F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 February 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member Essah M. Saleh Al-Housani (United Arab Emirates), member on the claim presented by the club, Club J, from country M as Claimant against the player, Player A, from country S and the club, Club D, from country F as Respondents regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 February 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member Essah M. Saleh Al-Housani (United Arab Emirates), member on the claim presented by the club, Club J, from country M as Claimant against the player, Player A, from country S and the club, Club D, from country F as Respondents regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 30 December 2008, Player A, from country S (hereinafter: the Respondent player), born in November 1989, and Club J, from country M (hereinafter also referred to as: the Claimant), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from 1 January 2009 until 30 June 2012. 2. According to art. 1.10 and art. 1.11 of the contract, the Claimant undertook to pay the Respondent player the following amounts: - USD 15,000 as travel expenses, upon signature of the contract; - USD 3,500 as monthly salary, in case he participates in the country M Championship, National Division; - performance bonuses. 3. On 23 June 2011, the player and Club D, from country F (hereinafter also referred to as: the Respondent club), signed an employment contract, valid as from 1 July 2011 until 30 June 2012. 4. On 26 August 2011, as per the request of the country F Football Federation, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided to authorize the provisional registration of the Respondent player with the Respondent club. 5. On 21 November 2011, Club J lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent player and Club D, alleging that the Respondent player, induced by Club D, breached the contract without just cause. Therefore, Club J requests that the Respondent player be ordered to pay compensation for breach of contract and that Club D should be held jointly liable for the payment of compensation in the total amount of USD 169,999.16, plus interest of 5% p.a. as of 23 June 2011, made up of: - USD 100,000, corresponding to the transfer compensation that Club K would have paid for the player or, alternatively, to the value of the player’s services; - USD 18,571.43 corresponding to the non-amortized part of the transfer compensation paid by Club J to Club E for the player; - USD 45,500 corresponding to the residual value of the contract; - USD 927,73 corresponding to the reimbursement of the air ticket purchased by the club on behalf of the player; - USD 5,000 in legal fees; - procedural costs. 6. In addition, Club J requests that sporting sanctions be imposed on the Respondent player and on Club D: the player should be prohibited to participate in official matches for 6 months and Club D should be banned from registering new players, both nationally and internationally, for two registration periods. 7. In its arguments, Club J stated that the Respondent player, in spite of having been provided a round-trip ticket country M - country F - country M, did not return from his holidays in country F on 5 June 2011, as it had been agreed between the parties. 8. By means of its correspondence dated 6 June 2011, addressed to the player’s agent, Club J reminded the Respondent player of his delay in returning from his holidays, inquired about the reasons of such delay and requested his immediate return. 9. Allegedly on the same date, Club J received a letter from the Respondent player, forwarded to Club J by his agent and backdated 4 June 2011, by means of which the Respondent player requested the termination of the contract, based on the fact that Club J had allegedly failed to pay him outstanding salaries for December 2010 until March 2011, as well as bonuses in the amount of USD 10,000, and allegedly practiced continuous racial discrimination against him. 10. By means of its e-mail of 9 June 2011 to the Respondent player’s agent, Club J rejected the termination of the contract as well as the accusations of the Respondent player regarding the alleged racial discrimination and the existence of outstanding remuneration towards him. 11. In this respect, Club J stated that the payment of bonuses to the Respondent player is subject to the performance of the player and the Claimant provided copies of payment receipts, signed by the Respondent player, dated: - 13 January 2011, for the amount of currency of country R 35,700 or USD 3,500, corresponding to his salary of December 2011; - 11 March 2011, for the amount of currency of country R 35,700 or USD 3,500, corresponding to his salary of February 2011; - 8 April 2011, for the amount of currency of country R 34,680 or USD 3,400, corresponding to his salary of March 2011. 12. In addition, Club J stated never having received any notification from the Respondent player regarding allegedly outstanding salaries. 13. Furthermore, by means of its correspondence of 27 June, 13, 19 and 26 July 2011, sent to the Respondent player via his agent, Club J again requested his immediate return to the club. 14. In particular, in its letter of 19 July 2011, Club J informed the Respondent player of the existence of a letter from Club E, from country U, dated 6 July 2011, by means of which the latter “invites the player […] to have medical examination and, if positive, to sign a personal employment contract”. 15. In this regard, Club J states that, on 1 July 2011, it was contacted by Club K, regarding an offer for the transfer of the Respondent player in the total amount of USD 100,000, which was accepted by Club J by means of its letter of 19 July 2011. According to Club J, since the Respondent player never returned from his holidays and, in addition, signed a new employment contract with Club D in June 2011, on 17 August 2011, Club J informed Club E in writing of the impossibility of the Respondent player’s transfer, considering that a request for the provisional registration of the Respondent player with Club D was already pending in front of FIFA. 16. In view of the aforementioned arguments, Club J deems that the Respondent player acted in bad faith as he, in possession of a Schengen visa and a two-way air ticket both provided to him by Club J, travelled to country F and signed a new employment contract with Club D in June 2011, while still being contractually bound to Club J. For having lost a valuable player, for not having been warned of the Respondent player’s intention to terminate the contract, for having lost the opportunity of transferring him to Club K, Club J deems that the Respondent player is liable to pay to the Claimant compensation for breach of contract and that Club D is jointly liable for such payment of compensation to Club J. 17. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to do so, the Respondent player and Club D never responded to Club J’s claim. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 21 November 2011. Consequently, 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 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), it is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country M club, a country S player and a country F club. 3. Furthermore, the DRC analysed which edition of the regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012) and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 21 November 2011, the 2010 edition of said Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the present matter as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, it started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. 5. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that, on 30 December 2008, the parties signed an employment contract, valid as from 1 January 2009 until 30 June 2012, according to which the Respondent player was entitled to receive USD 15,000 as travel expenses, upon signature of the contract, USD 3,500 as monthly salary, in case he participated in the country M Championship, as well as performance bonuses. 6. In addition, the members of the DRC took note of the fact that, on 23 June 2011, the Respondent player and the Respondent club signed an employment contract valid as from 1 July 2011 until 30 June 2012. 7. In continuation, the Chamber paid due consideration to the fact that the Claimant submits that the Respondent player, after his holidays, failed to resume his activities with the Claimant on 5 June 2011 and that by means of his correspondence dated 4 June 2011, the Respondent player, without any prior notice, terminated the contract, based on the Claimant’s alleged failure to pay his salaries for December 2010 until March 2011, bonuses and alleged racial discrimination against him. 8. Furthermore, the Chamber took note of the fact that, by means of its e-mail of 9 June 2011 to the Respondent player’s agent, the Claimant rejected the termination of the contract as well as the accusations of the Respondent player regarding the alleged racial discrimination and alleged outstanding remuneration. 9. In this regard, the DRC further acknowledged that, according to the Claimant, the payment of bonuses is subject to the Respondent player’s performance and that the Claimant also provided copies of payment receipts, signed by the Respondent player, dated 13 January 2011, 11 March 2011 and 8 April 2011, corresponding to his salaries of December 2010, February 2011 and March 2011. 10. In view of the above, the Claimant submits that the Respondent player had no just cause to terminate the contract and is, thus, to be held liable for the payment of compensation for breach of contract. In addition, the Claimant asks that the Respondent club be jointly and severally liable for this payment. 11. Moreover, the Chamber took into account that the Claimant equally requests that sporting sanctions be imposed on the Respondent player and on the Respondent club. 12. Subsequently, the members of the DRC observed that, in spite of having been invited by FIFA to do so, the Respondent player and the Respondent club never responded to Claimant’s claim. 13. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber concluded that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the Respondent player, and which party was responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship in question. The DRC also underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the employment contract was terminated by the Respondent player without just cause, it would be necessary to determine the financial and/or sporting consequences arising from the breach of the relevant employment contract without just cause. 14. In this context, and taking into account the consideration outlined in point II.12. above, the members of the Chamber concurred that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, a decision shall be taken upon the basis of the documents already on file; in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 15. Furthermore, the DRC deemed that the Respondents, by failing to respond to the claim of the Claimant, tacitly renounced their right to defence and, as a consequence, accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 16. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the Claimant contested all the accusations presented by the Respondent player in his termination letter of 4 June 2011, by denying the practice of racial discrimination, explaining that the payment of bonuses depended on the player’s performance and presenting payment receipts, bearing the Respondent player’s signature, for his salaries of December 2010, February 2011 and March 2011. 17. Furthermore, the Chamber took into account that the Respondent player had, as established above, not contested that he had failed to resume duty with the Claimant as from early June 2011. Furthermore, the Respondent player never objected to the Claimant’s statements regarding bonuses and the payment of his salaries of December 2010, February and March 2011, receipts of which were presented by the Claimant. 18. Based on the aforementioned and, in particular, on the argumentation and documentation presented by the Claimant in support of its claim in accordance with art. 12. par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber concurred that the Respondent player terminated the employment contract with the Claimant without just cause by means of his letter of 4 June 2011 and, therefore, he is liable to pay compensation for breach of contract to the Claimant, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. 19. Furthermore, in accordance with the unambiguous contents of art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, the Chamber established that the player’s new club, i.e. the Respondent club, shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to point out that the joint liability of the player’s new club is independent from the question as to whether the new club has committed an inducement to contractual breach or any other kind of involvement by the new club. This conclusion is in line with the well-established jurisprudence of the Chamber that was repeatedly confirmed by the CAS. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the Chamber recalled that according to art. 17 par. 4 sent. 2 of the Regulations, it shall be presumed, unless established to the contrary, that any club signing a professional who has terminated his contract without just cause has induced that professional to commit a breach. 20. Having stated the above, the Chamber focussed its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in particular the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years as well as the fees and expenses paid or incurred by the former club (amortised over the term of the contract) and whether the contractual breach falls within a protected period. 21. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. The members of the Chamber assured themselves that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake. 22. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable in the case at stake had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasized beforehand that each request for compensation for contractual breach has to be assessed by the Chamber on a case- by-case basis taking into account all specific circumstances of the respective matter. 23. In order to estimate the amount of compensation due to the Claimant in the present case, the members of the Chamber first turned their attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, which value constitutes an essential criterion in the calculation of the amount of compensation in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and the new contract in the calculation of the amount of compensation. 24. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of both the employment contract signed with the Claimant, i.e. Club J, and the one signed with the Respondent club, i.e. Club D. 25. In this regard, the Chamber noted that, as per the employment contract signed with the Claimant, the Respondent player was entitled to a monthly salary in the amount of USD 3,500. Furthermore, the members of the DRC observed that said contract was to run for 13 months more after the breach of contract occurred on 4 June 2011. 26. In continuation, the DRC equally took note of the Respondent player’s monthly remuneration with his new club, i.e. the Respondent club, which corresponded to EUR 2,475, or approximately USD 3,300, as from July 2011 until June 2012. 27. Taking into account the aforementioned elements the Chamber concluded that the average remuneration of USD 44,200 for the time remaining of the relevant contract should be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract payable to the Claimant. 28. In continuation, the members of the Chamber observed that the Claimant submitted a copy of the transfer agreement which it signed with the Respondent player’s former club, Club E, in order to acquire the player’s services, according to which a transfer compensation of USD 45,000 was payable by the Claimant for the transfer of the Respondent player. Taking into account the time remaining on the contract, the DRC established that the non-amortized transfer compensation, amounting to USD 12,860, shall also be included in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract due to the Claimant, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. 29. Furthermore, the Chamber took note of the fact that the Claimant provided evidence of the purchase of an air ticket country M - country F - country M, issued on behalf of the Respondent player, in the amount of USD 927, which should also be taken into account in the calculation of the compensation for breach of contract due to the Claimant. 30. Taking into account all the aforementioned objective elements as well as the specificities in the matter at hand, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the total amount of USD 57,987 was to be considered reasonable and justified as compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand. 31. As a consequence, the Chamber decided that the Respondent player has to pay the amount of USD 57,987 as compensation for breach of contract to the Claimant, plus interest of 5% p.a. as of the date of this decision until the date of effective payment, taking into account the Claimant’s petition and the Chamber’s constant jurisprudence in this regard. 32. Furthermore, the Chamber decided that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, the Respondent club shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned amount of compensation. 33. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the further consequences of the breach of contract in question and, in this respect, it addressed the question of sporting sanctions against the player in accordance with art. 17 par. 3 of the Regulations. The cited provision stipulates that, in addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions shall be imposed on any player found to be in breach of contract during the protected period. 34. In this respect, the members of the Chamber referred to item 7 of the “Definitions” section of the Regulations, which stipulates, inter alia, that the protected period shall last “for three entire seasons or three years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such contract is concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the professional, or two entire seasons or two years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such contract is concluded after the 28th birthday of the professional”. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the Respondent player terminated the contract without just cause on 4 June 2011. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that such breach of contract by the Respondent player had occurred within the protected period. 35. Consequently, the Chamber decided that, by virtue of art. 17 par. 3 of the Regulations, the Respondent player had to be sanctioned with a restriction of four months on his eligibility to participate in official matches. 36. Subsequently, the Chamber recalled that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, it shall be presumed, unless established to the contrary, that any club signing a professional player who has terminated his previous contract without just cause has induced that professional to commit a breach. Consequently, the Chamber pointed out that the party that is presumed to have induced the player to commit a breach carries the burden of proof to demonstrate the contrary. In this respect, the Chamber highlighted that the Respondent club did not respond to the Claimant’s claim and, by doing so, it was not able to reverse the respective presumption contained in art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations and is, therefore, to be considered as having induced the Respondent player to commit a breach of contract. 37. Consequently, the Chamber decided that, by virtue of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, the Respondent club shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the two next entire and consecutive registration periods following the notification of the present decision. 38. Finally, the DRC decided that the Claimant’s claim pertaining to legal costs is rejected, in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber’s longstanding respective jurisprudence. 39. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club J, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent player, Player A, is ordered to pay to the Claimant, Club J, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 57,987, plus interest of 5% p.a. as of the date of this decision until the date of effective payment. 3. The Respondent club, Club D, is jointly and severally liable for the aforementioned payment. 4. If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the above-mentioned time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a formal decision. 5. The Claimant, Club J, is directed to inform the Respondent player, Player A, and the Respondent club, Club D, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. 6. A restriction of four months on his eligibility to play in official matches is imposed on the Respondent player, Player A. This sanction applies with immediate effect as of the date of notification of the present decision. The sporting sanctions shall remain suspended in the period between the last official match of the season and the first official match of the next season, in both cases including national cups and international championships for clubs. 7. The Respondent club, Club D, shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the two next entire and consecutive registration periods following the notification of the present decision. 8. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Club J, are rejected. ** 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives