valid as from 28 August 2013 until the end of the season 2013/2014, i.e. 22 May 2014. 14. In continuation, the DRC acknowledged that, in accordance with the employment contract the Respondent was obliged to pay to the Claimant, inter alia, the amount of 4,050,000.000 as remuneration. 15. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the parties agreed upon a bonus payment in the amount of 20,000,000 for the player in case he “does not receive any goals in home or away matches”. 16. In this respect, the Chamber took into consideration that according to the Claimant, the Respondent had failed to pay his remuneration in the amount of 1,920,000,000 as well as bonus payments totalling 100,000,000 for five specified games. Consequently, the Claimant requested to be awarded payment of the total amount of 2,020,000,000. 17. Subsequently, the DRC observed that the Respondent, for its part, stated that it deducted 20% of the player’s salary due to the player’s alleged low performance. 18. In this regard, the Chamber referred to its jurisprudence in accordance with which a decrease in, or deduction from, payments to a player by a club on the basis of a player’s alleged low performance cannot be accepted, due to the unilateral and arbitrary character of the club’s decision. 19. On a side note, even if low performance would constitute a valid reason for a reduction in remuneration, the Chamber pointed out that the Respondent had not presented any documentation in respect of its allegations relating to the alleged low performance of the Claimant. 20. Having established the above, and bearing in mind that the Respondent had not put forward any other reason in connection with the non-payment of the monies claimed to be outstanding by the Claimant, the DRC concluded that the Respondent had not presented any valid reasons for the non-payment of the Claimant’s remuneration. 21. Therefore, the members of the Chamber concluded that the Respondent had failed to pay to the Claimant the amount of 2,020,000,000 corresponding to outstanding salaries in the amount of 1,920,000,000 as well as bonus payments in the amount of 100,000,000. 22. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent must fulfil its obligations as per the contract concluded with the Claimant and, consequently, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the outstanding remuneration in the total amount of 2,020,000,000 to the Claimant. 23. Taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim related to interest as well as the Chamber’s constant jurisprudence in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount of 2,020,000,000 as of the date the claim was lodged, i.e. 1 July 2014, until the date of effective payment. 24. In addition, as regards the claimed procedural costs, 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 procedural costs. 25. The DRC 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 admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. 3. 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 2,020,000,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 1 July 2014 until the date of effective payment. 4. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 6. 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: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl: CAS directives