F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2012-2013) – controversie allenatori – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2012-2013) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 August 2012, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the assistant coach Coach J, from country K as “Claimant / Counter-Respondent” against the club Club A, from country B as “Respondent / Counter-Claimant” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties.

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2012-2013) – controversie allenatori – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2012-2013) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 August 2012, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the assistant coach Coach J, from country K as “Claimant / Counter-Respondent” against the club Club A, from country B as “Respondent / Counter-Claimant” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 July 2009, coach J from country K (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter- Respondent or simply: the Claimant) and club A Sports & Cultural Club of country B (hereinafter: the Respondent / Counter-Claimant or simply: the Respondent) concluded an employment agreement (hereinafter: the agreement), valid from the date of its signature until 31 May 2010. 2. According to the agreement, the Claimant was “working as full time as (Assistant football coach) in the club for (8,000 USD)”. Furthermore, the Respondent had to “bear the costs of an economy class air ticket” for the Claimant as well as for “his wife and two of child” and to pay bonuses “as per club rules”. Besides, art. 10 of the agreement provided that “in case termination of the agreement by the first party [i.e. the Respondent] for any reason before expiration the second party [i.e. the Claimant] will be paid his salaries for the remaining period of the agreement and case the second party desired to terminate the contract he has to pay to the first party 30,000 USD (..)” (hereinafter: the penalty clause). 3. On 20 January 2010, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent requesting from the latter the payment of the followings amounts, plus 5% interest “per year counting from its respective maturity date”: - USD 17,333, corresponding to his salary of October and November 2009 (i.e. USD 16,000) “and more 5 days (1/6) of the remuneration of December [2009]” (i.e. USD 1,333); - USD 46,666 corresponding to the remuneration “of 26 days of December (5/6) and more 5 (five) months, from January to May 2010” - bonuses amounting to USD 6,000; - air tickets in the amount of USD 4,716. In addition, the Claimant requested the payment of “the costs related to this proceeding, including legal fees” and requested “FIFA competent body” to analyse ”the application of a disciplinary measure.“ 4. In this respect and first of all, the Claimant explained having been dismissed by the club, together with the assistant coach E (hereinafter: assistant coach E), “in the beginning of December 2009 (..) without just cause (..) and without any explanation (..)”. Furthermore, the Claimant, pointed out that, notwithstanding the above, the Respondent had “obliged” him and assistant coach E “to work in a match occurred on December 5th, 2009” in order to receive their “late salaries (October and November)” which, eventually, were never paid. Therefore and considering that he had been working “regularly” for the Respondent until 5 December 2009, the Claimant was of the opinion that his salary was due until that date. In this context and as proof of his allegations, the Claimant provided FIFA with three letters dated 11, 15 and 24 December 2009 respectively, allegedly sent to the Respondent by his legal representative. According to the relevant correspondence, the agreement was terminated by the Respondent on 3 December 2009. 5. In continuation, the Claimant argued that, in accordance with the penalty clause and since he had been dismissed without just cause, the Respondent had to additionally pay him USD 46,666 as compensation, i.e. his salary until the end of the agreement, corresponding to “26 days of December (5/6) and more 5 (five) months, from January to May 2010.” Besides, the Claimant considered that the Respondent had to pay him USD 6,000 as bonuses, taking into account that the latter had “regularly paid bonuses to its other employees”. 6. Finally, the Claimant complained that the Respondent had never provided him with the flight tickets that were due in accordance with the agreement. Hence, the Claimant also requested from the Respondent the payment of the amount of USD 4,716, allegedly corresponding to the price of “the flight reservation” made by assistant coach E for his “family in November 11, 2009”. In this regard and as proof of his allegation, the Claimant provided FIFA with a flight schedule for assistant coach E’s wife and children for the total amount of currency of country K (KKK) 8322.84 and specified that, considering the similarity of his and assistant coach E’s situation, it made sense to establish the same amount with regard to the costs of their “air ticket.” 7. In its response, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim in its entirety and lodged a counterclaim against the latter. 8. In this respect and in its first submission to FIFA on 25 February 2010, the Respondent acknowledged having concluded the agreement with the Claimant and explained that the latter had been hired “to assist the head coach [hereinafter: the head coach] who has terminated his contract by mutual agreement (..) on 24 October 2009 (..)”. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that “We have talked with Mr XY [i.e. the Claimant] in regards to the termination of his contract amicably, but he refused and still resuming his work until our match against the second team FC H from country B on 5 December 2009”. Besides, the Respondent alleged that, on 15 December 2009, the Claimant had “departed the country back home without notifying us and without any compliance with the terms of contract that was signed with him (..).” 9. In continuation and by means of a subsequent correspondence dated 29 August 2010, the Respondent added that, following the termination of the head coach’s contract, the Claimant “was asked by the Club management to have his contract terminated cordially” but “refused and continued his work until (..) 5/12/2009.” Moreover, the Respondent insisted that the Claimant had left the country “without prior permission” on 15 December 2009 and held that the latter had “a valid residence permit a matter indicates that his contract has not been terminated. This is the rules in country B when cancelling contract of foreign coach.” 