F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2017-2018) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision31 August 2017

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 31 August 2017,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Theo Van Seggelen (Netherlands), member

Wouter Lambrecht (Belgium), member

Todd Durbin (USA), member

Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), 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 2 February 2014, the Player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant or the player) and the Womens Futsal Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent or the club) signed a “preliminary agreement and financial contract” valid as from 3 March 2014 until 27 May 2014 (hereinafter: the contract).

2. Pursuant to art. 3 of the contract, the Respondent committed to pay the Claimant a salary of EUR 4,000, as follows:

- EUR 2,000, “regarding the period of March 3 until March 17”, whereby EUR 1,000 “20 days before March 2014 (directly at her bank account)” and EUR 1,000 “when the player appears definitively to the club on March 3, 2014”;

- EUR 2,000, “regarding the period of May 2 to May 27, 2014”, whereby EUR 1,000 “20 days before May 2, 2014 (directly at her bank account)” and EUR 1,000 “when the player appears definitively to the club on May 2, 2014”.

3. On 4 March 2014, the Football Federation of Country D (hereinafter: Football Federation E) revoked the player’s registration with the club, based on the fact the Claimant, after having been registered with another Club of Country D, had apparently been registered with a Club of Country B in 2013, however without the issuance of an international transfer certificate (ITC).

4. On 7 May 2014, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent, by means of which she stated that the latter did not register her and requested, therefore, the payment of EUR 2,550 by 12 May 2014. In particular, the Claimant affirmed that the Respondent did not pay her salary in the amount of EUR 2,000 and, after having the Respondent allegedly agreed to pay “a private lawyer for the player”, it did not pay her lawyer’s fee in the amount of EUR 550.

5. On 19 April 2016, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent before FIFA, requesting the payment of the salary provided in the contract, in the amount of EUR 4,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due dates.

6. The Respondent replied to the claim and alleged that, prior to the signature of the contract, the Claimant, on purpose, did not disclose to the Respondent that she had played with a Club of Country B in 2013. Thus, it argued that it acted in good faith and alleged that it was not its fault that the Football Federation E eventually revoked the player’s registration. Nonetheless, the Respondent emphasised that it appealed the aforementioned Football Federation E’s decision and paid to the Claimant “the first part of the agreement”. In particular, the Respondent submitted money transfer receipts to the Claimant in the total amount of EUR 1,650 and a document whereby allegedly the Claimant acknowledged receipt of EUR 1,050 from the Respondent on 18 March 2014, confirming that such amount was paid to the her lawyer for his fees.

7. In her replica, the Claimant stated that her lawyer had been hired by the Respondent for a different matter, i.e. for collecting documents before Football Federation F and providing legal advice within the framework of the aforementioned club’s appeal in front of Football Federation E. In view of the above, the Claimant admitted that she received a payment of EUR 1,050 but affirmed that she delivered such amount to her lawyer for the payment the fees agreed between said lawyer and the Respondent. Consequently, the Claimant argued that such payment did not concern her salaries and reiterated her initial requests.

8. In its duplica, the Respondent recalled its previous arguments and affirmed that, as the player’s registration was rejected by the Football Federation E, the Claimant was not entitled to any amount. In particular, the Respondent considered that no contract was registered in accordance with Football Federation E’s regulations and, consequently, no valid agreement was concluded by the parties. Moreover, the Respondent affirmed that futsal is an amateur discipline pursuant to Football Federation E’s regulations, where the players are entitled only to a reimbursement of expenses and only once that the agreed services are provided by the players.

9. Furthermore, the club stated that, in good faith, it anticipated to the player the payment of EUR 1,500 as first part of the agreement, “that the player […] would return with the second part of the agreed repayment”.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 19 April 2016. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21, par. 2 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 - hereinafter: the Regulations), the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be 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. At this point, the members of the Chamber considered essential for the outcome of the matter at hand to acknowledge that, on 4 March 2014, the Football Federation E revoked the player’s registration and, thus, the Claimant was prevented from rendering her services as a futsal player to the Respondent during the term of the contract.

4. Equally, the members of the Chamber took note that the Claimant lodged his claim on 19 April 2016 and, on account of the foregoing, they deemed it necessary to examine if the present claim should be considered as time-barred.

5. In this context, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations which, in completion to the general procedural terms outlined in the Procedural Rules, clearly establishes that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute arose and that the application of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in each individual case.

6. In view of the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber deemed it fundamental to underline that, in order to determine whether it could hear the present matter, it should, first and foremost, establish which is “the event giving rise to the dispute”, i.e. which is the starting point of the time period of two years as set out under art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations.

7. With the above in mind, the members of the Chamber considered that, as the Football Federation E revoked the player’s registration on 4 March 2014 due to the player’s registration with a previous club without the issuance of the ITC, the Claimant had been prevented from rendering her services as a futsal player for the entire contractual period and, thus, the contract had been, de facto, terminated on 4 March 2014. Indeed, as of that date, the parties were prevented from performing their own contractual obligations. In this regard, the question of whether such termination was justified (which prima facie and considering the jurisprudence of the Chamber it would appear it was not) can be left open in view of the following considerations.

8. Consequently, bearing in mind the aforementioned, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the event giving rise to the dispute, and hereby the starting point of the time period of two years set out under art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations regarding the entire remuneration provided in the contract, occurred on 4 March 2014.

9. Therefore, the Dispute Resolution Chamber held that the time period of the two years for the entire remuneration provided in the contract elapsed on 4 March 2016.

10. As such, and recalling that the present claim was submitted to FIFA on 19 April 2016 only, the members of the Chamber concurred that the claim of the Claimant was submitted more than two years from the event giving rise to the dispute and, thus, must be considered barred by the statute of limitations in accordance with art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations.

11. Consequently, on account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC concluded that the claim of the Claimant is inadmissible.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

The claim of the Claimant, Player 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:

Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)

Avenue de Beaumont 2

CH-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:

Omar Ongaro

Football Regulatory Director

Encl: CAS directives