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

Mr 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

arisen between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 20 November 2015, the Coach of Country B, Coach A (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid from its date of signature until 30 June 2017 according to which the Respondent hired the Claimant as “1st assistant head coach”.

2. According to article 4 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, for the season 2015/2016, a monthly salary of USD 9,230 and for the season 2016/2017, a monthly salary of USD 10,000, to be paid on the tenth of each month.

3. On 18 March 2016, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded a settlement agreement (hereinafter: the settlement agreement) by means of which the parties agreed on the early termination of the contract.

4. According to articles 3 and 5 of the settlement agreement, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent the net amount of USD 20,000 as compensation corresponding to 4 monthly salaries for the early termination of the contract, payable as follows:

- USD 5,000 net on 1 May 2015 [i.e. 2016];

- USD 5,000 net on 1 July 2016;

- USD 5,000 net on 1 September 2016;

- USD 5,000 net on 1 January 2017.

5. Furthermore, article 4 of the settlement agreement stated that, “[the Respondent] recognizes that, on the present date, there is a debt to [the Claimant], which comes up to the whole amount of USD 20,000,00 net concerning to the compensation for the earlier amicable termination of the employment contract, which should end on 30.06.2017”.

6. Finally, article 7 of the settlement agreement stipulated that, “in case of delay of each of the above referred instalment for more than fifteen (15) days from the dates stated herein (i.e. 01.05.2016, 01.07.2016; 01.09.2016 and 01.01.2017), [the Claimant] shall have the right to claim immediately the payment of all the amounts”.

7. On 1 March 2017, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, alleging that the latter had breached the settlement agreement.

8. In this respect, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent had failed to pay his outstanding salaries in accordance with articles 3 and 5 of the settlement agreement.

9. In continuation, the Claimant further explained that, by means of a letter dated 22 February 2017, he reminded the Respondent of the allegedly outstanding amount of USD 20,000 setting a time limit of 5 days to remedy the default. However, the Claimant further explained that he did not receive any reply from the Respondent.

10. Consequently, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the amount of USD 20,000 as outstanding compensation, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. on the said amount as from the relevant due date.

11. In its reply to the claim lodged against it, the Respondent acknowledged and confirmed its intention to pay the outstanding amount and requested from FIFA an extension of the deadline of 6 months in order to execute the payment of the instalments due.

12. On 4 May 2017, the Claimant informed FIFA having received from the Respondent the amount of USD 7,000 and therefore, amended his claim and requested from the Respondent the final amount of USD 13,000, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. on the said amount as from the relevant due date as well as the reimbursement of the costs of the present dispute.

13. In its duplica, the Respondent alleged that the parties had reached an amicable settlement. In this respect, the Respondent alleged that it will pay the outstanding amount of USD 13,000 in two instalments, one in June 2017 and the second one in July 2017.

14. By means of a letter dated 10 April 2017, the Claimant informed FIFA that no new amicable settlement had been concluded between the parties.

15. After the closure of the investigation phase, both parties provided FIFA with unsolicited additional comments.

II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee

1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter also referred to as: the Single Judge) analysed which edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) was applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 1 March 2017, the Single Judge concluded that the 2017 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable in the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of 2017 edition of the Procedural Rules).

2. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: “the Regulations”) should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 1 March 2017 and, therefore, concluded that the 2016 edition of the Regulations is applicable in the matter at hand as to the substance (cf. art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the 2016 the Regulations).

3. With regard to his competence, the Single Judge confirmed that on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and 4 as well as art. 22 lit. c) of the 2016 edition of the Regulations, he was competent to deal with the present matter since it concerned an employment-related dispute between a club or an association and a coach of an international dimension.

4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started his analysis by acknowledging the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties as well as the documents 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 that he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

5. In doing so and to begin with, the Single Judge acknowledged that, on 20 November 2015, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded the contract, valid from the date of its signature until 30 June 2017, according to which the Claimant was hired as “1st assistant head coach”.

6. Subsequently, the Single Judge acknowledged that on 18 March 2016, the parties signed a settlement agreement by means of which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent the net amount of USD 20,000 as compensation, payable as follows:

- USD 5,000 net on 1 May 2015 [i.e. 2016];

- USD 5,000 net on 1 July 2016;

- USD 5,000 net on 1 September 2016;

- USD 5,000 net on 1 January 2017.

7. In continuation, the Single Judge focussed his attention to the content of articles 4 and 7 of the settlement agreement which stated inter alia that, “[the Respondent] recognizes that, on the present date, there is a debt to [the Claimant], which comes up to the whole amount of USD 20,000,00 net concerning to the compensation for the earlier amicable termination of the employment contract, which should end on 30.06.2017” and that, “in case of delay of each of the above referred instalment for more than fifteen (15) days from the dates stated herein (i.e. 01.05.2016, 01.07.2016; 01.09.2016 and 01.01.2017), [the Claimant] shall have the right to claim immediately the payment of all the amounts”.

8. In continuation, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant maintained being entitled to receive from the Respondent outstanding remuneration, alleging that the Respondent partially failed to fulfil his contractually stipulated financial obligations towards him, and that, therefore, the latter had breached the settlement agreement. In addition, the Claimant confirmed having received from the Respondent the amount of USD 7,000 and thus requested from the latter the remaining amount of USD 13,000, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. on the said amount as from the relevant due date as well as the reimbursement of the costs of the present dispute.

9. Equally, the Single Judge remarked that the Respondent, for its part, acknowledged and confirmed its willingness to pay the remaining amount of USD 13,000 in two instalments, one in June 2017 and the second one in July 2017.

10. Turning his attention to the claim, the Single Judge emphasised that, in accordance with the settlement agreement, it remained undisputed that the Claimant is contractually entitled to receive from the Respondent outstanding remuneration, i.e. the remaining amount of USD 13,000.

11. Bearing in mind the aforementioned and the basic legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Single Judge held that the Respondent must pay the Claimant outstanding remuneration according to articles, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the settlement agreement.

12. In conclusion, considering all of the above as well as the Claimant’s request for interest, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is accepted and that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the remaining amount of USD 13,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. on the said amount as from 2 January 2017 until the date of effective payment.

13. Lastly, 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.

14. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the Claimant’s claim is accepted, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA.

15. Furthermore and according to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. On that basis, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is less than CHF 50,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000.

16. In conclusion, and considering the particularities of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 5,000. Furthermore, and in line with his aforementioned considerations and taking into account the degree of success of the claim, the Single Judge decided that the amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid by the Respondent.

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

1. The claim of the Claimant, Coach A, is accepted.

2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, Coach A, within 30 days as of the date of notification of the present decision, the total amount of USD 13,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. on the said amount as from 2 January 2017 until the date of effective payment.

3. If the aforementioned amount, plus interest as established above, is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

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

4.1 The amount of CHF 4,000 has to be paid directly 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

4.2 The amount of CHF 1,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant, Coach A.

5. The Claimant, Coach A, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club C, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 4.2 are to be made and to notify the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received.

*****

Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):

According to art. 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