F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 31 July 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Ivan Gazidis (England), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the player, Player J, from country I as Claimant against the club, Club P, from country G as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 31 July 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Ivan Gazidis (England), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the player, Player J, from country I as Claimant against the club, Club P, from country G as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 27 June 2009, Player J, from country I (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club P, from country G (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed a private agreement (hereinafter: the agreement), according to which “The player will sign a loan contract with Club L […] for the season 2009-10. Club L will sign a one year contract ending on 30/06/2010. The salary of the player will be thirty thousand (30.000) euros net not including the participation/winning bonuses, the rent of the player’s house as well as two (2) return tickets country G - country I”. 2. In addition, the aforementioned agreement established that “Club P agrees to employ the player for two (2) years (seasons) as a professional football player for its professional football team currently competing in the country G Superleague on 01/07/2010. The salary of the player from 01/07/2010 until 30/06/2011 will be forty thousand (40.000) euros net not including the participation/winning bonuses, the rent of the player’s house as well as two (2) return tickets country G - country I. The salary of the player from 01/07/2011 until 30/06/2012 will be fifty thousand (50.000) euros net not including the participation/winning bonuses, the rent of the player’s house as well as two (2) return tickets country G - country I”. 3. Following the agreement, the Claimant signed a contract (hereinafter: the contract) with Club L, from country L, valid as from July 2009 until 30 June 2010, according to which he would be entitled to receive, inter alia: - EUR 1,350 as monthly salary, payable 12 months a year; - EUR 1,350 as Christmas bonus; - EUR 675 as Easter bonus; - EUR 675 as holiday bonus; - EUR 11,100 payable in three equal instalments of EUR 3,700 on 31 October 2009, 31 January 2010 and 31 March 2010. 4. On 17 March 2010, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, requesting, after having amended his claim, the payment of the total amount of EUR 90,000, as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, corresponding to the total remuneration of the Claimant for seasons 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 as established in the agreement. 5. In addition, the Claimant requests that sporting sanctions should be applied on the Respondent and that the latter be banned from registering any new players for two registration periods. 6. In his claim, the Claimant states that the Respondent intended to sign an employment contract with him for the season 2009/2010, but since it had exceeded the maximum number of foreign players, it signed the agreement with the Claimant, according to which he would be registered with Club L for the season 2009/2010 and subsequently sign an employment contract with the Respondent for the seasons 2010/2011 and 2011/2012. 7. According to the Claimant, the Respondent, by means of the agreement, guaranteed that he would receive his salaries in the total amount of EUR 30,000. In this respect, the Claimant also enclosed a copy of an e-mail from the administrative and financial director of the Respondent, addressed to his financial consultant, dated 13 July 2009, according to which “After the oral guaranty of the president of Club P that Player J will get all his money during his contract with Club L, I can also add that Club P will cover the cost for 2 return tickets country G - country I”. 8. In this regard, the Claimant states that the Respondent indeed provided him with a flight ticket to country I, as provided for in the agreement. However, the Respondent was aware of the fact that Club L allegedly only paid him his salaries of July until October 2009, amounting to EUR 5,400, but failed to comply with all other financial obligations established in the contract, without any explanations. In addition, as from January 2010, the Claimant was allegedly forbidden to train with the first team and was denied access to Club L’ premises. 9. By means of his correspondence dated 25 February 2010 and 5 March 2010, the Claimant reminded the Respondent and Club L of their arrears towards him, as per the contract and the agreement, in the total amount of EUR 14,150, corresponding to his salaries for November 2009 until Mach 2010 (EUR 6,750) and the instalments due on 31 October 2009 and 31 January 2010. In his correspondence, the Claimant also advised the clubs that, should the aforementioned amount not be paid in the following 8 days, he would lodge a claim before FIFA requesting compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 120,000 corresponding to the total value of his salaries for seasons 2009/2010 until 2011/2012. 10. In the beginning of March 2010, the Claimant claims to have been orally contacted by the Respondent, in order to negotiate an amicable settlement, as per which he was allegedly offered the amount of EUR 25,000 to settle all outstanding accounts. 11. Therefore, the Claimant believes that, by signing the agreement, the Respondent assumed the responsibility of guaranteeing that he would receive the remuneration of EUR 30,000 for season 2009/2010. However, in view of the non-compliance of Club L with the employment contract, the Respondent refused to abide by the agreement and, thus, should be held liable to pay compensation for breach of contract without just cause. 12. In its reply, the Respondent claims that, in order not to exceed the number of foreign players allowed, it offered the Claimant a transfer to Club L for one season. By means of the agreement, the Respondent obliged Club L to provide the Claimant with a salary of EUR 30,000 and guaranteed that it would engage the Claimant for the seasons 2010/2011 and 2011/2012. 13. According to the Respondent, on 13 July 2009, the Claimant allegedly requested the Respondent’s director to assure him that, in case Club L would fail to pay him the amount of EUR 30,000, he would make these payments himself. This was orally agreed with the Claimant and subsequently the Claimant signed the contract with Club L. However, by giving the Claimant such a guarantee, the Respondent meant that he would be entitled to claim any unpaid amounts, in case he would play the complete season with Club L, and subsequently offer his services to the Respondent; but not that the Respondent would pay any amounts due by Club L. 14. According to the Respondent, the Claimant correctly received his salaries from July to November 2009, as well as the first instalment. However, on 24 December 2009, the Claimant left country G, without permission or explanation, only presenting himself again on 28 January 2010. Consequently, on the same day, he was summoned to present his position before the board of Club L, by no later than 1 February 2010. 15. In addition, the Respondent states that the Claimant failed to present himself to Club L’ “Offenses Committee” and did not resume trainings with the club. Thus, on 11 February 2010, Club L’ board imposed on him a fine in the amount of EUR 4,833 for unauthorized absence for a month. Furthermore, the Respondent provided a “detailed list of participation of players” of Club L, for season 2009/2010, according to which the Claimant has participated in matches as from 13 September 2009 until 20 December 2009. 16. For having left Club L on 24 December 2009, the Claimant did not receive his salary for such month. Any other amounts due to the Claimant prior to his absence should be paid by Club L, and not by the Respondent. 17. In addition, the Respondent claims that the Claimant did not show any interest in rendering his services to it after the end of his contract with Club L, in July 2010. 18. The Respondent further denies having ever offered the Claimant the amicable settlement of the dispute for the amount of EUR 25,000 and indicates that no evidence of such offer has been presented by the Claimant. 19. Furthermore, the Respondent deems that the Claimant terminated the contract without just cause in March 2010, alleging non-compliance of Club L with the financial terms of the contract, and did not contact the Respondent in this regard, with a view to possibly sign an employment contract with such club. Therefore, the claim of the Claimant should be entirely rejected. 20. In his replica, the Claimant insists on the fact that the Respondent should be considered liable for the payment of any outstanding amounts regarding the employment contract with Club L, as per the agreement, and consequently maintains the argumentation of his claim. 21. In addition, the Claimant claims having returned to country G on 1 January 2010, with a ticket provided by the Respondent. This information is, according to the Claimant, confirmed by an interview given by him to a country B newspaper, on 5 March 2010, on which he states that, in spite of being in the city of country G, he was forbidden to join the trainings of Club L since January 2010. In this respect, the Claimant also encloses to his claim a statement of another player of Club L, according to which he presented himself in January 2010 in order to resume trainings with Club L. 22. Finally, the Claimant states never having received any of the documents enclosed to the Respondent’s response regarding his alleged absence to trainings. 23. In spite of having been invited by FIFA, the Respondent did not submit its final comments to the present affair. 24. The Claimant claims not having signed any employment contract as from 17 March 2010 until 30 June 2012. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the DRC 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 17 March 2010. 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 and 2 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 (hereinafter: the Regulations; editions 2012, 2010 and 2009), it is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns a dispute with an international dimension, between an country I player and a country G club, in relation to an alleged employment relationship between the two aforementioned parties invoked by the 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, 2010 and 2009) and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 17 March 2010, the 2009 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 they had signed, on 27 June 2009, a private agreement, according to which “The player will sign a loan contract with Club L […] for the season 2009-10. Club L will sign a one year contract ending on 30/06/2010. The salary of the player will be thirty thousand (30.000) euros net not including the participation/winning bonuses, the rent of the player’s house as well as two (2) return tickets country G - country I”. 6. The Chamber also noted that, by means of said private agreement, the parties also established that “Club P agrees to employ the player for two (2) years (seasons) as a professional football player for its professional football team currently competing in the country G Superleague on 01/07/2010”, for a global salary of EUR 40,000 for season 2010/2011 and of EUR 50,000 for season 2011/2012. 7. In addition, the members of the Chamber also acknowledged that the parties did not dispute the fact that, following the signature of the aforementioned private agreement, the Claimant and Club L signed an employment contract, valid as from July 2009 until 30 June 2010, according to which he would be entitled to receive, the global amount of EUR 30,000, broken down as follows: EUR 1,350 as monthly salary, payable 12 months a year; EUR 1,350 as Christmas bonus; EUR 675 as Easter bonus; EUR 675 as holiday bonus; EUR 11,100 payable in three equal instalments of EUR 3,700 on 31 October 2009, 31 January 2010 and 31 March 2010. 8. The Chamber further noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant explains that the Respondent intended to sign an employment contract with him, but as it had already exceeded the maximum number of foreign players allowed per club, it proposed that the Claimant would be on loan with Club L for season 2009/2010, for a global salary of EUR 30,000. At the end of the loan, the Claimant would return to the Respondent and sign an employment contract for seasons 2010/2011 and 2011/2012, under the conditions established in point II.6. above. In this regard, the Claimant and the Respondent signed the private agreement of 27 June 2009 (cf. points I.1. and I.2. above). 9. Furthermore, the Chamber equally noted that the Claimant claims that Club L has, inter alia, failed to pay his salaries of July until October 2009 and has not reacted to his reminders of 25 February 2010 and 5 March 2010 in this regard. In accordance with the private agreement, the Claimant deems that the Respondent is also responsible for the compliance of Club L with its contractual obligations towards the Claimant. 10. Based on the foregoing, the Claimant requests from the Respondent the payment of compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 90,000, corresponding to the total amount of remuneration that the Claimant would be entitled to receive from the Respondent for seasons 2010/2011 and 2011/2012, as well as the imposition of sporting sanctions. 11. The DRC equally noted that the Respondent, on the other hand, rejects the Claimant’s claim, as it deems that it shall not be held responsible for the non-compliance of Club L with the employment contract signed between the latter and the Claimant for season 2009/2010. 12. In this respect, the DRC noted that the Respondent does not dispute the fact that the private agreement was signed with the Claimant, due to the fact that the Respondent was no longer allowed to register any new foreign players. By means of this agreement, the Respondent assured the Claimant that he would sign an employment contract with Club L for season 2009/2010 and receive from said club the total amount of EUR 30,000. However, the Respondent claims never having obliged itself to pay the Claimant’s salaries, in case Club L would fail to do so. Therefore, the Respondent deems that Club L shall be considered the only responsible party for any type of non- compliance arising from the contractual relation between the Claimant and said club. 13. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant and the allegations of the Respondent, was to determine whether a valid contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent existed, on which the Claimant could base his claim against the Respondent. 14. Before analyzing the positions presented by the parties to the dispute and in view of the multitude of arguments and documents presented by the both of them, the DRC deemed it appropriate to emphasize that the following outline of the parties‘ arguments is illustrative and does not comprise every contention put forward by them. However, the Chamber has carefully considered all submissions made by the parties, even if no explicit reference to those submissions is made in the following analysis. 15. Having said that and in view of the fundamentally divergent views of the parties with respect to the basic question as to whether or not a valid and binding contractual relation exists between the Claimant and the Respondent, the members of the Chamber firstly referred 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 respective burden of proof. The application of the said principle in the present matter led the members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber to conclude that it was the Claimant’s responsibility to prove the existence of his contractual bond with the Respondent, on the basis of which he claims compensation for breach of contract. 16. Having stated the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber started to analyze the documentation provided by the Claimant in relation to his alleged contractual bond with the Respondent. In this regard, the DRC noted that the Claimant has provided a copy of the private agreement, of 27 June 2009 (cf. point I.1. above), and of an e-mail dated 13 July 2009, by means of which the financial director of the Respondent stated that “After the oral guaranty of the president of Club P that Player J will get all his money during his contract with Club L, I can also add that Club P will cover the cost for 2 return tickets country G - country I” (cf. point I.7. above). 17. Taking into account the content and the nature of the aforementioned documentation, the members of the Chamber were of the opinion that while the private agreement of 27 June 2009 establishes that the Claimant shall be loaned to Club L for season 2009/2010 for a global remuneration of EUR 30,000, it does not stipulate that such remuneration will be paid by the Respondent, also not in case of failure of payment on the part of Club L. Moreover, the Chamber pointed out that the e-mail of 13 July 2009 of the Respondent’s financial director is of non-official nature, does not contain any expression of the parties’ mutual agreement and, therefore, cannot be considered as a legally binding document upon which a party could claim the execution of any legal obligations whatsoever. 18. Having duly taken note of the aforementioned documentation presented by the Claimant, the members of the Chamber held that, in order for the DRC to be able to assume that the Claimant and the Respondent had indeed been bound by a contractual relation under the terms described by the Claimant, it had to be established, beyond doubt and by documentary evidence, that the said parties had indeed entered into a respective labour agreement, and, if so, under which terms. 19. In view of the foregoing, the members of the Chamber had to conclude that, in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the documents presented by the Claimant did not prove beyond doubt that the Respondent and the Claimant had a valid and binding contractual relation, as per which the Respondent could be held liable for the payment of the Claimant’s salaries for the period during which the latter was employed with Club L. 20. As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided, based on the arguments and the documentation presented by both parties, that the claim of the Claimant had no contractual basis and, thus, no contractual breach existed on the part of the Respondent. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the claim of the Claimant had to be rejected. ** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber The claim of the Claimant, Player J, is 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