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 9 December 2020
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) Judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland on 9 December 2020
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Yura Movsisyan
BY:
Daan de Jong (the Netherlands), DRC Judge
CLAIMANT:
YURA MOVSISYAN, Armenia
Represented by Artsrun K. Badalyan
RESPONDENT:
DJURGÅRDENS IF, Sweden
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1. On 25 March 2018, the Armenian player, Yura Movsisyan (hereinafter: the player or the
Claimant) was transferred on a loan basis from the American club, Real Salt Lake, to the Swedish
club, Djurgårdens IF (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent) as from the same date until 3
August 2018 (hereinafter: the loan agreement).
2. According to clause 3 of the loan agreement, the Respondent was inter alia granted an option
to extend the loan of the player until 31 December 2018. Such option was to be exercised by 15
July 2018.
3. According to clause 5.a of the loan agreement: "Except in the event of an emergency where
consultation would be impractical, the [Respondent] shall consult with MLS before subjecting
the Player to any medical treatment of a non-routine nature, and MLS shall have the right (acting
reasonably) to direct any such treatment. If the Player is unable to play or train for a continuing
period of greater then the [Respondent] shall notify MLS and the Real Salt Lake medical team
and discuss further treatment options before initiating them. The [Respondent] acknowledges
and agrees that it is the responsibility of the [Respondent’s] medical team to notify MLS and the
Real Salt Lake medical team as soon as possible following any injury and, save in the event of a
medical emergency, any surgical procedures must be approved by the respective head of the
Real Salt Lake medical team before the procedure is carried out."
4. According to clause 5.d of the loan agreement: “The [Respondent] acknowledges that it shall be
solely responsible, without contribution from MLS for the cost of any medical treatment
administered to the Player in accordance with the terms of this Loan Agreement in relation to
an injury that the Player sustains whilst performing the services for the [Respondent] during the
Loan Period. The [Respondent] shall also be responsible for any workers compensation benefits
for injuries that occur with the club during the loan period."
5. According to clause 5.e of the loan agreement: "The [Respondent] shall utilize MLS First Report
of Injury to document injuries. In addition, copies of this and all medical treatment notes will be
provided to the Real Salt Lake medical team within a reasonable time frame."
6. On the same date i.e. 25 March 2018, the parties signed an employment agreement valid as
from 24 March 2018 until 31 December 2018 (hereinafter: the employment agreement).
7. According to clause 6.3 of the employment agreement: “The [Respondent] guarantees that the
[Claimant] will receive treatment for any injuries incurred during the Contractual Term of this
agreement relating to training or matches where the [Claimant] represents [the Respondent]."
8. According to clause 7.1 of the employment agreement “[the Respondent] commits to keep the
[player] insured in accordance with the provisions established by the Swedish FA, and, where applicable, the provisions established by Svensk Elitfotboll (eng. the “Swedish Elite Football
Association”).”
9. According to clause 7.2 of the employment agreement “[i]n a Collective Bargaining Agreement,
it has been agreed by Svensk Elitfotboll (eng.the “Swedish Elite Football Association”) and
Spelarföreningen (eng. the “Player’s Association”) that each Player shall have health insurance
administered by SEB (Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken)”.
10. According to clause 7.3 of the employment agreement “[i]f the [player] wishes to add additional
insurance to the insurance in clause 7.1, it is [his] own responsibility to buy such insurance.”
11. On or about 17 May 2018, the player injured his knee during a match, following which the player
underwent medical examination. The relevant medical report, issued on 30 May 2020, reads as
follows:
“We report about your doctor’s treatment on the 29.05.2018 in our surgery.
Diagnosis:
Medial collateral ligament tear right; capsular dissociation medial meniscus right
History:
17.5.18 knee-distortion right from a duel with the football opponent.
Result:
Knee right compared to the other side: 0-5-120, nonirritated skin, little bruise, standing on one
leg is difficult/ not really possible because of pain in the right knee. Medial ligament in O and
30°++, the rest of the ligaments are stable.
MRI:
Right knee from the 22.05.2018: complete distal MCL, medial capsular rupture, rupture
meniscal-capsular ligaments medial.
Sonographie:
Compared to the other side clear distended medial ligament distal and in the dynamic
examination unstable.
Procedure:
We recommend a surgical stabilization MCL, suture meniscal-capsular-ligaments.”
12. On 31 May 2018, the player’s representative send an e-mail to the club, which read as follows:
“Yura will require surgery in either USA or Munich.
Since your club doctor gave the wrong diagnosis of the injury there is a lack of trust on Yura's
part to proceed with any treatment in Sweden.
I will do my best to have MLS insurance cover the cost of the surgery but I cannot promise this.
If it cannot be covered or MLS refuses, then of course Djurgarden will be financially responsible.
Yura will need a flight back to USA as well in order to see surgeon in LA on Monday evening.”
13. On 31 May 2018, the club answered to the cited e-mail, stating as follows (quoted verbatim):
“Hi Patrick
Thanks for your email and update regarding Yura.
For me its ok if Yura and follow our support and treatment regarding his injury, we have alla
tools for that and f ccurs we support him with that.
If he don't trust us and go his own way in munich or in La is his own decision and take responsible
for that.
Thanks for the cooperation
Best regards”.
14. On 5 June 2018, the club sent an e-mail to the MLS, stating as follows (quoted verbatim):
“Dear Gentlemen
Here come a report from Doctor Håkan Nyberg
Yura injured his right knee football match 17/5 2018. Earlier injury history we know is a partial
meniscus lateral. He was clinically assessed to have a mcl injury grade 1-1.5. MRT examination
confirms this diagnosis and our MRT shows no signs of meniscus injury, we also saw a secondary
bone marrow edema laterally. Reviewed by radiologist.
Clinical practice in Sweden is to treat mcl injuries (grade 1 and 2) conservatively, for which we
have proposed a rehabillation plan for. The injury is also discussed in consultation with MD PhD
Magnus Forssblad in the UEFA Medical Committee.
We encourage 2nd opinion but must of course treat as we think is best for him. We respect
whether Yura lacks confidence in us, rehabillitation should then be done under the consideration
of treating orthopedics.
If you need more info or contact me.
Best regards”
15. On 5 June 2018, the club sent an e-mail to the MLS, stating inter alia as follows (quoted
verbatim):
“As a reminder of your contractual obligations your Club has assumed all current and future
payments in relation to the injury the player sustained while with your club. Djurgårdens IF has
agreed to be solely responsible without contribution from MLS and Real Salt Lake for any and all
medical treatment administered to the player currently or in the future in relation to injuries
sustained during the Loan Period. This includes consultations, procedures, treatment, and
therapy as well as workman’s compensation from an injury sustained while on Loan. I suggest
you review the Loan Document accordingly and work with the player directly to reimburse him”.
16. On 13 June 2018, the player underwent surgery following advice of his personal physicians.
17. On 5 July 2018, the club sent an e-mail to the MLS informing that it would not extend the loan
agreement.
18. According to the information available in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 6 August 2018
Real Salt Lake started an instruction to re-register the player. Such instruction was duly matched
and the ITC delivered from the Swedish FA to the USSF on 7 August 2018, date on which the
player was registered again with Real Salt Lake.
19. On 4 September 2018 and 5 October 2018, the player’s representative sent e-mails to the club
requesting payment of the expenses related to the surgery.
20. On 15 October 2018 via a letter dated 15 September 2018, the club informed the player inter
alia of the following:
“The Player choose not to utilize the treatment offered to him, for which he was insured by
Djurgarden in accordance with the contract. Instead, he choose to be treated by other doctors
of his choice, incurring medical expenses.
We have not reimbursed Yura Movisyan for any medical costs, and our view is that we are not
obligated to do so since Movsisyan declined treatment in Sweden under the insurance.
However, we are prepared to agree to make a one-time payment of SEK 75,000, corresponding
to the amount
Movsisyan would have received had he remained with Djurgarden until the contract ended, to
end our relationship in an amicable way”.
21. On 23 October 2018, the player rejected the club’s offer for settlement.
22. On 28 September 2020, the player’s lawyer reached the club in order to try to settle the dispute,
failing which we would pursue legal action.
23. On 8 October 2020, the club replied to the aforementioned letter, stating as follows:
“Regarding your letter asking for reimbursement for medical expenses that the player Yura
Movsisyan (the “Player”) has incurred by his own actions, we maintain our position from earlier
correspondence that we are under no obligation to reimburse the Player. Our club has fulfilled
any contractual obligations towards the Player”.
The Player was examined and diagnosed by highly qualified medical professionals in Sweden.
The Player received a diagnosis and was given a rehab treatment plan. The Player chose to
decline to follow the rehab treatment plan. There was no error in diagnosis.
The Player chose to take it upon himself to seek treatment abroad. He did not notify the club or
seek to engage in any discussion with the club before making this decision. The club is not
responsible for these unilateral actions by the Player or the costs the Player incurred when he
proceeded to seek alternative treatment on his own. As a matter of fact, the Player has not even
informed the club of him seeking treatment in the US prior to him doing so.
Nowhere in the personal agreement or the loan agreement is it stated that the Player may
choose freely which medical treatment to use or that any and all costs related to such treatment
shall be reimbursed.
As we are certain you are aware, your statement that our earlier offer meant an acceptance of
any obligation is simply not true. Our earlier offer for a one-time payment does explicitly state
that we do not accept any obligation by making the offer. Instead, it was clear that the offer was
made to end our relationship in an amicable way. The offer was denied by your client.
We also notice that the actions in question took place more than two years ago. At this time, we
have no intention on entering any discussions as we have fulfilled our contractual obligations”.
II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
24. On 15 October 2020, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. The claim of the Claimant
25. The Claimant requested that the club be ordered to reimburse him of the expenses incurred in
connection with his injury, broken down as follows (quoted verbatim):
Date of
service/payment Event & receiver Amount Additional info
28 May 18 Flight
(Stockholm to Munich) $ 807.32
*receipt was for 7,187 SEK,
but the Player paid with
USD credit card.
28 May 18 Stay in Germany,
(Sofitel Hotels & Resorts) $ 583.45
*receipt was for 503.10
Euro, but the Player paid
with USD credit card.
29 May 18 Radiologie München
(Germany) $ 463.88
*receipt was for 400 Euro,
but the Player paid with
USD credit card.
29 May 18 Ortho Plus München
(Germany) $ 556.66
*receipt was for 480 Euro,
but the Player paid with
USD credit card.
11 June 18 Cedars-Sinai facility (USA) $ 4,557.15 (the surgery)
13 June 18 Team Makena (USA) $ 350.00 (checkup with MD)
13 June 18 Surgery Center of the
Pacific (USA) $ 4,049.00 (the surgery, facility)
13 June 18 Surgery Center of the
Pacific (USA) $ 625.00 (anesthesia for the
surgery) 14 June 18 Team Makena LLC (USA) $ 490.00 (checkup with MD)
9 June 18 Riviera travels and tours,
Inc (USA) $ 10,395.00 Flights
(Mun-LA, LA-Pol, Pol-LA)
29 June 18 Orto Med Sport (Poland) $ 8,000.00 Rehab in Poland
27 July 18 OMS Spotka rehab center
(Poland) $ 5,351.67
Rehab in Poland
*receipt was for 19,210
PLN, but the Player paid
with USD credit card.
All evidences and
receipts attached in
Document Nº 3.4.
Total $ 36,229.13
*Notice: Total amount was
calculated and was
provided to the Club in US
Dollars, because all
expenses were paid with
USD credit card, but
receipts are in different
currencies.
26. The claimant holds that the club provided him with the wrong diagnosis, hence forcing him to
seek his own treatment. The player did not file evidence in support of this position. The player
submitted as follows in this regard:
“The club medical staff and doctors did wrong diagnose and forced the Player to train again and
recover without reasonable medical intervention right after the injury, not even taking into
account that the Player could not even walk without help and supply. The Player didn't agree
with that and asked to be shown to another doctor and/or consult with MLS and his team doctor,
because he has a pain couple days. While the Club didn't reach out to MLS and Real Salt Lake
soccer club in these days as had obligation to do so accordingly to the Section Nº 5 of the loan
agreement. The Club did only MRI, which was shown later to the doctor in Germany. “
27. The claimant requested the following relief: “$36,229.13 (thirty-six thousand two hundred
twenty-nine US dollars and thirteen cents), for unpaid expenses of the Players, which had to do
for his treatment instead of the Club. In addition, I request the above with a 5% of the default
interest on arrears from the date on which the obligations became due”.
b. Position of the Respondent
28. In its reply to the claim, the club argued that the claim is time-barred by the statute of limitations
since “the contract between the parties expired by the end of August 2018”. The Respondent
further referred to the expenses incurred by the player and submitted that they also took place
more than two years before the claim was filed.
29. As to the substance, the club argued that “While the Respondent contractually agreed to
guarantee that the Claimant received medical treatment for injuries, the contractual obligation did not cover any and all costs incurred in any and all ways”. The Respondent submitted it
correctly provided the medical examination to the player under the contract.
30. In continuation, the club argued that the diagnosis provided was not wrong, and argued that “It
should be noted that there is no consensus in the medical literature on how to treat a partial
MCL injury. The Claimant, however, did not agree with the diagnosis he received and the
treatment plan he was offered. Any person is, of course, free to seek medical advice as they wish.
However, the Respondent fulfilled their contractual obligation when designating an action and
rehabilitation plan specifically worked out for the Claimant. It can also be noted that the in the
opinion the Claimant received by his American doctor both operative and non-operative
treatment were discussed, indicating that non-operative treatment was an option (see the
Progress Notes, attached by the Claimant on page 51). Different medical professionals can have
different opinions on how to best address injures. The non-operative treatment recommended
by Respondent was not an error in diagnose. It was one of the options at hand and Respondent
has successfully treated other players in a similar manner”.
31. Lastly, the club referred to the travel costs and argued that “The Claimant did not enjoy any
contractual right to business class travel and a stay at a 5-star hotel. If the DRC finds any merit
to the Claimant’s claim, at least these costs for travel shall not be reimbursed”. The club further
rejected that its settlement offer constitutes an acknowledgement of a debt.
III. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER JUDGE
a. Competence
32. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber Judge (hereinafter also referred to as Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note
that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 15 October 2020 and submitted for decision
on 9 December 2020. 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.
33. Subsequently, the Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed that in
accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. a) and b) of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (edition October 2020), he is in principle competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between an Armenian player and a Swedish club.
b. Admissibility
34. Nevertheless, the Judge acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of
FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber to deal with the present case, stating that the Claimant’s
claim is time-barred.
35. Having this in mind, the Judge stressed on the content of art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (edition October 2020) (hereinafter: Regulations), which reads as
follows:
“The Players’ Status Committee, the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the single judge or the DRC
judge (as the case may be) shall not hear any case subject to these regulations if more than two
years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute. Application of this time limit shall
be examined ex officio in each individual case”.
36. In view of the above, the Judge had to determine whether the player’s claim is time-barred. In
doing so, he deemed it important to emphasise that it stood undisputed between the parties
that the loan agreement expired in August 2018, the player returning to the USA thereafter. The
Judge further highlighted that the player made no submissions regarding the validity of the
employment agreement after his return to the USA.
37. Additionally, the Judge pointed out that the Claimant explicitly states that his alleged right to
receive the reimbursement of his medical expenses is connected to his time at the Respondent,
all of which were incurred more than two years before the claim was lodged on 15 October
2020. The Judge did not concur with the position of the player that the event giving rise to the
dispute is the club’s letter refusing to pay the medical expenses; it must be considered that such
event is in fact the expiry of the employment agreement, i.e. the legal document allegedly
entitling the player to his requested reimbursement of expenses.
38. Consequently, the Judge confirmed that because the expenses incurred by the player date more
than two years and the employment agreement undisputedly elapsed in August 2018, the
Claimant’s claim must be considered barred by the statute of limitations in accordance with art.
25 par. 5 of the Regulations.
39. In light of the above, the Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is inadmissible.
c. Costs
40. The Judge referred to article 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “DRC
proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in relation to the maintenance of
contractual stability as well as international employment related disputes between a club and a
player are free of charge”. Accordingly, he decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed
on the parties.
41. Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Judge recalled the contents of art. 18 par. 4 of
the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in these
proceedings.
IV. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER JUDGE
1. The claim of the Claimant, Yura Movsisyan, is inadmissible.
2. This decision is rendered without costs.
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