F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2019-2020) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 30 October 2019

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 October 2019,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thomspon (England), Chairman

Roy Vermeer (The Netherlands), member

Daan de Jong (The Netherlands), member

on the claim presented by the player,

Isaac Chansa, Zambia

as Claimant

against the club,

Shillong Lajong FC, India

as Respondent

regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 30 June 2014, the Indian club, Shillong Lajong FC (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent) and the Zambian player, Isaac Chansa (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 1 August 2014 until 31 May 2015.

2. In accordance with the contract, the Claimant was entitled to the total remuneration of USD 120,000 payable “in Indian Rupees as per the Dollar-Rupee conversion rate at the first of each month”.

3. In case of termination by the Claimant due to 3 outstanding salaries, the contract entitled the Claimant to the residual value of his contract “provided that he remains unemployed”. In case of termination by the Respondent due to a breach of the player, the club would not have to pay any compensation to the player.

4. At an unknown date, the Claimant was loaned by the Respondent to the Indian club, North East United FC from 1 August 2014 to 31 December 2014.

5. The Claimant held that allegedly on 8 June 2015, the General Secretary of the Football Association of Zambia had lodged a claim in front of FIFA on behalf of the Claimant requesting the total amount of USD 64,000.

6. On 21 August 2018, the Claimant lodged a claim to FIFA against the Respondent claiming the total amount of USD 60,000 as “damages for breach of contract, punitive damages and interest”.

7. In his claim, the Claimant considered that he was only paid USD 60,000 and that consequently the club owed him USD 60,000.

8. According to the Claimant, on 2 January 2015, the Respondent attempted to make him sign a mutual termination letter in which it was stated that the Claimant would be entitled to USD 10,000.

9. In reply to the claim of the Claimant, the Respondent held that following the end of the loan of the Claimant, the player’s agent and the club orally decided to terminated the contract of the Claimant against USD 10,000 compensation and the Claimant allegedly returned to Zambia.

10. According to the Respondent, it was in constant contact with the agent of the player regarding the termination of the contract and the payment of USD 10,000. The Respondent further held that according to an exchange of email between the club and the agent of the player, the player was complaining of not receiving the totality of the USD 10,000.

11. The Respondent further alleged that the Claimant started requesting USD 20,000 instead of the allegedly agreed USD 10,000. The Respondent argued that it had paid USD 10,000 to the Claimant.

12. After being requested, the player informed FIFA that he remained unemployed for the relevant period.

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 21 August 2018. Consequently, the 2018 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is 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 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition October 2019), 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 Zambian player and an Indian club.

3. Notwithstanding the above, bearing in mind the present dispute concerns amounts allegedly due under the employment contract signed by the parties on 30 June 2014 and valid as from 1 August 2014 until 31 May 2015, the members of the DRC considered that they should examine if the present claim, or any part of it, is barred by the statute of limitations.

4. Indeed 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber 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.

5. In view of the above, the DRC deemed it fundamental to underline that in order to determine whether the Chamber 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 the two years as set out under art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations.

6. In his context, the DRC took note that the claim of the Claimant was vague in terms to determination of the amounts claimed, and in this context, the Chamber established that the event giving rise to the dispute should be set during the course of the contract, i.e. between 1 August 2014 and 31 May 2015.

7. Moreover, the members of the Chamber took note of the argumentation of the Claimant according to whom he had previously lodged a claim to FIFA for the same amounts via the Zambian Federation on 8 June 2015.

8. In this respect, taking into account the content of the art. 12 par. 3 of the Rules of Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. The Chamber noted that the Claimant did not submit sufficient evidence that could help establish with certainty that a claim had been lodged to FIFA previously to 21 August 2018, i.e. the current claim.

9. In continuation, since the Chamber was of the opinion that the Claimant was not able to provide conclusive documentary evidence related to the claim allegedly lodged on 8 June 2015, the only relevant date that can be establish as date of claim is the one dated 21 August 2018. In consequence, the Chamber concluded that the date of claim in the matter at hand was 21 August 2018.

10. In this context, recalling that the present claim was submitted before FIFA on 21 August 2018, the Chamber concluded that the player’s claim for outstanding remuneration regarding the contract valid as from 1 August 2014 until 31 May 2015, had fallen due more than two years prior to the date on which the Claimant lodged his claim in front of FIFA, i.e. 21 August 2018.

11. As a consequence, referring to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC concluded that the time limit of two years for the Claimant to claim amounts allegedly due under the employment contract valid as from 1 August 2014 until 31 May 2015, had elapsed at the time he had lodged his claim in front of FIFA.

12. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the claim of the Claimant is barred by the status of limitations and, consequently, inadmissible.

*****

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

The claim of the Claimant, Isaac Chansa, is inadmissible.

*****

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 relating to the appeal procedure:

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. 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 / www.tas-cas.org

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer