F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2016-2017) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 13 October 2016

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 13 October 2016,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member

Wouter Lambrecht (Belgium), member

on the claim presented by the player,

Player A, Country B,

as Claimant

against the club,

Club C, Country D

as Respondent

regarding an employment-related dispute

arisen between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 28 February 2014, the Player of Country B Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the Club of Country D Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of signature until 27 November 2014.

2. According to article 7.1 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a total salary of USD 234,000 net, payable in nine monthly instalments of USD 26,000 each.

3. On 8 January 2016, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent requesting “damages for the improper performance of the contract”, in the amount of USD 48,000.

4. Firstly, the Claimant declared that his real salary for season 2014 amounted to USD 300,000 and admitted that he “received the whole salary in net values”.

5. Nevertheless, the Claimant argued that, according to art. 7.1 of the contract, it was the Respondent’s obligation “to pay all the taxes needed” and stated that, by means of a letter dated 13 March 2015, he asked the Respondent to issue a declaration whereby it would be stated that “all the taxes according to the contract were paid in Country D”, however to no avail.

6. Consequently, the Claimant emphasized that the Respondent’s omission allegedly prevented him from proving in Country B “in front of the tax office that he has no tax arrears” and, therefore, he was “obliged by the tax office [in Country B] to pay income tax”.

7. Furthermore, the Claimant alleged that the income tax in Country B is 16% and, thus, concluded that he suffered damages in the amount of USD 48,000 because of the alleged “improper performance of the contract” by the Respondent.

8. The Respondent replied asking the rejection of the claim and emphasized that it strictly complied with the contract, as the Claimant confirmed that he “received the whole salary in net value”.

9. Moreover, the Respondent underlined that Country D is the “venue for the performance of the contract” and that there is no provision in the contract under which Laws of Country B should apply. In view of the above, the club considered the claim as “groundless and vexatious”.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 8 January 2016. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).

2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Player of Country B and a Club of Country D.

3. In continuation, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 8 January 2016, the 2015 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

5. First, the Chamber noted that the parties entered into an employment contract valid as from 28 February 2014 until 27 November 2014, according to which the Respondent committed to pay a salary of USD 234,000 to the Claimant.

6. In addition, the Chamber noted that the Claimant acknowledged that the Respondent complied with its obligation to pay his entire salary provided in the contract.

7. In continuation, the DRC took note that the Claimant however argued that, despite of his request, the Respondent did not provide him with a declaration that “all taxes according to the contract were paid in Country D”. Therefore he had to pay taxes in Country B and, thus, he suffered economic damages, which need to be covered by the Respondent.

8. Furthermore, the Chamber also noted that the Respondent asserted that it strictly complied with all its obligations arising out of the contract.

9. In this context, the Chamber, after having carefully examined the contract, pointed out that there is no provision whatsoever contained therein which would impose an obligation on the Respondent to provide the Claimant with a declaration that “all the taxes according to the contract were paid in Country D”.

10. In this regard, the DRC was of the opinion that if the Claimant was in need of certain documentation in order to prove that he had already paid taxes in Country D in connection with the contract, it was his responsibility to obtain such documentation which was not limited, in the Chamber’s view, to a declaration from the Respondent. Moreover, the DRC recalled that the Claimant recognised having received his whole salary net.

11. On account of the above, the Chamber considered that the Claimant’s request clearly lacks any legal or contractual basis.

12. As a consequence thereof, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting the claim of the Claimant in its entirety.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is rejected.

*****

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 Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Marco Villiger

Deputy Secretary General