F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee / Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori – coach disputes / controversie allenatori (2019-2020) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 11 February 2020

Decision of the Single Judge

of the Players’ Status Committee

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 11 February 2020,

by

José Luis Andrade (Portugal)

Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee,

on the claim presented by the coach

Florin Motric, Romania,

represented by Ms. Rosalía Ortega Pradillo

as “Claimant”

against the club

Dhofar Club, Oman,

represented by Mr. Nasr El Din Azzam

as “Respondent”

regarding an employment related dispute between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 1 July 2017, the coach, Florin Motric (hereinafter: the Claimant or the coach) and the club, Dhofar Club (hereinafter: the Respondent or the club) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2018.

2. Pursuant to clause 2 of the contract, the coach was entitled to receive a total remuneration of USD 100,000, payable as follows:

a) USD 30,000 as a signing-on fee;

b) A monthly salary of USD 7,000, payable as “from August 2017 till the end of May 2018”.

3. Until December 2017, the Claimant confirmed having received from the Respondent the signing-on fee in the amount of USD 30,000 and the amount of USD 28,000, corresponding to the monthly salaries for August, September, October and November 2017.

4. On 5 December 2017, the Claimant and the Respondent signed a termination agreement.

5. In accordance with clause 2 of the termination agreement, it was agreed that the coach would be entitled to receive the total salary of USD 21,000, payable on 5 January 2018. In addition, the parties agreed that, in the event of non-payment of the amount of USD 21,000 on 5 January 2018, “[the coach] dues will be the remaining amount of his terminated contract”.

6. According to the Claimant, he did not receive the amount agreed in the termination agreement, i.e. USD 21,000. Consequently, in accordance with the content of clause 2 of the termination agreement, he was entitled to receive the remaining value of the contract.

7. On 2 October 2018, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment for USD 48,000 setting a 15 days’ time limit in order to remedy the default.

8. On 29 October 2018, the Claimant sent a reminder of the previous letter to the Respondent providing it with a final deadline of 15 days to remedy the situation.

9. On 13 December 2018, the Claimant sent a last default letter to the Respondent requesting the payment of USD 48,000 within the following 15 days.

10. In this context, on 25 April 2019, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent before FIFA requesting the payment of the total amount of USD 48,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due dates, as follows:

a) USD 42,000 corresponding to the remaining value of the contract, i.e. salaries from December 2017 until 31 May 2018;

b) USD 6,000 corresponding to “unpaid salaries of the coach assistant and fitness trainer”.

11. In his claim, the Claimant further explained that he “never collected the outstanding salaries because there were insufficient funds in the bank account” of the Respondent. In this respect, the Claimant presented a copy of a check issued by the Respondent, which according to the Claimant, was not accepted by the bank.

12. For its part, the Respondent stated that the Claimant received “his dues on 1-3-2018 and signed an adoption of that in the same date”. In support of its allegations, the Respondent provided a copy of the “Adoption”, by means of which the Claimant inter alia allegedly confirmed having received his salaries.

13. In its replica, the Claimant held that the “Adoption” presented by the Respondent was forged.

14. In this context, in view of the above, and in order to verify the authenticity of the “Adoption” allegedly signed by the Claimant, FIFA requested the Respondent to provide the original version. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not submit the original of said document.

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

1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter: 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 25 April 2019. Consequently, the 2018 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand.

2. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 and par. 4 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. c of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2020) he is competent to deal with the present matter, which concerns an employment-related dispute between an Romanian coach and a Omani club.

3. Furthermore, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and considering that the present claim was lodged on 25 April 2019, the June 2018 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

4. The competence of the Single Judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Single Judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on 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. Having said this, the Single Judge acknowledged that on 1 July 2017, the coach and the club entered into a contract valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2018, which entitled the coach to receive a signing-on fee in the amount of USD 30,000 and a monthly salary of USD 7,000 payable as from August 2017 until 31 May 2018, i.e. ten monthly salaries of USD 7,000.

6. Furthermore, the Single Judge duly noted that the on 5 December 2017, the coach and the club concluded a termination agreement, by means of which the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the total amount of USD 21,000 at the latest on 5 January 2018.

7. In this context, the Single Judge took note that the termination agreement further stipulated that, in the event of default of the amount USD 21,000, the Claimant would be entitled to receive the remaining value of the contract.

8. Furthermore, the Single Judge observed that the Claimant put the Respondent in default on 5 October, 29 October and 13 December 2018, requesting the amount of USD 48,000 and granting a 15 days’ deadline to remedy the situation.

9. The Single Judge further acknowledged that, on 25 April 2019, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, maintaining that the Respondent has outstanding remuneration towards him in the total amount of USD 42,000, corresponding to the monthly salaries as from December 2017 until 31 May 2018. Moreover, the coach requested the amount of USD 6,000, corresponding to the monies allegedly owed to his assistant coaches.

10. The Single Judge further observed that the Claimant asked to be awarded 5% interest p.a. as from the due dates until the date of effective payment.

11. The Single Judge equally took due note of the fact that the Respondent, for its part, denied the Claimant’s arguments and sustained that the parties had signed an “Adoption” in which the Claimant confirmed having received his outstanding salaries on 1 March 2018.

12. In continuation, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant, for his part, denied having signed the “Adoption” at hand and stressed that the Respondent forged his signature. Consequently, the Claimant contested the authenticity of the document.

13. Having considered all the argumentation put forward by the parties, the Single Judge deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant and the arguments of the Respondent, was first to determine as to whether the “Adoption” had been entered into by and between the parties. The single Judge observed that whereas the Respondent held that such “Adoption” had indeed been signed by the coach, the Claimant vehemently deny that any such “Adoption” was concluded and alleged that the signature on the document remitted by the Respondent was forged.

14. At this stage, the Single Judge considered it appropriate to remark that, as a general rule, FIFA's deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the ones of alleged falsified signature or document, and that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority.

15. In continuation, the Single Judge recalled that, according to art. 12 par. 6 of the Procedural Rules, all documentation remitted shall be considered with free discretion and, therefore, the Chamber focused its attention on the “Adoption” provided by the Respondent in the context of the present dispute. In this regard, the Single Judge was eager to underline that the Respondent was unable to provide the original version of the document signed by the hand of the parties involved.

16. In this context, the members of the Single Judge firstly referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. The application of said principle in the present matter led the Single Judge to conclude that it was up to the Respondent to prove the existence of the “Adoption”.

17. On account of the these considerations, the Single Judge held that the fact that the Respondent had only submitted a copy of the disputed document was insufficient to take into consideration its content and to establish that the Respondent had fulfilled all its financial obligations towards the Claimant.

18. In light of the foregoing, and in absence of any other evidence, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Respondent had failed to satisfactorily carry the burden of proof regarding its alleged payment of the outstanding amounts.

19. Consequently, the Single Judge decided to reject the argumentation put forward by the Respondent in its defence.

20. On account of the aforementioned considerations, and in accordance with clause 2 of the termination agreement and the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Single Judge established that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s remuneration in the total amount of USD 42,000 corresponding to outstanding salaries, i.e. December 2017, January, February, March, April and May 2018.

21. Furthermore, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim, and following the constant practice of the Players’ Status Committee, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 42,000 as of the day following the day on which the relevant payment fell due, i.e. 6 January 2018 until the date of effective payment.

22. With regard to the Claimant’s request to receive USD 6,000 corresponding to “unpaid salaries of the coach assistant and fitness trainer”, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant is not entitled to receive the monies allegedly owed to his assistant coaches.

23. Moreover, the Single Judge decided that any further request filed by the Claimant is rejected.

24. 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 proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee including its Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied and according to which 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.

25. In respect of the above and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been partially accepted, the Single Judge concluded that the both parties had to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 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 was EUR 42,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000.

26. As a conclusion, in view of the circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings amounting to CHF 5,000. Consequently, considering that the claim had been partially accepted, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of CHF 1,000 had to be paid by the Claimant and the amount of CHF 4,000 by the Respondent in order to cover the costs of the present proceedings.

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

1. The claim of the Claimant, Florin Motric, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, Dhofar Club, has to pay to the Claimant within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 42,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 January 2018 until the date of effective payment.

3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant, is rejected.

5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 5,000 are to be paid as follows:

5.1 The amount of CHF 4,000 has to be paid by the Respondent to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. 19-00668/akl:

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

5.2 The amount of CHF 1,000 has to be paid by the Claimant directly to FIFA. Considering that the latter already paid an advance of costs in the amount of CHF 1,000 at the start of the proceedings, the Claimant is exempted from paying the aforementioned costs.

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

*****

Note related to the publication:

The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 20 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).

Note related to the appeal procedure:

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. 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

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer