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 15 March 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, Player A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D 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 15 March 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, Player A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties in connection with overdue payables I. Facts of the case 1. On 22 June 2013, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: Respondent) signed an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 21 June 2015. 2. On 30 November 2014, the Claimant and the Respondent signed a settlement agreement, in accordance with which, inter alia, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 850,000 in the following two instalments: USD 425,000 on 15 February 2015 and USD 425,000 on 15 May 2015. 3. By correspondence dated 8 December 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of USD 850,000 relating to the instalments due on 15 February 2015 and 15 May 2015, respectively, setting a 10 days’ time limit in order to remedy the default. 4. On 25 January 2016, 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 850,000, in accordance with the instalments established in the settlement agreement. 5. The Claimant further asks to be awarded 5% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 425,000 as from 15 February 2015 until the date of effective payment, and 5% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 425,000 as from 15 May 2015 until the date of effective payment. 6. In reply to the claim, the Respondent held that “we are in contact with the claimant’s attorney-at-law in order to find an amicable solution to the case at hand”. 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 25 January 2016. 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 DRC 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 (edition 2015) it is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated 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 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 25 January 2016, 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 Chamber 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 DRC 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 a settlement agreement, in accordance with which, inter alia, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent the amount of USD 850,000 in the following two instalments: USD 425,000 on 15 February 2015 and USD 425,000 on 15 May 2015. 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 850,000 corresponding to the two instalments established in the settlement agreement signed between the parties. 7. In this context, the DRC took particular note of the fact that, on 8 December 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the aforementioned amounts, setting a time limit expiring on 18 December 2015 in order to remedy the default. 8. Consequently, the Chamber 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, held that “we are in contact with the claimant’s attorney-at-law in order to find an amicable solution to the case at hand”. 10. In this regard, the DRC considered that the arguments raised by the Respondent cannot be considered a valid reason for non-payment of the monies claimed by the Claimant. In other words, the reasons brought forward by the Respondent in its defence do not exempt the Respondent from its obligation to fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant. 11. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the argumentation put forward by the Respondent in its defence. 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 850,000, corresponding to the two instalments in the amount of USD 425,000 each, which fell due on 15 February 2015 and 15 May 2015, respectively. 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 850,000. 16. Furthermore, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on each of the instalments established in the settlement agreement, as of the day following the respective due dates and until the date of effective payment. 17. Moreover, the Chamber decided that any further request filed by the Claimant is rejected. 18. In continuation, taking into account the consideration under number 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. 19. The DRC established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations it has competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. Bearing in mind that the Respondent duly replied to the claim of the Claimant and in the absence of the circumstance of repeated offence, the Chamber decided to impose a warning on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations. 20. In this connection, the DRC wished to highlight that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty in accordance with art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations. 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 overdue payables in the amount of USD 850,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 425,000 as from 16 February 2015; b. 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 425,000 as from 16 May 2015. 3. 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. 4. Any further request filed 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. 6. A warning is imposed on the Respondent. ***** 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 Acting Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives