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 23 April 2014, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach G, from country F as “Claimant” against the club Club A, from country S 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 23 April 2014, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach G, from country F as “Claimant” against the club Club A, from country S as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 8 December 2012, Coach G, from country F (hereinafter: the Claimant) and Club A, from country S (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded a one-year employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid from 1 January 2013 until 31 December 2013 and under the terms of which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent “USD 600,000 (US Dollars six hundreds thousands) as a total Contract Amount to be paid as follows:  Monthly salary of USD 10,000 (USD Ten Thousands) will be paid before 7th in the month;  An advance payment of USD 50,000 (USD Fifty thousands) to be paid upon the signature of the Contract on JANUARY 1st 2013;  An amount of USD 100,000 (USD One hundred thousands) to be paid via bank transfer on JUNE 1st, 2013;  An amount of USD 100,000 (USD One hundred thousands) to be paid via bank transfer on SEPTEMBER 1st, 2013;  An amount of USD 100,000 (USD One hundred thousands) to be paid via bank transfer on NOVEMBER 1st, 2013;  An amount of USD 130,000 (USD One hundred thousands) to be paid via bank transfer on DECEMBER 1st, 2013”. 2. According to the contract, the Respondent had the obligation to provide the Claimant with “4 round trip airline tickets per year for two persons on the airplane company of Coach G’s [i.e. the Claimant] choice in business class”. 3. Article 10 of the contract entitled “EARLY BREAK OF THE CONTRACT” provided that “The retreat by the club [i.e. the Respondent] of all or any of the definition of function planned to the present contract and attributed, or the non-full payment by the employer of his obligations will be considered as an one-sided break of the present contract. This break will have the effect of returning the indebted club of damages as follows:  Compensations corresponding to the monthly fixed salary multiplied by the number of six (6) months in the contract;  Coverage of the airplane ticket return for 2 persons on the airplane company of Mr Coach G’s [i.e. the Claimant] choice”. 4. On 16 May 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract. In this respect, the Claimant explained having received a letter on 17 April 2013, which stated that he was dismissed from his position as coach of the Respondent “as from 18 April 2013” following “bad results”. The Claimant further argued that the Respondent had breached the contract without any valid reasons. 5. Consequently, and since the Claimant had already received from the Respondent the sum of USD 60,000, he requested FIFA to condemn the latter to pay him the remaining amount of USD 540,000 as well as “arrears salaries for the 2012 season” amounting to “238.000 country S Pounds” since the cheque he was provided by the Respondent could not be cashed. 6. On 5 December 2013, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim in its entirety. In this respect, the Respondent argued that “no contract was found deposited with the Association to justify those amounts of money which were stated in the claim”. The Respondent further stated that “the previous Board asserted in press interviews that he did not sign with Coach G [i.e. the Claimant] the contract referred to in the letter”. 7. On 7 January 2014, the Claimant presented his comments to the Respondent’s response and reiterated his previous statements. The Claimant further argued that the Respondent’s former President, Mr B, confirmed having signed the contract with the Claimant. 8. Therefore, the Claimant maintained his claim against the Respondent and requested the following amounts, i.e. USD 540,000 as compensation, USD 1,500 as legal costs, USD 2,200 representing one flight ticket “First Class country S – country F – country F”, USD 38,000 corresponding to the cheque of “238.000 Sudanese Pounds” as well as currency of country H 5,000 as reimbursement of advance costs. 9. On 22 January 2013, in its last comments in the matter in hand, the Respondent reiterated its previous statements of defence and emphasised that it “did not find any contract that asserts the claim raised by Coach G [i.e. the Claimant]”, as the only contract in its possession was “the one issued in December 2012”. 10. According to information received by the Claimant, the latter signed an employment contract with Club C, from country Y, valid from 30 June 2013 until 30 June 2014, by means of which the Claimant was entitled to a total yearly salary of currency of country I 22,800,000, an amount which represented USD 282,000 on 30 June 2013. 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 2012). Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 16 May 2013, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 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 2012 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 country F coach and a country S club. 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 2012 edition 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 16 May 2013. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 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 8 December 2012, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) which was originally valid from 1 January 2013 until 31 December 2013 and which provided that the Claimant would receive from the Respondent a total remuneration of USD 600,000 as follows: a. “Monthly salary of USD 10,000 (USD Ten Thousands) will be paid before 7th in the month; b. An advance payment of USD 50,000 (USD Fifty thousands) to be paid upon the signature of the Contract on JANUARY 1st 2013; c. An amount of USD 100,000 (USD One hundred thousands) to be paid via bank transfer on JUNE 1st, 2013; d. An amount of USD 100,000 (USD One hundred thousands) to be paid via bank transfer on SEPTEMBER 1st, 2013; e. An amount of USD 100,000 (USD One hundred thousands) to be paid via bank transfer on NOVEMBER 1st, 2013; f. An amount of USD 130,000 (USD One hundred thousands) to be paid via bank transfer on DECEMBER 1st, 2013”. 6. Equally, the Single Judge observed that, by means of a correspondence dated 17 April 2013, the Respondent had terminated its contractual relationship with the Claimant as from 18 April 2013, arguing that the latter had been responsible for the “bad results” of the team. 7. In continuation, the Single Judge remarked that in his claim to FIFA, the Claimant had contested the Respondent’s entitlement to prematurely terminate the contract and had consequently requested from the latter the payment of his remuneration according to the contract until 31 December 2013. In the same context, the Single Judge additionally acknowledged that, for its part, the Respondent had insisted on not having signed the contract with the Claimant. 8. In light of the above, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee was eager to stress that, according to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which states that “any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”, the Respondent had not provided any clear and convincing documentary evidence which would have indicated that the Claimant and the Respondent had not concluded the contract. On the contrary, the Single Judge was keen to emphasise that it was clear that a contract had been signed by the Claimant and the Respondent on 8 December 2012. 9. With the above-mentioned considerations in mind, the Single Judge went on to establish whether the contract was terminated by the Respondent with or without just cause. 10. In this regard, the Single Judge referred to the well-established jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee and pointed out that the absence of sporting results of a team cannot, as a general rule, constitute a valid reason for a club or an association to terminate a coach’s employment contract since the assessment of performance by a coach is a subjective perception which cannot be measured on an objective scale and therefore has to be considered as inadmissible grounds for a termination of the employment relationship. 11. In view of the above and, in particular, bearing in mind that the Respondent had justified the termination of the contract on the basis of its disappointment with the results of the team, the Single Judge concluded that the dismissal of the Claimant had occurred without just cause. Hence, the Single Judge decided that the contract had been breached by the Respondent. 12. Having established the above-mentioned, the Single Judge went on to assess the potential financial consequences of the breach of the contractual relationship by the Respondent. 13. In this respect and first of all, the Single Judge analysed the first part of the Claimant’s claim, i.e. his request of USD 540,000 corresponding to the remaining value of the contract. 14. In doing so and first of all, the Single Judge observed that article 10 of the employment contract contained a clause related to compensation in the event that the Respondent would breach the contract. In this regard and after having carefully analysed said clause, the Single Judge was of the opinion that the relevant clause should not be applied in the present matter as it was non-reciprocal. 15. Equally, the Single Judge recalled that, pursuant to the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a total salary of USD 600,000, i.e. a monthly salary of USD 10,000, the sum of USD 50,000 on 1 January 2013, three equal instalments of USD 100,000 on 1 June 2013, 1 September 2013 and 1 November 2013 as well as an amount of USD 130,000 on 1 December 2013. Furthermore, the Single Judge stressed that it was undisputed that the Claimant had already received from the Respondent a sum of USD 60,000 at the time the latter had terminated its contractual relationship with the Claimant, i.e. on 18 April 2013. 16. In view of the above, the Single Judge held that the Claimant had already received, at the time the Respondent had breached the contract, the amount of USD 50,000 on 1 January 2013 as well as one monthly salary of USD 10,000 for the month of January 2013 for a total sum of USD 60,000. Therefore, the Single Judge observed that, at the time the Respondent had unilaterally terminated the contract with the Claimant, his monthly salaries of February, March as well as April 2013 for a total amount of USD 30,000 were still outstanding. 17. Consequently 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 a total amount of USD 30,000 as outstanding salary has to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. 18. In continuation, the Single Judge went on to consider the amount of compensation that the Claimant was requesting following the Respondent’s premature termination of the contract without just cause. 19. 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 without just cause. In this context, the Single Judge emphasised that the Claimant had signed another employment contract for a total salary of currency of country I 22,800,000, i.e. equal to USD 282,000, with the Club C, from country I valid from 30 June 2013 until 30 June 2014. Consequently, and in view of the aforementioned legal principle of mitigation of damages, the Single Judge deemed that the salaries the Claimant had received with his new club between June and December 2013 should be taken into account in the calculation of the overall compensation for breach of contract. 20. Therefore, the Single Judge held that the amount of USD 141,000, representing the salaries the Claimant had received with his new club between June and December 2013, should be deducted from the residual value of his contract with the Respondent, which amounted to USD 510,000, i.e. USD 600,000 less the amount of USD 60,000 already received by the Claimant, less the sum of USD 30,000 representing the outstanding remuneration. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the total amount of USD 369,000 as compensation, i.e. the amount of USD 510,000 less the sum of USD 141,000 the Claimant had received with his new club between June and December 2013. 21. Moreover, the Single Judge went on to deal with the second part of the Claimant’s claim, i.e. his claim related to the payment of the total amount of “238,000 currency of country H”, corresponding to his alleged outstanding remuneration for 2012. 22. In view of the above, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee was eager to underline that, according to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Claimant had not provided any clear and convincing documentary evidence which would have indicated that the Respondent had to pay such amount to the Claimant. 23. Consequently, and taking into account that the Claimant had not been able to prove that the Respondent had the obligation to pay him such amount, the Single Judge decided to reject this part of the claim. 24. With regard to the request of the Claimant for the reimbursement of USD 2,200, corresponding to the price of one flight ticket “country S-country F-country F”, the Single Judge emphasised that the contract provided for the Respondent to cover the costs of the flight tickets. Nevertheless, the Single Judge underlined that the costs of such flight ticket amounted to USD 1,700 and consequently, the amount of USD 1,700 is to be reimbursed by the Respondent to the Claimant. 25. 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 30,000, the sum of USD 1,700 as the cost of a flight ticket as well as USD 369,000 as compensation for breach of contract. 26. Finally, 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 proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee, including its Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25,000 are levied. The relevant provision further states that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings. 27. In respect of the above and taking into account 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 over currency of country H 200,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 28. In conclusion, in view of the circumstances of the present matter and taking into account that the matter did not pose any particular factual difficulty, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 18,000. Consequently and since the claim has been partially accepted, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of currency of country H 6,000 has to be paid by the Claimant and the amount of currency of country H 12,000 by the Respondent in order to cover the costs of the proceedings. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Coach G, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club A, has to pay to the Claimant, Coach G, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, the amount of USD 30,000 as outstanding salary as well as the amount of USD 1,700 as the cost of a flight ticket. 3. Furthermore, the Respondent, Club A, has to pay to the Claimant, Coach G, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, the amount of USD 369,000 as compensation for breach of contract. 4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Coach G, are rejected. 5. If the aforementioned amounts are 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 18,000 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 6,000 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 5,000 at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant, Coach G has to pay the remaining amount of currency of country H 1,000. 6.2 The amount of currency of country H 12,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, Club A. 6.3 The abovementioned two amounts of currency of country H 1,000 and currency of country H 12,000 have to be paid to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 7. The Claimant, Coach G, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club A immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under points 2 and 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 Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives