F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – debiti scaduti – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – overdue payables – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed by way of circulars on 25 February 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member on the claim presented by the player, A, country M as Claimant against the club, B, country A as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties in connection with overdue payables I.

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – debiti scaduti – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – overdue payables – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed by way of circulars on 25 February 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member on the claim presented by the player, A, country M as Claimant against the club, B, country A as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties in connection with overdue payables I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 July 2014, the player from country M, A (hereinafter: Claimant), and the club from country A, club B (hereinafter: Respondent) signed an employment contract valid as from the date of the signature until 30 June 2015. 2. In accordance with the employment contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant inter alia a monthly salary of USD 20,000 at the end of each month. 3. On 22 May 2015, the Respondent issued and signed a document by means of which it recognised a debt in favour of the Claimant amounting to USD 76,000. Furthermore, on 22 November 2015, the Respondent issued and signed an English version of this document confirming its debt in the amount of USD 76,000 relating to salary towards the Claimant. 4. On 12 August 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of USD 76,000 setting a time limit expiring on 12 September 2015 in order to remedy the default. 5. On 31 December 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA asking that the Respondent be ordered to pay to him overdue payables in the amount of USD 76,000 corresponding to almost four monthly salaries. 6. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent has not replied to the claim. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: 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 31 December 2015. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, 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 conjunction with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), it is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from country M and a club from country A. 3. Furthermore, the DRC 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 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged 31 December 2015, the 2015 edition 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 DRC entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. 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. Having said this, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract valid from 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2015, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, inter alia, a monthly salary of USD 20,000 payable at the end of each month. 6. The Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, maintaining that the Respondent has overdue payables towards him in the total amount of USD 76,000 corresponding to almost four monthly salaries. 7. In this context, the DRC took particular note of the fact that, on 12 August 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the aforementioned amounts, setting a time limit expiring on 12 September 2015 in order to remedy the default. 8. Consequently, the DRC concluded that the Claimant had duly proceeded in accordance with art. 12bis par. 3 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the creditor (player or club) must have put the debtor club in default in writing and have granted a deadline of at least ten days for the debtor club to comply with its financial obligation(s). 9. Subsequently, the DRC took into account that 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. In this way, the DRC considered that the Respondent renounced its right to defence and thus accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 10. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the Chamber concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules it shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 11. Having said that, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant submitted a document issued and signed by the Respondent on 22 May 2015, in which the Respondent recognised having a debt of USD 76,000 towards the Claimant in relation to his salary. Furthermore, the Claimant also presented an English version of this acknowledgement of debt issued and signed by the Respondent and dated 25 November 2015. 12. Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his petition, the DRC concluded that the Claimant had substantiated his claim pertaining to overdue payables with sufficient documentary evidence. 13. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC established that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s remuneration in the total amount of USD 76,000 corresponding to the debt recognised by the Respondent on 22 May 2015 and on 25 November 2015. 14. In addition, the Chamber established that the Respondent had delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis. 15. Consequently, the DRC decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant overdue payables in the total amount of USD 76,000. 16. In continuation, taking into account the consideration under point II./14. above, the DRC referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations which stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations. 17. The DRC established that in virtue of the aforementioned article, it has competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. In this context, the Chamber highlighted that, on 10 November 2015, the Respondent had already been found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis and without the Respondent having responded to the relevant claim, as a result of which a fine was imposed on the Respondent by the DRC. Consequently, the Chamber established that, for the second time, the Respondent has delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis. 18. Moreover, the members of the Chamber wished to underline and took into account that the Respondent has been found by the DRC responsible for not complying with its financial obligations towards players on various occasions in the recent past. 19. Along these lines, the DRC referred to art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations, which establishes that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty. 20. Therefore, bearing in mind the considerations under points II./17. and II./18. above, the DRC decided that in the event that the Respondent does not pay the amount due to the Claimant within the 30 days following the notification of the present decision, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the next entire registration period following the notification of the present decision shall become effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. d) of the Regulations. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, A, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, club B, has to pay to the Claimant overdue payables in the amount of USD 76,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. 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 DRC of every payment received. 5. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, the Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the next entire registration period following the notification of the present decision. ***** 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