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 12 February 2020

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 12 February 2020,

in the following composition:

Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairman

Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member

José Luis Andrade (Portugal), member

on the claim presented by the player,

Emilio Yamín Faure, Mexico & Lebanon,

represented by Mr Luis Torres Montero and Ms Matilde Costa Dias

as Claimant

against the club,

Al Salam Zgharta Club, Lebanon

as Respondent

regarding an employment-related dispute

between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 6 July 2018, the Mexican and Lebanese player, Emilio Yamín Faure (hereinafter: the claimant) and the Lebanese club, Al Salam Zgharta Club (hereinafter: the respondent) signed an employment contract valid as from 1 June 2018 and for the season 2018/2019 for a total remuneration of, inter alia, USD 25,000 (hereinafter: the contract).

2. On the same date, the claimant and the respondent executed a “Sign-on Fee Agreement” (hereinafter: the additional agreement) by means of which the respondent undertook to pay the claimant USD 15,000.

3. The Claimant maintained that, after having signed both the contract and the additional agreement, he kept training with the Respondent without having received the amount of USD 15,000 indicated in the latter document nor the salary of June 2018. The claimant recalled that: (i) on 25 July 2018, he received USD 10,000 as partial payment of the signing-on fee; (ii) on 3 August 2018 further USD 500; (iii) on 17 August 2018 further USD 500.

4. On 19 August 2019, the claimant suffered an injury to his meniscus and subsequently underwent the related medical tests confirming the occurrence.

5. On 4 September 2019, the respondent terminated the contract. Subsequently, the claimant tried to seek support from the Lebanese Football Association (LFA) by paying “the registration of the contract” to no alleged no avail.

6. On 28 October 2018, the claimant underwent surgery in Mexico in to repair his meniscus injury.

7. On 10 December 2019, the claimant filed a claim against the respondent before FIFA holding that the respondent had terminated the contract without just cause on 4 September 2018. The claimant requested the respondent be ordered to pay him outstanding remuneration in relation to the months of June, July, and August 2018 for USD 7,500, and outstanding signing-on fee for USD 4,000, as well as compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 17,500. On top of that, the claimant asked the reimbursement of the incurred medical expenses in the amount of MXN 96,765 and MXN 55,725.74.

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 case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 10 December 2018. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2018; hereinafter:

Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and 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 in combination with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition January 2020) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with employment-related disputes with an international dimension between a player and a club.

3. In view of the above mentioned provisions, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that, in principle, and without prejudice to the right of any player or club to seek redress before a civil court for employment-related disputes, it falls under its competence to deal with international employment-related disputes between players and clubs, unless an independent arbitration tribunal has been established at national level.

4. The members of the Chamber then referred to the Introductory Provision of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and particularly to its art. 2 and art. 3, according to which some principles outlined in the Regulations are also binding at national level and each association is obliged to draw up its internal regulations. The associations are within the framework of their autonomy, free to adapt their internal rules to the necessity and the particularity of the country concerned. Therefore, the competence of FIFA is restricted to international transfers and disputes.

5. Furthermore, in the context of labour disputes, the Chamber underlined that, as a general rule, the international dimension is represented by the fact that the player concerned is not a national of the country of the association to which the relevant club is affiliated.

6. However, when both parties have the same nationality, the dispute shall be considered as national or internal, with the consequence that the rules and regulations of the association concerned shall be applied to the matter and the deciding bodies in accordance with the relevant provisions are to decide on the issue. If FIFA’s deciding body would deal with such internal matter, the internal competence of FIFA Members would be violated. These principles of delimitation between the competence of FIFA and the competence of the associations are primordial for the reciprocal recognition of the organisations and autonomy of FIFA and the member associations.

7. Having said this, the Chamber turned its attention to circumstances surrounding the double citizenship of a player. The Chamber observed that more and more players with two or more nationalities have appeared in the world of football and that FIFA and its deciding bodies are confronted with an augmented number of cases, which concern double citizenship. In this respect, the members of the Chamber emphasised that a player’s nationality is expressed by his passport(s) or identification documents, but that in the framework of plural citizenship a player could, under certain circumstances, possibly invoke a “sportive nationality”. The “sportive nationality” generally is linked to the concrete situation of the registration of a player with a club affiliated to the specific association domiciled in a country of which the player also is a national, in compliance with the rules of registration and eligibility for a club of the association concerned.

8. In such situations, both the club and the player may reap advantages of the “sportive nationality”. For example, the player being registered as a “local player” does not charge any quota of foreign players and would have no difficulty in obtaining a visa or work permit, if at all required. Furthermore, any possible restriction on the number of foreign persons in the country would not be applicable in such situation. Obviously, such circumstances are to the benefit of both the club and the player.

9. In this context, the Chamber recalled the crucial fact that the player, who holds both the Mexican and the Lebanese nationality, was registered with the club as an Lebanese player and not as a Mexican player. According to the player, such registration was made, if at all, with bad faith by the Lebanese Football Association. In this respect, the Chamber deemed that in the contract, the term “Mexican”, as referring to the claimant’s nationality, is crossed out and replaced by the handwritten word “Lebanese”. To this extent, the Chamber took particular note that the claimant did not submit such change was forged. Additionally, the DRC acknowledged that the claimant does not dispute to hold both the Mexican and the Lebanese nationalities.

10. On account of all of the above considerations, in particular of the fact that the Mexican/Lebanese player was registered as a Lebanese player with the club, the case of the player in question comes under the jurisdiction of the football association in the country concerned (i.e. Lebanon), as a result of which FIFA cannot intervene due to a lack of jurisdiction over the matter.

11. Consequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the present claim is inadmissible.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant, Emilio Yamín Faure, 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 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. 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

e-mail: info@tas-cas.org

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer