F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2013-2014) – controversie allenatori – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2013-2014) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 February 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach R, from country N as “Claimant” against the club Club U, from country R as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties.

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2013-2014) – controversie allenatori – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2013-2014) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 February 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach R, from country N as “Claimant” against the club Club U, from country R as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 15 January 2010, Coach R, from country N (hereinafter: the Claimant) and Club U, from country R (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an “Individual Labour Contract” (hereinafter: the contract) valid from 15 January 2010 until 30 June 2011, by means of which the Claimant was entitled to "23,382 currency of country R/month (the equivalent in currency of country R of the net amount of 4,000-tenthousand-Euro/month) […] The date on which the wage shall be paid is 15 of the next month and the employer [i.e. the Respondent] has the right to make any payment in advance”. 2. According to letter L.I. of the contract, “the employee [i.e. the Claimant] shall benefit from a bonus of 25% of the win and draw bonuses granted to the head coach”. 3. Letter L.II. of the contract provided that “the employee shall also benefit from the following: a) 2 (two) economy-class roundtrip plane tickets on the route country N-country R-country N or country G-country R-country G, for the period 15 January 2010-30 June 2010 […]”. 4. Letter L.IV. of the contract stipulated that “this individual labour contract [i.e. the contract] shall terminate under the following terms: a) Upon expiry of the term for which it was concluded; b) As a result of the parties’ agreement, on the date agreed upon by the parties”. 5. According to letter O. of the contract, “the disputes arising in connection with the conclusion, performance, alteration, suspension or termination of this individual labour contract shall be settled by the court having material and territorial jurisdiction, according to law, by the courts of the country R Football Federation with appropriate jurisdiction and by FIFA rules and regulation and the CAS”. 6. On 12 May 2010 as well as on 27 January 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract arguing that he had “not received EUR 12,000 net of his salary for March, April, May 2010” as well as “EUR 2,500 of bonuses he is entitled to”, making a total of EUR 14,500. 7. The Claimant also alleged that on 6 May 2010, he was informed by Mr M, chairman of the Respondent, that the latter “did not need his services until further notice and that the club [i.e. the Respondent] would not pay any salary or back salary to him for at least another 60 days” and that he was requested to “go home”. Thereupon, the Claimant informed the Respondent, by means of a fax dated 7 May 2010, that “until further notice he would not attend training or other activities, but of course would be available for work should the club require his services”. 8. According to the Claimant, the Respondent neglected its obligations under the contract, since the latter was obliged to provide him, inter alia, with two economy-class plane tickets “on the route country N - country R - country N”. However, the Claimant claimed to have never received said flight tickets. For those reasons, the Claimant sent a letter on 19 May 2010, requesting the Respondent to take action in order to fulfil its obligations. 9. On 20 May 2010, the Claimant, in a meeting with the Respondent, requested “a response to the previous fax messages dated 6, 7, 12 and 19 May 2010 and the payment of his roundtrip plane ticket and the rent of the apartment for the next month”. Since the Respondent allegedly refused to pay the requested amounts, the Claimant claimed to have been evicted from his flat. 10. As a result, the Claimant explained to have terminated his employment contract on 29 June 2010 “with just cause” and “with immediate effect” by means of a letter sent to the Respondent and requested the latter to pay his alleged outstanding salaries and bonuses up until 29 June 2010 as well as compensation for breach of contract amounting to his salaries from 29 June 2010 to June 2011. 11. Considering all the above-mentioned allegations, the Claimant requested FIFA to condemn the Respondent to pay him the sum of EUR 18,318 as outstanding salaries and bonuses (i.e. EUR 12,000 corresponding to the salaries of March, April, May 2010, EUR 3,818 for the salary up until 29 June 2010 as well as EUR 2,500 representing outstanding bonuses), the amount of EUR 48,181 (i.e. EUR 181 as the salary for the remaining days of June 2010 as well as EUR 4,000 x 12 months amounting to EUR 48,000) as remaining value of the contract, i.e. period from 29 June 2010 to June 2011, as well as legal costs amounting to EUR 2,500. 12. On 14 February 2011, the Respondent provided FIFA with its position. First of all, the Respondent deemed that FIFA did not have the competence to hear the present matter as letter O. of the contract stipulated that the competence for settling disputes in connection with the contract belonged to “the legal courts with material and territorial competence”. 