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 in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 June 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member on the claim presented by the player, A, country G represented by Mr xxxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country U 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 in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 June 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member on the claim presented by the player, A, country G represented by Mr xxxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country U as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties in connection with overdue payables I. Facts of the case 1. On 27 January 2015, the player from G, A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club from U, B (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract valid from 27 January 2015 until 31 December 2019. 2. The contract provides that the Claimant is inter alia entitled to receive a monthly USD 60,000 and EUR 5,000 for “the payment of premium payment for playing on the stadium in the start membership of the group”. 3. On 19 February 2016 the Claimant formally put the Respondent in default of USD 96,000 as outstanding salaries and EUR 70,000 as outstanding bonus payments, setting a time limit expiring on 29 February 2016 in order to fulfil the payment. 4. On 29 March 2016, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent requesting to be paid overdue payables in the amount of USD 96,000 corresponding to the partially unpaid salaries for the months of April 2015 until July 2015 in the amount of USD 20,000 each, and USD 16,000 for August 2015. In addition the Claimant requested EUR 70,000 as contractual bonuses as follows: - EUR 25,000 for April 2015; - EUR 30,000 for May 2015; - EUR 5,000 for July 2015; and, - EUR 10,000 for August 2015. 5. The Claimant claimed that certain sums had remained unpaid during his time at the club (cf. point I.4 above) which allegedly ended when he was transferred on 16 August 2015. 6. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim of the Claimant. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 29 March 2016. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015; hereinafter: the 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 G and a club from U. 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 29 March 2016, the 2016 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the 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 aforementioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. The Chamber however 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 stated the above, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract valid from 27 January 2015 until 31 December 2019 in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, inter alia, monthly remuneration of USD 60,000 and EUR 5,000 for “the payment of premium payment for playing on the stadium in start membership of the group”. 6. The Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, maintaining that the Respondent has overdue payables towards him in relation to the employment contract in the amount of USD 96,000 as outstanding salaries, and EUR 70,000 as contractual bonuses. 7. In this context, the DRC took particular note of the fact that, on 19 February 2016, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the aforementioned amounts, setting a time limit expiring on 29 February 2016 in order to cure 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. Consequently, 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. Consequently, the members of the Chamber recalled the basic principle of the burden of proof as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. 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 salary payments with sufficient documentary evidence. This notwithstanding, the members of the Chamber took due note that the Claimant had failed to provide evidence substantiating his claim that payments of contractual bonuses had remained outstanding. 13. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC established that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s due salary payments in the total amount of USD 96,000 in relation to the employment contract. 14. In addition, the Chamber established that the Respondent had delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without 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 96,000. 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 28 April 2016 (case ref. nr. xxx) and 13 May 2016 (case ref. nr. xxx) 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 each time by the DRC. Consequently, the Chamber established that for the third time the Respondent has delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis. 18. Accordingly, 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. 19. 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 entirety of the 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. 20. The members of the Chamber concluded by establishing that any other claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, B, has to pay to the Claimant overdue payables in the amount of USD 96,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant in accordance with the aforementioned number III.2 is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, interest at a rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of said time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any other claim of 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 DRC of every payment received. 6. 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 entirety of the next registration period following the notification of the present decision. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to article 58 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 Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives