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 Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Philippe Diallo (France), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on the claim presented by the club, Club O, from country C as Claimant/Counter-Respondent against the player, Player W, from country A as Respondent/Counter-Claimant and Club L, from country C as Intervening Party 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 Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Philippe Diallo (France), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on the claim presented by the club, Club O, from country C as Claimant/Counter-Respondent against the player, Player W, from country A as Respondent/Counter-Claimant and Club L, from country C as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 28 July 2010, Player W, from country A (hereinafter: the Respondent/Counter- Claimant), and Club O, from country C (hereinafter: the Claimant/Counter- Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid for one year for the season 2010/2011. 2. According to art. 2 of the contract, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is entitled, inter alia, to a remuneration of EUR 10,000, payable in ten equal monthly instalments of EUR 1,000, falling due as from 30 August 2010 until 31 May 2011. 3. On 29 July 2010, the parties signed a supplementary agreement, according to which the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is entitled to a remuneration of EUR 75,000, payable as follows: EUR 8,500 upon the signature of the contract and ten instalments of EUR 6,650 each, falling due as from 30 August 2010 until 31 May 2011. 4. The supplementary agreement further stipulates that “It is mutually agreed between the parties that if the player decides to sign a contract with another third party/club in country C for the season 2011/2012, the club has the preference to sign a contract with the player for the same period and with the same values or to receive a bonus of EUR 30,000 from the player”. 5. According to the country C Football Federation, on 4 July 2011, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant signed an employment contract with another country C Club, Club L (hereinafter: the Intervening Party). 6. On 1 August 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for breach of the supplementary agreement, and requested the payment of the total amount of EUR 14,700, corresponding to the EUR 30,000 fee mentioned in point I.4. above minus EUR 15,300, the amount due by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant by the end of his contract, corresponding to outstanding salaries for May and April 2011. 7. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent provided a copy of a letter sent to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 20 May 2011, by means of which it acknowledged the negotiations between Club L and the Respondent/Counter- Claimant, and reminded the latter of the provision of the supplementary agreement. Furthermore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stated that it was “interested to know any other offer from a country C club and consider an option to sign a contract with you according to the clause above”. According to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant never responded to said letter. 8. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent stated that, even though the Respondent/Counter-Claimant signed a new employment contract with Club L, it never received the amount of EUR 30,000 stipulated in the supplementary agreement. 9. According to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the Respondent/Counter- Claimant contacted it in order to request the payment of his salaries of April and May 2011 in the total amount of EUR 15,300. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent, in turn, proposed that the aforementioned amount be deducted from the EUR 30,000 owed by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to the Claimant/Counter- Respondent. Such proposal was allegedly refused by the Respondent/Counter- Claimant. 10. In its response, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant claimed that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent has no right to demand any kind of monies from him, since both the employment contract and the supplementary agreement were signed for a period of one year only. According to the Respondent/Counter- Claimant, the new employment contract was signed after the expiry of the contract with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, which never offered the Respondent/Counter-Claimant a new contract for the season 2011/2012. According to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the provision of the supplementary agreement cannot be applied, since it refers to a future season for which there is no legal commitment between the Respondent/Counter- Claimant and the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 11. Therefore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant entirely rejected the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s arguments and, on 3 October 2011, lodged a counterclaim against it for the payment of his outstanding salaries of April and May 2011, in the amount of EUR 15,300, plus interest and legal fees. 12. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent maintained its previous argumentation and stated that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not contest having received its letter dated 20 May 2011, by means of which it requested that he informed it of any proposals for his transfer coming from another country C club, in order to be able to consider offering him a contract for the season 2011/2012. 13. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, for his part, maintained his previous argumentation and pointed out that the letter of the Claimant/Counter- Respondent dated 20 May 2011 was sent after the end of the championship and by then the parties no longer had a contractual relationship. 14. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to do so, the Intervening Party did not submit any comments on the present affair. 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 1 August 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 (edition 2010), it is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension, between a country C club and an country A player. 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 (editions 2012 and 2010) and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 1 August 2011, the 2010 edition of said 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 to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. 5. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had signed an employment contract, on 28 July 2010, valid for the 2010/2011 season, according to which the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was entitled to 10 equal monthly salaries in the amount of EUR 1,000 each, payable as from August 2010 until May 2011, as well as a supplementary agreement on 29 July 2010, as per which the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was entitled to, inter alia, 10 equal installments of EUR 6,650 each, payable as from August 2010 until May 2011. 6. Furthermore, the DRC noted that it was also undisputed by the parties that, on 4 July 2011, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant signed a new employment contract with the Intervening Party, Club L. 7. The Chamber further noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant/Counter- Respondent claims that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, in spite of having concluded an employment contract with the Intervening Party valid for the 2011/2012 season and in spite of having been contacted by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in writing on 20 May 2011, failed to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the amount of EUR 30,000 stipulated in the supplementary agreement. As the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, at the end of the contract, still had a debt towards the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in the total amount of EUR 15,300, corresponding to his salaries of April and May 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent requests that the Respondent/Counter- Claimant be ordered to pay to it the amount of EUR 14,700. 8. The DRC equally noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, on the other hand, entirely rejects the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, claiming that his employment relation with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was limited to a period of one year only. Thus, according to the Respondent/Counter- Claimant, when the employment contract with the Intervening Party was signed, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was no longer contractually bound to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, which never offered the Respondent/Counter- Claimant a new contract for the season 2011/2012, but only warned him of the consequences of the supplementary agreement, on 20 May 2011, i.e. after the end of the championship. 9. In addition, the Chamber noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims that the provision of the supplementary agreement is not applicable, as it refers to a future season for which there is no legal commitment between the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 10. Therefore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant rejected the claim and lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for the payment of his outstanding salaries of April and May 2011, in the amount of EUR 15,300, plus interest and legal fees. 11. Furthermore, the Chamber took note of the fact that the Intervening party, in spite of having been invited to do so, never submitted any comments on the present affair. 12. Having established the aforementioned, the DRC first and foremost concluded that at the centre of the present dispute is the question of whether the provision relating to the payment of the amount of EUR 30,000 by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, established in the supplementary agreement, is to be considered as valid or not. 13. In this respect, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to recall the wording of the aforementioned provision contained in the supplementary agreement, which stipulates that, “It is mutually agreed between the parties that if the player decides to sign a contract with another third party/club in country C for the season 2011/2012, the club has the preference to sign a contract with the player for the same period and with the same values or to receive a bonus of EUR 30,000 from the player”. 14. Having recalled the content of the aforementioned provision, the Chamber concluded that such clause cannot be considered as acceptable. In fact, the aforementioned clause provides for the obligation of the Respondent/Counter- Claimant to pay compensation to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent even after the expiry of the contract. 15. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber was of the opinion that the provision of the supplementary agreement upon which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent bases its claim shall not be considered as valid by the DRC. 16. In this regard, the Chamber further noted that it was undisputed by the parties that the contract concluded between them was valid for one year, i.e. for the season 2010/2011 only, and that the new contract between the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the Intervening Party was signed on 4 July 2011 and valid for season the 2011/2012. In addition, the members of the DRC pointed out that it was equally undisputed that no new contractual offer had ever been made by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for the season 2011/2012. 17. Bearing in mind all the aforementioned, the DRC concluded that claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was based on an invalid clause and, consequently, had to be entirely rejected. 18. In continuation, the DRC focused its attention on the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 15,300, corresponding to his salaries for April and May 2011, plus interest and legal fees. 19. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not dispute the fact that the amount of EUR 15,300 had indeed remained unpaid to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, as it also requested in its claim that such amount be deducted from the EUR 30,000 that it asked to be paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, in accordance with the supplementary agreement. 20. As a result and in line with the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the DRC concluded that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was entitled to receive from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the outstanding amounts corresponding to his salaries for April and May 2011, in the amount of EUR 15,300. In addition, bearing in mind the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Chamber decided to award interest at the rate of 5% p.a. over the amount of EUR 15,300 as of 3 October 2011. 21. The DRC further held that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim pertaining to legal costs is rejected, in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence. 22. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is partially accepted and that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is to be held liable to pay outstanding remuneration to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in the total amount of EUR 15,300, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 3 October 2011. ** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Club O, is rejected. 2. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Player W, is partially accepted. 3. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Club O, is ordered to pay to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Player W, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 15,300, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 3 October 2011 until the date of effective 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. Any further counterclaim lodged by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Player W, is rejected. 6. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Player W, is directed to inform the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Club O, 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. ** 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