10. Finally, on 26 September 2010, the Respondent specified that the contract of the head coach had been terminated on 24 October 2009 “considering the bad results of the team” but that there was “no any link between termination of first football team’s coach and the claiming coach [i.e. the Claimant] who has been an assistant of the first team coach and each of them obtains a separate contract.” 11. Besides, the Respondent denied having terminated the agreement with the Claimant and stressed that the latter had not provided any termination letter in support of this allegation. Furthermore, the Respondent alleged that the Claimant’s sudden departure “has caused great harm to the club by searching for another coach to enable the Club continues the league and soccer champion critical period for the absence of the first team coach as mentioned.” Consequently, the Respondent was of the opinion that the Claimant had to pay compensation in the amount of USD 30,000 as per the penalty clause as well as “the legal interest to the Club against 5% as of the date of complain in addition to the fees, expenses and advocate’s encumbrances.” 12. Notwithstanding the above, the Respondent admitted not having paid the Claimant’s salary of “October and November and five days of December” due to some financial problems caused by the “world economic crisis.” Nevertheless, the Respondent stressed that the Claimant “never submitted any letter to Club requesting his financial dues or a claim to the Football Union of country B as per his contract” and added that “as a legal principle, the wage shall be paid against work and the coach absence of work without any reason has resulted on nonpayment of his dues for not adhering to his contract items and not submitting was could be understood as right requesting.” 13. Finally, the Respondent stressed that the Claimant’s request for flight tickets had no legal basis since he had “left the country by for his part although he was still obtaining a valid residence visa by the Club; a matter confirms that his contract has not being cancelled (..). By leaving the country for his part, the coach does not deserve any encumbrances and tickets amount as he has not being abiding by his contract terms, not completed the full period of contract and not informing the Club about his departure in order to enable the Club make travel booking for himself and family as an applied procedure.” 14. In his subsequent submission dated 11 November 2010, the Claimant adhered to his original claim and rejected the Respondent’s allegations as well as the counterclaim of the latter. 15. In addition, the Claimant pointed out that his dismissal had been a direct consequence of the termination of the head coach’s employment contract. Furthermore, the Claimant stressed that the Respondent had clearly acknowledged having decided to terminate the agreement and had admitted that his salary of October, November and 5 days of December 2009 were outstanding. Besides, the Claimant contested having caused any damage to the Respondent by leaving the country and alleged that the latter had “hired a new coach staff, made up by (..) four (..) professionals” before he “and the other assistant coach ceased their activities in the club”. In this context, the Claimant provided several press articles and a printout from the Respondent’s homepage as evidence. 16. Likewise, the Claimant maintained that the Respondent had taken away his car as well as his apartment and that, as a consequence, he had not had any other choice but to leave the country. 17. Finally, the Claimant provided FIFA with a statement of the head coach in which the latter explained that, following his dismissal, the Respondent had pressured the Claimant into accepting a mutual termination of the agreement. Furthermore, the head coach confirmed that the Claimant never received from the Respondent his salary of October and November 2009 nor “the bonuses for winning games in first and second teams” or the flight tickets for his family. 18. In their final statements both the Claimant and the Respondent reiterated the content of their previous submissions. In addition, the Respondent specified that it never received the Claimant’s legal representative’s letters which were mentioned in the latter’s claim and denied having taken his car and apartment. 19. Asked about his labour situation during the period between 5 December 2009 and 31 May 2010, the Claimant explained that he had been unemployed since 5 December 2009. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter also referred to as: the Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008). Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 20 January 2010, the Single Judge concluded that the 2008 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 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 in combination with art. 22 lit. c) of the 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he is competent to deal with the matter at sake which concerns an employment-related dispute of an international dimension between a assistant coach from country K and a club affiliated to the Football Association of country B. 3. Furthermore, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the 2009 and 2010 editions of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged with FIFA on 20 January 2010. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2009 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance (cf. art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations). 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started his analysis by acknowledging the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties as well as the documents contained in the file. 5. In doing so and first of all, the Single Judge noted that, on 1 July 2009, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) which was originally valid from the date of its signature until 31 May 2010 and which provided for the Claimant to receive from the Respondent a monthly salary of USD 8,000, one economy class ticket for him and his wife and two children as well as bonuses in accordance with the Respondent’s rules. 6. In continuation, the Single Judge acknowledged that, in its claim to FIFA, the Claimant had inter alia accused the Respondent of having prematurely terminated their contractual relationship without just cause at the beginning of December 2009 and had consequently requested from the latter, as compensation, the payment of his whole remuneration in accordance with the agreement. Furthermore and in the same context, the Single Judge observed that, for its part, the Respondent had denied having terminated the agreement and had insisted that it had been the Claimant who, by leaving the country without its consent on 15 December 2009, had breached their contractual relationship. Consequently, the Respondent deemed that the Claimant was the one who should be condemned to pay compensation. 7. In addition, the Single Judge recalled that no termination agreement was ever concluded between the parties to the dispute and that neither the Claimant nor the Respondent seemed to have ever issued a termination letter in order to prematurely bring an end to their contractual relationship. 8. In light of the above, the Single Judge deemed that the first question to be addressed in the present matter was whether the agreement had been terminated by the Claimant or by the Respondent and whether such termination had occurred with or without just cause. 9. In this respect and first of all, the Single Judge observed that, according to the Respondent’s own admission, the Claimant had been employed to assist its head coach. Furthermore and in the same context, the Single Judge acknowledged that the termination of the agreement had undisputedly followed the dismissal of the head coach and that Respondent had actually recognized having had the intention to end its contractual relationship with the Claimant after the head coach’s departure. 10. In continuation, the Single Judge recalled that the Claimant had undisputedly rendered his services to the Respondent until 5 December 2009 while the latter had failed to fully comply with its contractual obligation by not paying the Claimant two months of his salary, i.e. October and November 2009. 11. In view of the above and bearing in mind his well-established jurisprudence in similar cases, the Single Judge considered that, in the present case, the Respondent’s failure to pay the Claimant two months of salary, i.e. the total amount of USD 16,000, had to be considered a serious violation of its contractual obligations. Hence, the Single Judge deemed that, on 5 December 2009, date as from which the contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent was undisputedly no longer pursued by the parties, the breach of contract perpetrated by the Respondent had already reached such level that could justify a termination of the agreement by the Claimant. 12. Taking into account the above, the Single Judge reasoned that because on 5 December 2009 the Claimant had in any case been entitled to unilaterally and prematurely terminate the agreement due to the Respondent’s breach of contract, it was irrelevant whether he or the Respondent had proceeded to actually put an end to his employment with the latter. 13. In view of the above, the Single Judge resolved that it could be safely assumed that the Claimant had had just cause to terminate the agreement on 5 December 2009 as a consequence of the Respondent’s breach of contract. 14. Notwithstanding the above and for the sake of good order, the Single Judge found it worthwhile to mention that the circumstances surrounding the termination of the Claimant’s contractual relationship with the Respondent (cf. point 9 above) seemed to indicate that the latter, after having dismissed the head coach, had decided to change its entire coaching staff and, therefore, had also de facto proceeded to terminate the employment contract concluded with the Claimant. 15. Having established that the agreement had been terminated as a consequence of the Respondent’s breach of contract in not paying the Claimant two consecutive months of salary, the Single Judge went on to assess the potential financial consequences of such a breach. 16. To that end and first of all, the Single Judge turned its attention to the first part of the Claimant’s claim, i.e. his request for payment of outstanding remuneration. 17. In this respect, the Single Judge stressed that it was undisputed that the Claimant had not received his salary of October and November 2009, i.e. the total amount of USD 16,000. 18. In view of the above, and taking into account the legal principle of Pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant is entitled to receive from Respondent outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 16,000. 19. In addition and as to the Claimant’s claim request for interest on the aforementioned amount, the Single Judge referred to his well-established jurisprudence and decided that the Respondent should pay to the Claimant 5% interest on the amount of USD 16,000 as follows: - on the amount of USD 8,000 as from 1 November 2009 and - on the amount of USD 8,000 as from 1 December 2009. 20. In continuation and with the regard to the Claimant’s claim related to the payment of USD 6,000 as bonuses, the Single Judge observed that such request had not been accompanied by any documentary evidence as to whether such bonuses had been duly earned by him or even as to the specific amount of the bonuses, since the agreement does not provide for any specific amounts payable to the Claimant as bonuses. Consequently and bearing in mind the content of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which stipulates that the burden of proof has to be carried by the party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact, the Single Judge concluded that this part of the Claimant’s claim could not be granted for lack of proof. 21. Having established the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the second part of the Claimant’s claim, i.e. his request for the payment of compensation. 22. To this end, the Single Judge referred to the penalty clause and recalled that it provided for the Claimant to receive his salary “for the remaining period of the agreement” in case the Respondent terminated their contractual relationship prematurely “for any reason”. 23. In view of the wording of the penalty clause, the Single Judge considered that it was reasonable to assume that the purpose of the provision in question was for the Claimant to be in a position to receive his entire salary even though the agreement had been prematurely terminated following a breach of contract committed by the Respondent. Therefore and considering that in casu a breach of contract committed by the Respondent had led to the termination of the agreement, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that the penalty clause should be applied in the matter at hand. 24. Hence, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent the remaining amount due in accordance with the agreement, i.e. the sum of USD 48,000, corresponding to his salary between December 2009 and May 2010 (i.e. USD 8,000 x 6 months), as compensation for breach of contract, together with 5 % interest per year on the said amount as of 15 August 2012. 25. The Single Judge referred to the Claimant’s request for the payment of USD 4,716, allegedly corresponding to the cost of the flight tickets for his and his family, and stressed that the agreement clearly provided for the Respondent to cover such costs. Consequently and considering that, according to FIFA Travel, the average price of one-way ticket from country B to country K amounts to approximately USD 1,000, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent USD 4,000 to cover the costs of the journey that he and his family undertook to go back to country K in December 2009. 26. In continuation and as to the Claimant’s request to analyse “the application of a disciplinary measure”, the Single Judge determined that considering the lack of any kind of regulatory measure in the respect, such request had to be rejected. 27. Finally and with regard to the Claimant’s request in connection with the reimbursement of the legal costs allegedly incurred, the Single Judge recalled the provisions of art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, which clearly stipulate that “No procedural compensation is awarded in proceedings of the Players’ Status Committee and the DRC”. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant’s claim regarding legal expenses has to be rejected. 28. After having deliberated on the Claimant’s claim against the Respondent, the Single Judge went on to consider the counter-claim of the Respondent, by means of which the latter had requested from the Claimant the payment EUR 30,000 in accordance with the penalty clause as compensation for breach of contract. In this context, the Single Judge recalled that said request was based on the Respondent’s assumption that the Claimant had terminated the agreement without just cause. 29. Therefore and considering that it had been established that the Claimant had had just cause to the terminate the agreement, the Single Judge ruled that the aforementioned request of the Respondent had to be rejected. 30. In view of all of the above, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 16,000 together with 5% interest per year on the amount of USD 8,000 as of 1 November 2009 and on the amount of USD 8,000 as of 1 December 2009, as well as USD 52,000 as compensation for breach of contract together with 5 % interest per year on the said amount as of 15 August 2012. Furthermore, the Single Judge held that the counter-claim of the Respondent against the Claimant is rejected. 31. Lastly, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which in the proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee and the Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and are normally to be paid by the unsuccessful party. 32. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is only partly accepted and that the counter-claim of the Respondent is rejected. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that in view of the circumstances of the present case it would be fair and reasonable that the costs of the current proceedings be proportionally borne by the Claimant and the Respondent on the basis of their respective degree of success in the present matter. 33. Furthermore and according to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. Consequently and taking into account that the total amount at dispute in the present matter is between CHF 100,000 and CHF 150,000, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 15,000. 34. In conclusion and in view of the numerous submissions that had to be analysed in the present matter as well as considering that a number of factual complexities had to be addressed but taking into account that the present decision was taken by the Single Judge and not by the Players’ Status in corpore, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 10,000. 35. Consequently, the Respondent has to pay the amount of USD 7,000 and the Claimant the amount of CHF 3,000 in order to cover the costs of the present proceedings. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, coach J, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club A, has to pay to the Claimant / Counter- Respondent, coach J, outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 16,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. Within the same time limit, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club A, has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, coach J, default interest of 5% p.a. on the amount stipulated in point 2. above, until the date of effective payment, as follows: - on USD 8,000, as from 1 November 2009; - on USD 8,000, as from 1 December 2009; 4. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club A, has to pay to the Claimant / Counter- Respondent, coach J, compensation in the amount of USD 52,000, as well as 5% interest per year on the said amount from 15 August 2012 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 5. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, coach J, are rejected. 6. If the aforementioned sums, plus interest, are not paid within the aforementioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 7. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent, coach J, is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club A, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2.,3. and 4. above are to be made and to notify the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received. 8. The counter-claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club A, is rejected. 9. The total costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 10,000 are to be paid by both parties, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 9.1. The amount of CHF 7,000 has to be paid by the Respondent / Counter- Claimant, Club A. Considering that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club A, already paid an amount of CHF 1,000 as advance of costs, the latter has to pay the remaining amount of CHF 6,000. 9.2. The amount of CHF 3,000 has to be paid by the Claimant / Counter- Respondent, coach J. Considering that the Claimant / Counter- Respondent, coach J, already paid the amount of CHF 2,000 as advance of costs, the latter has to pay the remaining amount of CHF 1,000. 9.3. The above-mentioned amounts of CHF 6,000 and CHF 1,000 have to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XXXXX: UBS Zurich Account number XXXXXX (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number XXX IBAN: XXXXX SWIFT: XXXXXXXX Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 67 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, a copy of which we enclose hereto. 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 Avenue de Beaumont 2 1012 Lausanne Switzerland Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org www.tas-cas.org For the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives