F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee / Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori – coach disputes / controversie allenatori (2017-2018) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, 27 September 2017

Decision of the Single Judge

of the Players’ Status Committee

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 September 2017,

by

Geoff Thompson (England)

Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee,

on the claim presented by the coach

Coach A, Country B

as Claimant

against the club

Club C, Country D

as Respondent

regarding an employment-related contractual dispute

between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 20 February 2016, the coach of Country B, Coach A (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) (hereinafter jointly referred to as the parties) concluded a “Coach Employment Agreement” (hereinafter: the contract) valid as of 20 February 2016 until 30 May 2016.

2. According to clause 3 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent USD 1,000,000 payable as follows:

a. “USD 800,000 with consideration of signing fee to be paid as follows:

i. USD 100,000 in the date of signature of the contract,

ii. USD 350,000 before 15 April 2016,

iii. USD 350,000 before 30 May 2016.

b. Monthly salary: The remaining amount, as salary, in four equal monthly instalments of USD 50,500 on the latest day of each month (February, March, April and may) during the term hereof”.

3. On 18 February 2016, i.e. prior to the signature of the contract, the Claimant provided the Respondent with his bank details where all the payments due to him in accordance with the contract were to be made.

4. On 1 June 2016, the Claimant sent both, a fax and an email to the Respondent, requesting the payment of his outstanding salaries comprising part of the sign-on fee as well as his salaries of “four months” for the total amount of USD 900,000. Moreover, the Claimant granted the Respondent a 15-day deadline to proceed to the payment, failing which, he would lodge a claim in front of FIFA. The Claimant sent a similar e-mail on 15 June 2016; both letters were however to no avail.

5. On 6 July 2016, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA requesting the amount of USD 900,000 as well as 5% interest p.a. broken down as follows:

a. USD 700,000 as unpaid part of the sign-on fee;

b. USD 200,000 as overdue salaries (50,000 x 4);

c. Legal costs

6. In particular, the Claimant explained that, whilst he was entitled to receive during the entire duration of the contract the amount of USD 1,000,000, he only received a partial payment of USD 100,000.

7. On 29 July 2016, the FIFA administration notified the Claimant’s claim to the Respondent, via the Football Federation of Country D, granting a deadline until 12 August 2016 to provide it with its reply.

8. On 5 August 2016, the Respondent requested an extension of its deadline to reply to the claim until 22 August 2016. In particular, the Respondent argued that its counsel had an “emergency and acute medical care” and that it was facing a “huge work load”.

9. On 9 August 2016, the request of the Respondent was granted.

10. On 22 August 2016, the Respondent submitted its reply arguing that FIFA had allegedly violated its “right to be heard” as it notified the claim via the Football Federation of Country D, despite being aware of its direct contact details. Moreover, the Respondent argued not having received a complete copy of the claim. Therefore, the club stressed that the claim is “inadmissible as to form as illegible”.

*****

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter also referred to as the Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 6 July 2016. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the 2016 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules).

2. Furthermore, the Single Judge confirmed that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and 4 as well as art. 22 lit. c) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2018), he shall adjudicate on an employment-related dispute between a club or an association and a coach that have an international dimension. As a consequence, the Single Judge confirmed that he was the competent body to decide on the present employment-related dispute between a coach of Country B and a club of Country D.

3. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with the art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations (edition 2016) and taking into account that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 6 July 2016, the 2016 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance.

4. The competence of the Single Judge and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

5. First, the Single Judge acknowledged that the parties concluded an employment contract valid as of 20 February 2016 until 30 May 2016 whereby the parties agreed that the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent the total amount of USD 1,000,000.

6. In continuation, the Single Judge took note of the claim of the Claimant who argued that during the entire duration of the employment-relationship the Respondent only made one payment in the amount of USD 100,000. Consequently, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant is requesting the remaining outstanding amount, i.e. USD 900,000.

11. At this point, the Single Judge wished to address the position of the Respondent which, in very vague terms, argued that its right to be heard had been apparently violated as the claim of the Claimant was notified to it via the Football Federation of Country D. Moreover, the Single Judge observed that, according to the Respondent, the claim of the coach is “inadmissible as to form as illegible”.

12. With the above in mind, the Single Judge wished to underline first that the Respondent does not dispute, and in fact confirms, having received the claim of the Claimant from the Football Federation of Country D. In this respect, the Single Judge emphasised that on 5 August 2016, the Respondent requested an extension of the deadline in order to submit its response to the claim. The Single Judge highlighted the fact that in such request, the Respondent did no raise any issue as to the way the claim had been notified to it nor the actual legibility of said documentation. On the contrary, the Respondent presented as reasons for the extension request its high workload as well as an alleged “emergency” with its counsel.

13. Along those lines, the Single Judge pointed out that in accordance with the principle of procedural good faith, any potential flaw in the procedure needs to be raised immediately by the parties. In casu, the Single Judge did not understand why the Respondent waited until the very last day of the extension of its deadline to reply to the claim of the Claimant to raise such alleged defects in the procedure.

14. Consequently, the Single Judge was of the opinion that the Respondent could not prove that a violation to its procedural rights had taken place and that therefore the Respondent’s argumentation in this regard is to be dismissed.

15. Having concluded the above, the Single Judge pointed out that the Respondent did not present any argument as to the substance of the matter. In particular, it remained undisputed throughout the present proceedings that the Respondent failed to remit to the Claimant the amount of USD 900,000 as per the employment contract concluded between them.

16. On account of the above, in accordance with the content of the contract as well as the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant’s claim can be accepted and that Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 900,000.

17. Furthermore, the Single Judge decided to reject the Claimant’s claim pertaining to legal costs in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Players’ Status Committee respective longstanding jurisprudence in this regard.

18. Finally, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which in the proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee and the Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and are normally to be paid by the unsuccessful party.

19. Furthermore and according to Annex A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. Consequently and taking into account that amounts requested by the parties in their respective claims, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000.

20. Along those lines, considering the particularities of the present matter as well as the arguments that needed to be analysed in the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 20,000, which in view of the degree of success of the parties, are to be borne by the Respondent in their entirety.

21. Finally, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.

*****

III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee

1. The claim of the Claimant, Coach 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 the present decision, the amount of USD 900,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 28 June 2016 until the date of effective payment.

3. In the event that the aforementioned amount, plus interest, is not paid 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 claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected.

5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 20,000 are to be paid, within 30 days as from the notification of the present decision, as follows:

5.1. The amount of CHF 5,000 by the Respondent to the Claimant.

5.2. The amount of CHF 15,000 by the Respondent to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XXX:

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under points 2. and 5.1. above are to be made and to notify the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received.

*****

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

For the Single Judge of the

Players’ Status Committee:

Omar Ongaro

Football Regulatory Director

Encl. CAS Directives