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 25 April 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the player, Player S, from country A as Claimant against the club, Club U, from country B as Respondent 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 25 April 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the player, Player S, from country A as Claimant against the club, Club U, from country B as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 12 June 2007, Player S, from country A (hereinafter: player or Claimant), and the Club U, from country B. (hereinafter: club or Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from 1 July 2007 until 30 June 2010. 2. According to clause 2 of the contract, the club was entitled to unilaterally terminate the contract until 30 June 2008 by informing the player by 15 May 2008. 3. Pursuant to clause 4 of the contract, the player was entitled to receive a monthly salary of currency of country B 62,500, to be paid until the 15th day of the following month. 4. On 12 June 2007, the player and the company “Company M.” (hereinafter: company) signed an agreement entitled “contract of services”, valid as from 1 July 2007 until 30 June 2010, which states that “the [company], according to its agreement with [the club], is in the possession of the utilisation rights of the football teams of [the club], as an advertisement carrier”. Consequently, the parties agreed that “the [player] transfers the exclusive rights of the marketing and PR - connected to his person and activities as a footballer - to the [company], and gives advertisement facilities during the duration of the present contract”. 5. Clause 3.a) of the “contract of services” provided for a monthly payment of EUR 4,800 + VAT, to be paid by the company in currency of country B to the player until the 15th day of the following month. Pursuant to clause 3.k), the player was entitled to receive twice the amount of EUR 7,500, payable until 30 June 2007 and 15 July 2008, respectively. 6. By means of a letter dated 14 May 2008 sent to the player, the club terminated the contract on the basis of its clause 2 as of 30 June 2008. 7. On 22 March 2010, completed on 3 June 2010, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the club requesting from the latter the payment of EUR 14,550 on the basis of the “contract of services”, which was detailed as follows: a) EUR 5,000 as outstanding salary for June 2008; b) EUR 7,500 as outstanding second instalment of the “sign-on fee”; c) EUR 2,050 as outstanding flight ticket costs. 8. On 7 November 2011, the player added the amount of currency of country B 750,000 to the claim alleging that the club had never paid him the 12 monthly salaries of currency of country B 62,500 each for the period of time as from 1 July 2007 until 30 June 2008 in accordance with the contract. 9. In particular, the player explained that upon the conclusion of the two contracts, the club’s managing director guaranteed that the club was responsible for all payments and told the player that the second contract shall be signed with the company due to tax reasons. Furthermore, the player assured that during the 2007/2008 season, he had received all salaries, bonuses and the first instalment of the signing-on fee from the club, in other words, he had never received any payment from the company. 10. In its statement of defence, the club rejected the player’s claim contesting FIFA’s competence, since it was not the club owing the claimed payments to the player. The club held that the “contract of services” was related to the exploitation of the marketing rights in relation to the player and that it was concluded between the player and the company, which undertook financial obligations towards the player. According to the club, the company is absolutely separated from the club. Since the club was not a party to the “contract of services”, the club was not obliged to pay any amounts agreed upon in this contract. However, the club confirmed that it had tried to help the player solving this issue with the company. 11. In spite of having been informed by FIFA that, according to art. 6 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, its decision-making bodies can only deal with cases involving parties as stipulated in said article, the player insisted on a decision in the present matter. 12. Moreover, the player mentioned that during the employment relation, i.e. between 1 July 2007 and 30 June 2008, he had only received payments on the basis of the “contract of services”, which he first thought he had received from the club and not from the company. Furthermore, at this stage, the player added the amount of currency of country B 750,000 to his claim (cf. point I. 8. above). 13. Despite having been invited to do so, the club did not provide any final comments. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 22 March 2010. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at stake (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an country A player and a country B club. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012 and 2010), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 22 March 2010, the 2009 edition of said Regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract setting out a period of validity as from 1 July 2007 until 30 June 2010. In addition, the Chamber took into account that the employment relation between the parties came to an end on 30 June 2008. 5. The Claimant maintained that the Respondent had failed to pay him 12 monthly salaries amounting to the total of currency of country B 750,000 relating to the period of time between July 2007 and July 2008. 6. Having established the above, the Chamber unanimously stated that it is crucial to clarify the date of the submission of the formal petition for payment of the aforementioned amount of currency of country B 750,000 on the basis of the employment contract to FIFA, in order to establish whether this claim was brought to FIFA in due time. In this context, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations, which establishes that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall not hear any case subject to the regulations if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute. 7. The Chamber recalled that the Claimant’s claim against the Respondent for the payment of currency of country B 750,000 was lodged in front of FIFA on 7 November 2011, while the last of the 12 monthly instalments of currency of country B 62,500 was due on 15 July 2008 the latest. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had brought his claim against the Respondent well after the aforementioned two-year period of time had elapsed. 8. In view of the above, the Chamber decided that the Claimant’s claim on the basis of the contract regarding the payment of currency of country B 750,000 must be declared barred by the statute of limitations in application of art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations and, thus, is not admissible. 9. In continuation, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant signed an agreement entitled “contract of services” with the company, valid as from 1 July 2007 until 30 June 2010. In this regard, the DRC duly noted that the “contract of services” did not contain any clauses related to employment and that the club is no party to such “contract of services”. 10. The Chamber recalled that the Claimant further claimed from the Respondent the amounts of EUR 5,000 as salary for June 2008 and EUR 7,500 as second instalment of the “sign-on fee” on the basis of the “contract of services”. 11. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant stated that during the 2007/2008 season, he had received all salaries, bonuses and the first instalment of the “sign-on fee” from the club and never received any payment from the company and that the club’s director had guaranteed that the club would be responsible for all payments. In this regard and referring to 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, the members of the Chamber noted that no documentation corroborating such allegation had been presented by the Claimant. 12. Equally, the DRC took note of the reply of the Respondent, who rejected the player’s claim and asserted that the “contract of services” was related to the exploitation of the marketing rights connected to the player and that said contract was concluded between the player and the company, which undertook financial obligations towards the player. Furthermore, the DRC noted the Respondent’s position that the company was absolutely separated from the club, and that the club was not obliged to pay any amounts stipulated in said “contract of services”, since the club was no party to it. Above all, the Respondent held that FIFA has no competence over the Claimant’s claim on the basis of the “contract of services”, which deals with marketing rights. 13. In continuation, the DRC referred to art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which only members of FIFA, clubs, players, coaches or licensed match and players’ agents are admitted as parties in front of FIFA’s relevant decision-making bodies. The Chamber agreed that the company cannot be considered to be a party in the sense of art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules. 14. Having established the above, the DRC concluded that FIFA is not competent to deal with any claim based on the “contract of services” concluded between the Claimant and the company, since said contract is not signed with a party as established in art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and, moreover, since said contract does not include any employment-related clauses. The Chamber highlighted that such conclusion is in line with well-established jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. 15. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Claimant’s claim based on the “contract of services” is not admissible. 16. In continuation, the DRC turned its attention to the Claimant’s allegation that the Respondent had failed to reimburse airplane ticket costs in the amount of EUR 2,050. The DRC acknowledged the Claimant’s assertion that the flight tickets had been negotiated between him and the Respondent, but not included into a written contract. 17. In this respect, the DRC recalled the basic legal principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in the aforementioned art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and concluded that there was no contractual basis or any documentation in accordance with which the Respondent would be obliged to pay for the Claimant’s flight tickets. 18. Consequently, the DRC decided that the Claimant’s claim regarding the flight ticket is rejected. ** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber The claim of the Claimant, Player S, is rejected in so far as it is admissible. ** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to article 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives