F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee / Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori – coach disputes / controversie allenatori (2020-2021) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 25 August 2020
Decision of the
Single Judge of the Players' Status Committee
Passed on 25 August 2020,
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the coach Dennis Lawrence
BY:
Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), Single Judge of the PSC
CLAIMANT:
DENNIS LAWRENCE, Trinidad and Tobago/England
Represented by Mrs. Kate Roberts
RESPONDENT:
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1. On 19 January 2019, the coach, Dennis Lawrence (hereinafter: the coach or the Claimant) and the Trinidad & Tobago Football Association (hereinafter: TTFA or the Respondent) concluded an open-end employment contract, valid as from 20 January 2019 until 19 June 2021 (hereinafter: the contract).
2. The coach was born on 1 August 1974 in the city of Port of Spain, and is a citizen of both Trinidad & Tobago and the United Kingdom. He is a former player of the Trinidadian national team, having played for such team on the 2006 FIFA World Cup Germany. He acquired the British nationality by way of naturalisation on 10 March 2010.
3. According to the contract, the coach was hired as head coach of the TTFA Men’s Senior Football Team. The contract further establishes the following financial terms payable by the TTFA to the coach:
a. a monthly salary amounting to USD 17,500 “gross before tax and statutory deductions”. The TTFA would pay the equivalent in TTD (Trinidad and Tobago Dollar) at a fixed exchange rate of TTD 6.55 to USD 1.00;
b. both parties agreed to undertake a review of the coach’s salaries and bonuses on 1 August 2019 and 1 August 2020;
c. Bonuses, detailed as follows:
i. USD 2,500 win bonus for Preliminary Round of World Cup Qualifying matches;
ii. USD 1,250 draw bonus for Preliminary Round of World Cup Qualifying matches;
iii. USD 5,000 win bonus for Final Round of World Cup Qualifying matches;
iv. USD 2,500 draw bonus for Final Round of World Cup Qualifying matches;
v. USD 1,500 win bonus for Gold Cup matches in Group Stages;
vi. USD 800 draw bonus for Gold Cup matches in Group Stages;
vii. USD 5,000 win bonus for Gold Cup matches in Group Stages;
viii. USD 7,500 win bonus for Gold Cup matches in the Semi Final;
ix. USD 25,000 win bonus for Gold Cup matches in the Final;
x. USD 2,000 win bonus for Nations League matches;
xi. USD 1,000 draw bonus for Nations League matches.
4. The contract contains the following clause regarding early termination: “If the TTFA wishes the employee to cease his duties for any reason other than what is permissible under the contract then the employer shall serve written notice to the employee and shall pay the remaining amount due under the fixed term contract to the employee’s bank account within 30 working days of the notice being served”.
5. On 25 February 2020, the coach filed the claim at hand before FIFA seeking outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract, consisting of the following:
a. Outstanding remuneration:
i. USD 87,500, corresponding to 5 salaries;
ii. USD 6,800, corresponding to match bonuses of the following matches:
iii. Trinidad & Tobago vs USA, World Cup Qualifier;
iv. Trinidad & Tobago vs Guyana, Gold Cup fixture;
v. Martinique vs Trinidad & Tobago, Nations League;
vi. Trinidad & Tobago vs Martinique, Nations League.
b. Compensation for breach of contract: USD 308,583, corresponding to the relevant contractual clause and the remaining period of the contract of 17 months and 19 days.
6. The coach argued that that the Respondent never paid his salary on time. To this end, he provided bank statements between 1 August 2019 and 31 December 2019 evidencing payments by the TTFA on 9 August 2019 and 9 October 2019. According to the coach, the payment on 9 August 2019 was for outstanding wages for March and April 2019, whereas the payment on 9 October 2019 was for May and June 2019. The coach further underlined that, between January and November 2019, he was supposed to receive 11 monthly salaries, i.e. USD 192,500, but he only received USD 105,000, hence the TTFA had 5 monthly salary in arrears.
7. The coach furthermore explained that on 24 November 2019, Mr. William Wallace was appointed President of the TTFA. Subsequently, the coach clarified that following Mr Wallace’s appointment, the Claimant was called to a meeting on 27 November 2019.
8. Pursuant to the coach, such meeting which did not run in accordance with normal procedure in relation to both the discussion and those in attendance. The coach submitted that he wrote an e-mail to Mr. Wallace to express his concerns about this meeting
9. In continuation, the coach narrated that on 14 December 2019, he had a brief phone call with Mr. Wallace, following which the contract was unilaterally terminated by the TTFA via an e-mail from Mr. Wallace dated 17 December 2019. After the termination, the coach’s agent contacted the TTFA requesting the payment due to him pursuant to the contract, to be paid within 30 working days.
10. The coach then proceeded to explain that on 24 December 2019, his agent received a response from Mr. Wallace stating that an answer “would be sent soon”.
11. On 28 December 2019, having received no settlement, the coach explained that his agent contacted Mr. Wallace again, to no avail.
12. In parallel, the coach clarified that he was in contact with another representative of the TTFA regarding a “good will” payment of one month salary, but submitted that no such payment was ever received.
