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 24 March 2021

Decision of the DRC Judge
passed on 24 March 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Luiz Jorge Matheus
COMPOSITION:
Daan de Jong (Netherlands), DRC Judge
CLAIMANT:
Luiz Jorge Matheus, Brazil
RESPONDENT:
Shabab Al Ahli Dubai FC, United Arab Emirates
I. Facts
1. According to the player, on 1 October 2017, he club concluded an employment contract valid as until 30 May 2018, i.e. 8 Months.
2. According to clause 3 of the contract, the player was allegedly entitled to a monthly salary of USD 3,500.
3. The signature part of the contract as provided by the player is as follows:
4. On 17 February 2020, the player sent a default letter to the club, requesting the payment of the amount of USD 28,000, granting a “maximum of 10 days” to remedy the default.
5. On 2 February 2020, the player lodged a claim for outstanding remuneration only, requesting the payment of the total amount of USD 28,000, and corresponding to the entire value of the contract (i.e. 3,500*8), plus “05% p.a.” interest.
6. In its reply, and should the matter not be considered as time-barred, the club argued the following:
“- The Player was not a professional Player and had no valid contract signed with the Club
b- The Player played with the Club for approx. 2 months and did not have a professional futsal player status nor a contract”
7. In this respect, the club requested the payment of the “club’s lawyers’ fees that are estimated at 5000 USD”.
8. The club denied having any signed contract with the player, and explained that “negotiations might have taken place to sign a contract, but no contract was concluded.”
9. The club admitted however that it registered the player as an amateur in the Futsal League of the UAE.
10. The club further attached a document dated 20 December 2017 with the following contents:
“Shabab Al Ahli Club would like to send you its regards and wishes you all the very best and thanking you for the support you always present to the Club.
In reference to the above mentioned subject, please note that the Futsal Team would like to terminate its relationship with the Futsal Player Mathieus Luiz George the Futsal Player.
Therefore we would wish you take the appropriate steps towards issuing a repatriation ticket and pay him any dues in lieu of his participation with the Club.”
II. Considerations of the DRC Judge
1. First of all, the DRC Judge (hereinafter also referred to as Judge or DRC Judge) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the January 2021 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 DRC Judge 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 DRC Judge is competent to deal with matters which concern employment-related disputes with an international dimension between players and clubs.
3. However, the DRC Judge referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations of the Status and Transfer of Players, according to which “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.”
4. In relation to the aforementioned consideration, the Judge noted that the present dispute was lodged on the basis of an alleged contract concluded on 1 October 2017 and potentially valid until 30 May 2018, whereas the claim of the player was lodged on 2 February 2020. Therefore, in application of art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Judge established that, in any case, his competence would only concern events occurred until 2 February 2018, i.e. two years before the date of the claim before FIFA. Therefore, in view of the applicable statute of limitations, the Judge determined that the claim of the claimant is only partially admissible.
5. In continuation, the DRC Judge analysed which edition of the Regulations of the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable to the present matter. In this respect, the DRC Judge confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and considering the date when the claim was lodged, the January 2020 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand.
6. With the above having been established, the DRC Judge 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 DRC Judge 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.
7. In this respect, the Judge observed that the player lodged a claim before FIFA, alleging that he signed a contract valid until May 2018.
8. Conversely, the Judge took note of the Respondent’s position, according to which “negotiations might have taken place to sign a contract, but no contract was concluded.”
9. In view of the above, the Judge understood that the legal issue at stake is to determine whether a valid contract was signed between the parties.
10. Having duly taken note of the documentation gathered during the course of the investigation, the Judge held that in order for him to be able to assume that the Claimant and the Respondent had indeed been bound through a contractual relationship with the terms as described by the Claimant, he had to be established, beyond doubt, by documentary evidence, that the said parties had indeed entered into a respective labour agreement, and, if so, under which terms. In general, the Judge held that he could not assume that an employment contract had been concluded by and between parties simply based on circumstances which may be likely but are not certain to indicate the signing of a contract. In this particular case, the Judge noted that the Claimant did not present a contract that was signed by both parties (cf. point I. 3 above).
11. In addition, the Judge agreed that the Dispute Resolution Chamber must be very careful with accepting documents, other than the employment contract, as evidence for the conclusion of a contract
12. As a consequence, the Judge decided that, since the Claimant had not been able to prove beyond doubt that an employment contract had validly been concluded between himself and the Respondent, there was no possibility for the Chamber to enter into any further question.
13. All the above led the Judge to conclude that the claim of the Claimant has to be rejected, due to its lack of contractual basis.
III. Decision of the DRC Judge
1. The claim of the Claimant, Luiz Jorge Matheus, is rejected insofar it is admissible.
2. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the DRC Judge:
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
DirittoCalcistico.it è il portale giuridico - normativo di riferimento per il diritto sportivo. E' diretto alla società, al calciatore, all'agente (procuratore), all'allenatore e contiene norme, regolamenti, decisioni, sentenze e una banca dati di giurisprudenza di giustizia sportiva. Contiene informazioni inerenti norme, decisioni, regolamenti, sentenze, ricorsi. - Copyright © 2024 Dirittocalcistico.it