F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2020-2021) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 18 February 2021

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed on 18 February 2021

regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Alex Luis da Costa Ruela

COMPOSITION:

Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairman

Stijn Boeykens (Belgium), member

Elvis Chetty (Seychelles), member

CLAIMANT:

Alex Luis da Costa Ruela, Brazil

RESPONDENT:

Sisaket FC, Thailand

I. Facts

1. On 3 January 2020, the parties concluded an employment contract (the first contract) valid until 31 October 2020.

2. The first contract stipulated the following economic conditions:

“2.1 Employer shall, on the day this Contract is signed, pay Employee a lump-sum remuneration in the amount of 220,000.-Baht.net which the Employee will only get once throughout contractual period.

2.2 Employer shall pay a monthly salary to Employee in the amount of 220,000 Baht.net per month starting from the 3 of January 2020 onwards. The aforesaid salary shall be paid to Employee by the 5 day of each and every month until this Contract expires.”

3. The first contract had the following signature box:

4. According to the player, on 1 August 2020, the parties concluded a new contract (the second contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2020.

5. The second contract stipulated the following economic conditions, payable by the 5th day of each month:

2. Salary or remuneration for football-team Employee and term of payment thereof.

“2.1 Employer shall pay a monthly salary to Employee in the amount of 176,000 Baht.net per month starting from the 1 of August 2020 onwards. The aforesaid salary shall be paid to Employee by the 5 day of each and every month until this Contract expires.”

6. The second contract included the following signature box:

7. On 7 March 2020, the Football Association of Thailand halted the competitions in view of the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

8. According to the player, the club proposed him to sign a memorandum to cancel the employment contract.

9. On 31 March, the club concluded a memorandum with the player with the following conditions:

“2. Employee and Employer are fully aware of the official announcement issued by the Football Association of Thailand under Patronage of His Majesty the King where all domestic football competitions are to be postponed starting from March 7,2020 onwards due to the outbreak of COVIDD•19 in Thailand; and the nationwide state of emergency declared by Thai Government in an effort to manage and control the pandemic - both of which have direct impact that puts the Employer in the situation where football competitions cannot be held as originally scheduled.

3. Both Employee and Employer agree and consent to the modification of Football Player Employment Contract for year 2020 on the terms and conditions related to Employee's salary as follows:

3.1 Employee consents to having his salary for March 2020 reduced by 20% (as shown in the Bangkok Bank, Sisaket branch Deposit slip dated April 7, 2020).

3.2 Employee consents to the 100% reduction on his salary for April and May 2020 or until the practice and training for the 2020 Thai League 2 competition start again whereby payment for Employee's salary will resume at original rate. 4. Employee voluntarily agrees and consents to the reduction of his salary in the manner described in No. 3 of this Memorandum as a gesture in helping the Employer going through COVID-19 pandemic which is an extraordinary crisis that affects public health worldwide. Employee also consents to having this Memorandum as part of the Football Player Employment Contract.”

10. The aforementioned memorandum included the following signature box:

11. The Thai league 2 resumed on 12 September 2020.

12. On 12 October 2020, the player lodged a claim before FIFA for outstanding remuneration, and requested the payment of the total amount THB 880,000, corresponding to five monthly salaries, from April to September 2020.

13. In its reply to the claim, the club acknowledged the validity of the first contract, but not the validity of the second contract. Thus, the club insisted that the validity of the employment relationship was until 31 October 2020.

14. Moreover, the club explained that it held a meeting with all of its players, including the claimant, to discuss about their salaries.

15. In this respect, the club argued that “a mutually acceptable conclusion was reached between Sisaket FC and all players including Mr. Alex Luis da Costa Ruela, whereby:

(i) Salary for March 2020 would be reduced by 20%.

(ii) Salary for April and May 2020 would be 100% reduced.

(iii) Each player would start getting full salary when normal training for competitions resumed.”

16. In addition, the club explained that the player did not return to Thailand after the Thai league resumed.

17. In his replica, the player explained that the club tried to “force him” to sign a memorandum to terminate the contract, but that ultimately he signed a memorandum on 31 March 2020, which included a promise to sign a new contract.

18. The player therefore expressed a request to be paid the total amount of THB 880,000, corresponding to 5 monthly salaries of THB 176,000, from August 2020 to December 2020, according to the contract that was “promised” to the player.

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. 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.

2. Subsequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and emphasised 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, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with matters which concern employment-related disputes with an international dimension between players and clubs, such as the present one, which involves a Brazilian player and a Thai club.

3. In continuation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations of the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable to the present matter. In this respect, the Dispute Resolution Chamber confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and considering that the date when the claim was lodged, the June 2020 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand.

4. With the above having been established, the Dispute Resolution Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, it started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. However, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasized that in the following considerations it will refer only to facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

5. In this respect, the Chamber first noted that, on 3 January 2020, the parties concluded an employment contract (the first contract) valid until 31 October 2020.

6. Subsequently, the Chamber noted that, according to the player, on 1 August 2020, the parties concluded a new contract (the second contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2020, for a monthly salary of THB 220,000.

7. However, in relation to said second contract, the Chamber noted that it appears to be unsigned between the parties (cf. point I. 6 above). As a result, the Chamber established that, due to the lack of a valid signature from both parties, it could not consider said document as a valid and binding contract.

8. Subsequently, the Chamber noted that the player lodged a claim against the club for outstanding remuneration.

9. The foregoing been said, the Chamber noted that, in his replica (cf. point I. 18 above), the player specified that his request is to be paid the total outstanding amount of THB 880,000, corresponding to 5 monthly salaries of THB 176,000, from August 2020 to December 2020.

10. Yet, at this stage, the Chamber observed that the contract between the parties expired on 31 October 2020. Thus, the player would only be able to claim salaries until said date.

11. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that, for its part, did not address this specific issue concerning the outstanding salaries, noting “the player did not return to Thailand” after the league resumed on 12 September 2020.

12. However, on this point, the Chamber observed that, in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda, that the player was entitled to THB 220,000 per month until the expiration of the contract on 31 October 2020, and that the club did not provide a valid reason to not pay said salary.

13. In view of the above, and after observing the documentation gathered during the course of the investigation, the Chamber reached the conclusion that the following amounts appear to be outstanding:

- THB 134,838 (pro rata September 2020)

- THB 220,000 (October 2020)

14. In view of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent shall pay to the Claimant, the total amount of THB 354,838 net as outstanding remuneration and as detailed above.

15. Furthermore, taking into account the previous considerations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.

16. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.

17. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that, in the event that the Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

18. Finally, the Dispute Resolution Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant, Alex Luis da Costa Ruela, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, Sisaket FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the amount of THB 354,838 net as outstanding remuneration.

3. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.

4. The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.

5. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with this decision to psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).

6. In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the Respondent within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:

1.

The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods. The aforementioned ban mentioned will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.

(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

2.

In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

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