13. The Respondent further argued that the Claimant had failed “to fulfil his contractual obligations as early as 1 June 2010, date on which only the head coach of the team, Mr W, was suspended”. 14. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that “after the expiry of the suspension period, the undersigned [i.e. the Respondent] repeatedly notified the coach [i.e. the Claimant] to report to the work place with a view to carrying out his contractual obligation”. 15. Furthermore, and although the Respondent deemed to have duly paid the Claimant’s salaries up until 1 May 2010 as well as the bonuses he was entitled to, the Respondent stated that they “do not owe Coach R [i.e. the Claimant] any fee, since he refused to report, without reasons, to work, considering that only the head coach, Mr W, was suspended”. The Respondent further argued that the coach “was also given a disciplinary sanction of EUR 12,000 as per Decision 63 of 19 July 2010 ratified by the Disciplinary Commission of The Professional Football League”. 16. Concerning the compensation of EUR 48,181, the Respondent was of the opinion that such compensation had to “be dismissed as inadmissible since, it is not the club that unilaterally terminated the contract with Coach R [i.e. the Claimant], but the coach himself unilaterally terminated the contract without just cause”. The Respondent further argued that the Claimant had signed another employment contract on 17 June 2010 with the Club I, from country E and, therefore, was of the opinion that it was not obliged to pay him anything as compensation. 17. In his last comments in the present dispute, the Claimant reiterated his previous statements. The Claimant further explained that the Respondent “did not in any way contest that it did not pay Coach R [i.e. the Claimant] his wages”. 18. Finally, the Claimant provided FIFA with the employment contract he had signed with the Club I, from country E, valid from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2011, by means of which the Claimant was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 2,500, a monthly allowance, “accommodation” of USD 500 as well as USD 12,000 as “advance payment for the period contract”. 19. In its last position dated 25 April 2013, the Respondent reiterated its previous allegations and added that the Respondent “was excluded from the Federation in 2011 and in insolvency”. 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 as: the Single Judge) analysed which Procedural Rules were applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he acknowledged that the present dispute was submitted to FIFA on 12 May 2010, thus after 1 July 2008. Consequently, 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) was applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the Single Judge of Players’ Status Committee 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, 2010 and 2012 editions of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and, on the other hand, to the fact that the claim was lodged with FIFA on 12 May 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. 3. The applicable regulations having been established, the Singe Judge went on to assess whether he was competent to hear the present matter and recalled that the Respondent had argued in its submissions that FIFA was not competent to deal with the dispute as a specific jurisdiction clause had been agreed upon between the parties in the contract and which allegedly gave the competence to hear the present matter to “the legal courts with material and territorial competence”. 4. In order to determine the aforementioned as well as to establish whether he was competent to hear the present matter, the Single Judge analysed the contract and, more specifically, the content of letter O. which stated that “the disputes arising in connection with the conclusion, performance, alteration, suspension or termination of this individual labour contract shall be settled by the court having material and territorial jurisdiction, according to law, by the courts of the country R Football Federation with appropriate jurisdiction and by FIFA rules and regulation and the CAS”. In this respect, the Single Judge was keen to underline that said provision amounted in fact to a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause allowing FIFA’s competent deciding body to hear the matter at stake. 5. Consequently, based on art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, in conjunction with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 and art. 22 c) of the Regulations, and in view of the non-exclusive jurisdiction clause contained in letter O. of the contract concluded between the parties, the Single Judge concluded that he was competent to deal with the present matter since it concerned a dispute between a country N coach and a country R club. 6. Having established his competence, the Single Judge turned his attention to the substance of the present matter and carefully considered and analysed the arguments and documents presented by the parties during the investigation of the present matter. In this respect and first of all, the Single Judge acknowledged that, on 15 January 2010, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract valid from the date of signature until 30 June 2011. 7. Furthermore, the Single Judge underlined that according to the contract the Claimant was entitled to receive, inter alia, from the Respondent the following remuneration : a) EUR 4,000 as monthly salary for the period between 15 January 2010 and 30 June 2011; b) 25% of the win and draw bonuses granted to the head coach; c) two economy-class roundtrip plane tickets on the route country N –country R – country N or country G – country R – country G. 8. In continuation, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Claimant had decided to terminate his contractual relationship with the Respondent on 29 June 2010 since the latter had apparently failed to comply with its contractual obligations. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant alleged that the Respondent had not paid part of his salary of June 2010, his entire monthly salaries of March, April and May 2010 as well as bonuses. Consequently, the Claimant deemed that the Respondent should be requested to pay him a total amount of EUR 68,999 representing EUR 15,818 as outstanding salaries, EUR 2,500 as bonuses, EUR 48,181 as compensation for breach of contract and EUR 2,500 as legal costs. 9. Furthermore, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee reverted to the submission provided by the Respondent as response to the claim and noted, in particular, that the latter had argued that it was the Claimant who had not respected the terms of the contract as he had allegedly failed to resumed work after the expiry of a suspension period given to the head coach of the Respondent, Mr W. Moreover, the Single Judge further took note that the Respondent had alleged that it had already paid the salaries and bonuses pursuant to the contract up until 1 May 2010 and that the Claimant was also given a disciplinary sanction of EUR 12,000. 10. With the aforementioned considerations in mind, the Single Judge held that the present dispute revolved around the following issues: 1) was the Claimant entitled to unilaterally terminate the contract with just cause; 2) in the event that it is established that the Claimant was entitled to consider the contract as terminated, what are the consequences of such early termination. 11. Starting with the first issue, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee recalled that, on the one hand, the Respondent argued that the Claimant had unilaterally breached the contract without just cause while, on the other hand, the Claimant deemed that he had a just cause to unilaterally terminate his contract on the basis that the Claimant had failed to pay several of his monthly salaries and bonuses. 12. In continuation, the Single Judge went on to consider the documentary evidence that the parties had submitted in support of their allegations. Before doing so, the Single Judge was keen to recall the content of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules according to which “any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”. In other words, only allegations supported by clear evidence can be taken into consideration by the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee. 13. Starting with the allegations of the Claimant, the Single Judge noted, first of all, that the latter had explained that the Respondent had not paid part of the monthly salary of June 2010 and the entire monthly salaries of March, April and May 2010 as well as bonuses. The Claimant further argued that the Respondent had failed to pay his flight tickets as well as his flat. For all those reasons, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant had decided to terminate his contract on 29 June 2010 with immediate effect. 14. Equally, the Single Judge took note that the Respondent had stated having paid all the Claimant’s salaries up until 1 May 2010. 15. In view of the above and concerning the payments apparently made by the Respondent, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee was eager to stress that, according to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Respondent had not provided any clear and convincing documentary evidence which would have indicated that the Respondent had fully complied with its contractual obligations towards the Claimant and paid all the outstanding remuneration requested by the Claimant. 16. Consequently, and taking into account that the Respondent had not been able to prove to have paid the outstanding remuneration requested by the Claimant, the Single Judge reached the conclusion that the latter was still entitled to receive from the Respondent his entire monthly salaries of March, April, May and June 2010. The Single Judge added that these amounts were therefore still outstanding at the time the contract was unilaterally terminated by the Claimant on 29 June 2010. 17. In light of the above, the Single Judge held that the Respondent had stopped performing its obligations under the contract as early as March 2010. As a result and in view of the considerably long period of time during which the Respondent had failed to fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant, the Single Judge formed the view that the Claimant had terminated the contract on 29 June 2010 with just cause. 18. In this context, the Single Judge was also keen to underline that, although the Claimant appears to have been suspended from his duties by the Respondent some time before the Claimant had decided to terminate his contract, said suspension should not in any way have justified the non-payment of the Claimant’s salary for such a long period. 19. Furthermore and entering into the issue of the consequences of such termination with just cause by the Claimant, the Single Judge recalled, first of all, that, at the time the Claimant unilaterally terminated the contract with just cause, his monthly salaries of March, April, May as well as June 2010 for a total amount of EUR 16,000 were still outstanding. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that a total amount of EUR 16,000 as outstanding salaries has to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. 20. With regard to the bonuses of EUR 2,500 claimed by the Claimant, the Single Judge was eager to emphasise that, according to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Respondent had not provided any clear and convincing documentary evidence which would have indicated that the Respondent had fully paid such amount to the Claimant and, therefore, held that the sum of EUR 2,500 as outstanding bonuses has to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. 21. In continuation, the Single Judge went on to consider the amount of compensation that the Claimant was requesting following his early termination of the contract with just cause. 22. In this respect, the Single Judge underlined that, although the Claimant was, in principle, entitled to receive compensation from the Respondent, the Claimant was also under the obligation to mitigate the loss he suffered as a result of said termination with just cause. In this context, the Single Judge emphasised that the Claimant had signed another employment contract for a higher salary with an Club I, from country E on 1 July 2010, i.e. three days after having terminated his contract with the Respondent. Consequently, and in view of the aforementioned legal principle of mitigation of damages, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant should not be entitled to any compensation as the damages he had suffered as a result of the termination was compensated by the remuneration he subsequently received from his new club. 23. Furthermore, the Single Judge also decided to reject the Claimant’s request for legal costs as such amount, i.e. EUR 2,500, is not granted in proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee in accordance with article 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules. 24. Consequently and in view of all of the above, the Single Judge decided to partially accept the claim of the Claimant and held that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the total amount of EUR 18,500, representing outstanding salaries and bonuses as established above. 25. Finally and for the sake of good order, the Single Judge pointed out that the argument raised by the Respondent, according to which it was allegedly “excluded from the Federation in 2011 and in insolvency”, should not be considered at all since the Respondent had not provided any documentary evidence in support of such allegations. 26. Lastly, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee, including its Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25,000 are levied and are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings. 27. Considering that the claim of the Claimant has been partially accepted, the Single Judge concluded that both parties have to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 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. On that basis, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 68,999. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 10,000. 28. In conclusion, and in view of the circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 7,500. 29. Consequently, and in view of the fact that the Claimant has only been awarded a small part of his original claim, the Single Judge decided that the amount of currency of country H 5,000 has to be paid by the Claimant and the amount of currency of country H 2,500 by the Respondent. Considering that the Claimant already paid an advance of costs in the amount of currency of country H 2,000 at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant has to pay the final amount of currency of country H 3,000 and the Respondent has to pay the final amount of currency of country H 2,500 in order to cover the costs in the present proceedings. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Coach R, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant, Coach R, is partially accepted. 3. The Respondent, Club U, has to pay to the Claimant, Coach R, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, the amount of EUR 16,000 as outstanding salaries as well as the sum of EUR 2,500 as outstanding bonuses. 4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Coach R, are rejected. 5. If the aforementioned total amount of EUR 18,500 is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, an interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of the expiry of the fixed time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 7,500 are to be paid to FIFA, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 6.1 The amount of currency of country H 5,000 has to be paid by the Claimant, Coach G. Given that the latter already paid an advance of costs in the amount of currency of country H 2,000 at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant, Coach R, has to pay the remaining amount of currency of country H 3,000. 6.2 The amount of currency of country H 2,500 has to be paid by the Respondent, Club U. 6.3 The abovementioned two amounts have to be paid to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 7. The Claimant, Coach R, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club U, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 3 above is to be made and to notify the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received. ***** 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 Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives