DECISIONI DI GIUSTIZIA SPORTIVA • F.I.F.A. - CAMERA DI RISOLUZIONE DELLE CONTROVERSIE - CONTROVERSIE DI LAVORO

• Data decisione: 3 luglio 2020 • Stagione sportiva: 2020/2021

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 3 July 2020

Decision of the

DRC Judge

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 3 July 2020,

regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Mihailo Ristic

BY:

Philippe Diallo (France), DRC Judge

CLAIMANT:

Mihailo Ristic, Serbia

Represented by Mr Mico Petkovic

RESPONDENT:

AC Sparta Praha, Czech Republic

I. FACTS OF THE CASE

1. On 1 February 2018, the Serbian player Mihailo Ristic (hereinafter: player or Claimant) and the Czech club, AC Slavia Praha (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as of 1 February 2018 until 31 December 2018, since the player was loaned to the Respondent from the Russian club, FC Krasnodar.

2. According to Annex I, enclosed to the contract, the club undertook to pay the player a basic monthly remuneration of EUR 27,182.

3. Furthermore, contract in its art. 2 stipulated: “The club undertakes to pay to the Player the following Fix Bonus:

a. Fix Bonus in the amount of 65.000 € […] due and payable on 1 July 2018;

b. Fix Bonus in the amount of 65.000 € […] due and payable on 31 October 2019.

The condition for the fix bonus according to this stipulation to become payable is that the Player is a player of AC Sparta as of the instalment maturity date, i.e. the Player is not on loan in a third club nor has been transferred to a third club and this Contract is valid and effective.”

4. On 27 February 2020, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent, requesting payment of EUR 65,000 by no later than 9 March 2020.

5. On 20 March 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 65,000, corresponding to the “fix bonus” allegedly due on 31 October 2018 as well as interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 November 2018.

6. In his arguments, the Claimant held the Respondent remitted all the player’s salaries apart from the second “fix bonus” due on 31 October 2018.

7. In this respect, the player maintained that there is a typo in the contract regarding the due date of said instalment and that the parties meant 31 October 2018 instead of 2019. In this regard, the player argued that it was an obvious typo, taking into account the duration of the contract. Furthermore, he submitted a letter of the Respondent, dated 1 February 2018, whereby a calculation of his salaries was presented to him including “2x 65,000 (June/November)”.

8. In its reply, the Respondent rejected the claim and maintained that according to the last paragraph of art. 2 of the contract (cf. point I.3. above) the player had to be with the club on 31 October 2019, which was not the case and therefore the condition stipulated in the aforementioned paragraph has not been fulfilled.

9. On account of the above, the Respondent sustained that the claimed bonus has never become payable and thus there is no legal obligation for the club to pay it.

10. Moreover, the Respondent pointed out that the loan agreement concluded by the Respondent, FC Krasnodar and the Claimant had a purchase option in favour of the Respondent. Such option has not been exercised, but if so the clause regarding the bonus in question could have been relevant.

11. On account of the above, the Respondent argued that there was no obligation to pay the bonus claimed by the player.

II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DRC JUDGE

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber judge (hereinafter also referred as DRC judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 20 March 2020. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the November 2019 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, DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition January 2020), he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Serbian player and a Czech club.

3. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (edition June 2020), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 20 March 2020, the March 2020 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

4. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

5. First of all, the DRC judge recalled that, on 1 February 2018, the parties concluded an employment contract valid as of 1 February 2018 until 31 December 2018. The DRC judge further noted that the parties agreed on “fix bonus” payments in the amount of EUR 65,000 on 1 July 2018 as well as on 31 October 2019 under a specific condition defined in the contract.

6. In continuation, the DRC judge took notice of the player’s Claim, maintaining being entitled to the second “fix bonus” payment due on 31 October 2019 in the amount of EUR 65,000 as well as interest. In this regard, the Claimant argued that there was a typo in the contract and that said payment was supposed to fall due on 31 October 2018 and not 2019, as wrongly stipulated in the contract.

7. The Respondent, for its part, rejected the Claimant’s claim and maintained that said bonus was not payable since the player was no longer a player of the club, which was the condition defined in the contract.

8. Furthermore, the Respondent held that the loan agreement concluded with Krasnodar contained an option to permanently transfer the player after the loan, which explains the reasoning behind inserting the clause in the contract.

9. With the above in mind, the Chamber proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the present matter, the parties’ arguments as well the documentation on file, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof.

10. Subsequently, the DRC acknowledged that the central issue in the matter at stake was the interpretation of the clause regarding the bonus and to determine if such bonus was indeed payable or not.

12. In doing so, the DRC judge recalled the content of art. 2 of the contract, which reads as follows:: “The club undertakes to pay to the Player the following Fix Bonus:

a. Fix Bonus in the amount of 65.000 € […] due and payable on 1 July 2018;

b. Fix Bonus in the amount of 65.000 € […] due and payable on 31 October 2019.

11. Considering all the above, the DRC judge considered that the contract stipulates a clear due date for the bonus in question, i.e. 31 October 2019. Furthermore, the clause specifies that the amount is due upon the condition that the player is a member of the club at the time of the maturity date and that he is not loaned or transferred to a third club.

12. Taking into account the above, the DRC judge noted that the contract effectively came to an end on 31 December 2018 as it was not extended. Therefore, the DRC judge concluded that the bonus payable on 31 October 2019 was not due.

13. Recalling art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the DRC judge wished to point out that the burden of proof that the date indicated in the contract was a typo lies with the player. In this regard, the DRC judge deemed that the player did not provide sufficient proof that it was indeed a typo.

14. On account of the above, the DRC judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting the claim of the Claimant.

III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER

The claim of the Claimant, Mihailo Ristic, is rejected.

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