13. The coach underlined that he did not receive any payments from the TTFA since 9 August 2019.
14. Lastly, the coach submitted that he hired the services of a law firm, and that Mr. Wallace wrote to him on 25 February 2020 again expressing his will to settle the matter; however, the coach argued that at this point he had lost his confidence in an amicable settlement of the dispute.
15. The Respondent, for its part, did not reply to the claim and limited itself, by correspondence dated 28 May 2020, to state as follows: “Mr. Lawrence’s services was terminated by the previous board members. We are currently seeking the reasoning for their action from those previous board members. As soon as we are provided with the reasoning, we will supply that information to you”. No further correspondence was received by FIFA from the TTFA.
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE PLAYERS’ STATUS COMMITTEE
16. 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, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 25 February 2020 and submitted for decision on 25 August 2020. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the June 2020 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
17. 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 referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition August 2020) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the claim was lodged by the Claimant in front of FIFA on 25 February 2020. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the January 2020 edition of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance.
18. Having established the applicable Procedural Rules and Regulations, the Single Judge turned his attention to the issue of his competence, a task that he shall conduct ex officio.
19. From the outset, the Single Judge observed that in accordance with art. 22 lit. c) in conjunction with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 of the Regulations, he is only competent to deal with employment-related disputes between a club or an association and a coach of an international dimension, unless an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings exists at national level.
20. In this respect, the Single Judge underlined that the wording of the article 22 lit. c) of the Regulations clearly establishes that the first condition which needs to be compulsorily fulfilled in order for the FIFA judicial bodies to be competent to hear an employment-related dispute between an association and a coach is that said dispute has an international dimension. The Single Judge emphasized, in other words, that this means that FIFA is only competent to hear an employment-related dispute between an association and a coach when the parties have different nationalities, without which the international element of the dispute is not fulfilled. To this end, the Single Judge recalled that the jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee, as well as the Dispute Resolution Chamber confirms that in cases where a party has dual citizenship, and the party who alleged that an international dimension do exist however fail to submit any conclusive evidence and factors in support of the citizenship it is relying on, the case will lack international dimension.
21. Consequently, the Single Judge was firm to determine that in case the parties share a common nationality, the relevant dispute has to be considered a purely internal (national) matter to be decided by the competent authorities in the respective country, save in the event the party relying on the international dimension submitting conclusive and substantial evidence to prove the contrary.
22. Having established the foregoing, the Single Judge recalled the basic principle of 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. Likewise, he stressed the wording of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may consider evidence not filed by the parties.
23. The Single Judge turned then to the submissions of the parties as well as the evidence on file, and observed that the Claimant admits to be a citizen of both Trinidad & Tobago and the United Kingdom, and that the Respondent is the association affiliated to FIFA governing the sport of football in Trinidad & Tobago. The Single Judge, in particular, underlined that from the documentation at his disposal, it was undisputed that that the coach was born in Trinidad & Tobago and that he acquired the British nationality at a later state. Moreover, the Single Judge noted that the coach was part and played official matches for the national team of Trinidad & Tobago. The coach failed to submit any evidence contrary to the fact that he was brought up and lived in Trinidad & Tobago all of his life. Lastly, the Single Judge noted that the coach failed to provide any evidence of his closer ties to the United Kingdom other than his certificate of naturalisation and his updated passport.
24. In view of the foregoing, Single Judge determined that the Claimant, who carried the burden of the proof in line with aforementioned art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, failed to demonstrate that he was hired as a British citizen; circumstance which may have led to the Single Judge being competent to hear the present dispute in that it would have established the international dimension. Accordingly, the Single Judge determined that the coach was both hired and rendered his services as a Trinidadian citizen, and that hence the Claimant’s claim is inadmissible.
25. 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.
26. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the Claimant’s claim is inadmissible. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant shall bear the entirety of costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA.
27. The Single Judge further observed the temporary amendments outlined in art. 18 par. 2 lit. ii) of the Procedural Rules, which entered in force in 10 June 2020, according to which the maximum amount of procedural costs levied for any claim lodged prior to 10 June 2020, which was yet to be decided at the time of such temporary amendment, shall be equivalent to any advance of costs paid.
28. Accordingly, the Single Judge observed that the Claimant paid the amount of CHF 5,000 as advance of costs, and therefore decided that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000.
29. Consequently, the Single Judge determined that the Claimant shall pay the amount of CHF 5,000 in order to cover the costs of the present proceedings.
30. Subsequently, the Single Judge reverted to art. 17 par. 5 in combination with art. 18 of the Procedural Rules, and observed that the advance of costs paid by a party shall be duly considered in the decision regarding costs. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the amount of the procedural costs, as decided herein, shall be offset against the amount paid by the Claimant as advance of costs.
III. DECISION OF THE PLAYERS' STATUS COMMITTEE
1. The claim of the Claimant, DENNIS LAWRENCE, is inadmissible.
2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 5,000 are to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA (cf. note relating to the payment of the procedural costs below). Such amount is offset against the payment of the advance of costs made by the Claimant.
For the Players' Status Committee:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
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) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, 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 Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777