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

Physical Trainer A

as “Claimant”

against the club

Club B, Country C

as “Respondent”

regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties.

I. Facts of the case

1. On 26 March 2013, Physical Trainer A (hereinafter: the Claimant) from Country D and the Club of Country C, Club B (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the first contract), valid from 26 March until 30 June 2013, by means of which the Claimant was hired by the Respondent as physical trainer.

2. On 12 July 2013, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded a second employment contract (hereinafter: the second contract), valid from 1 July 2013 until 30 June 2015, by means of which the Claimant was hired by the Respondent also as physical trainer and was inter alia entitled to receive from the latter a monthly salary of EUR 4,500 to be paid before the 7th days of each month.

3. In addition, the Respondent had to pay to the Claimant several bonuses in accordance with its internal regulations, to provide him with an apartment and a car as well as to pay for 6 round-trip-tickets Country C-Country D.

4. The second contract does not include a clause related to the payment of compensation in case of an early termination of contract by either party.

5. By means of a correspondence dated 29 October 2013 (hereinafter: the termination letter), the Respondent terminated the second contract accusing the Claimant of not being in possession of the necessary license and certificate in order to obtain a technical license from the National Technical Direction of Country C. In the same correspondence, the Respondent mentioned that the certificates currently in possession of the Claimant were not enough in order for him to be able to exercise his duty as physical trainer.

6. On 17 February 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract and requested from the latter the payment of the total amount of EUR 142,582.92.

7. In this respect, the Claimant accused the Respondent of having terminated their contractual relationship without just cause. According to the Claimant, failure to provide the relevant license could not justify a termination of contract without notice. As to that, the Claimant pointed out that the Respondent had never asked him to provide his license or diploma.

8. In continuation, the Claimant accused the Respondent of having failed to pay him his October 2013 salary in the amount of EUR 4,500 as well as several bonuses for the total amount of EUR 9,597.

9. Equally and considering the alleged breach of contract committed by the Respondent, the Claimant deemed being entitled to receive from the Respondent as compensation an amount equal to EUR 90,000 and corresponding to his salaries between November 2013 and the end of June 2015 as well as the sum of EUR 17,730.40, corresponding to the value of an apartment and a car during 20 months. In addition, the Claimant requested the reimbursement of EUR 255, corresponding to the price of a flight ticket that he had to buy in order to go back to Country D.

10. Finally, the Claimant considered being entitled to receive from the Respondent the amount of EUR 30,000 as compensation for the moral damages incurred as well as to be reimbursed for unspecified costs incurred in connection with the present proceedings.

11. On 12 March 2014, FIFA informed the Claimant that, in accordance with art. 22 lit. c) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and art. 6 par. 1 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, it was not competent to deal with claims lodged by physical trainers.

12. On 2 January 2017, the Claimant asked FIFA to continue with the proceedings and to take a decision in the matter at hand, arguing that he had been hired by the Respondent as an assistant coach.

13. In this respect, the Claimant provided FIFA with the statement of Head Coach E who had allegedly been the head coach of the Respondent between 1 March 2013 and 18 December 2013 and who stated that the Claimant had been working as his assistant coach in charge of the physical, technical and tactic development of the team.

14. In addition, the Claimant amended his claim and requested from the Respondent the payment of EUR 94,500 as compensation for breach of contract corresponding to his salary during 21 months, plus 5% interest p.a. since 23 November 2013, and of EUR 4,702.61 as “outstanding bonuses for the matches that were played at the “Championship F” under his coaching work and which amount to 11,500”.

15. Finally, the Claimant insisted on being entitled to be reimbursed of the sum of EUR 255 allegedly spent to travel back to Country D.

16. In spite of having been asked to do so, the Respondent did not provide its position on the claim of the Claimant.

17. Asked about his labour situation between November 2013 and the end of June 2015, the Claimant informed FIFA on 27 August 2017, that he had remained unemployed.

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 whether he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect and to begin with, the Single Judge recalled that in accordance with art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules in combination with art. 23 par. 1 and art. 22 lit. c) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players he is, in principle, competent to deal with employment-related disputes between a club or an association and a coach of an international dimension.

2. Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that, as established in art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, edition 2014, only members of FIFA, clubs, players, coaches or licensed match and players’ agents are admitted as parties in front of the relevant decision-making bodies of FIFA.

3. With the aforementioned considerations in mind, the Single Judge turned its attention to the content of the agreement concluded between the Claimant and the Respondent on 12 July 2013 and noticed that in accordance with the document in question, the Claimant had been hired as physical trainer of the Respondent.

4. In addition, the Single Judge observed that the termination letter described the Claimant as physical trainer and that the description of the latter’s duties included in the statement of Head Coach E provided by the Claimant where rather those of a physical trainer than of a coach .

5. At this point, the Single Judge deemed it appropriate to refer to the principle of burden of proof, reflected in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a certain right bears the burden of proving its entitlement to it.

6. Bearing in mind the foregoing, and considering all the documentation on file, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Claimant had been hired by the Respondent as a physical trainer and that no substantial evidence of the contrary, namely that he had been employed as an assistant coach, had been provided.

7. In view of the above-mentioned, the Single Judge referred once again to art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and art. 22 c) of the Regulations and pointed out that neither of those two provisions nor any other article in any of FIFA’s regulations included a basis to establish FIFA’s competence to hear disputes involving physical trainers.

8. In view of all the aforementioned and in particular taking into account the content of art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules in combination with art. 22 c) of the Regulations as well as bearing in mind that the Claimant had clearly been hired by the Respondent as a physical trainer, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that the claim of the Claimant had to be considered inadmissible as the latter could not be viewed as a party who is entitled to seek redress in front of the decision-making bodies of FIFA.

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

The claim of the Claimant, Physical Trainer A, is inadmissible.

*****

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:

Physical Trainer A, Country D / Club B, Country C 6/6

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