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 club, Club K, from country B as Claimant/Counter-Respondent against the player, Club O, from country I and the club, Club M, from country I as Respondents/Counter-Claimants 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 club, Club K, from country B as Claimant/Counter-Respondent against the player, Club O, from country I and the club, Club M, from country I as Respondents/Counter-Claimants regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 19 December 2007, Player O, from country I (hereinafter: the Respondent/Counter- Claimant or the Player), Club M, from country I (hereinafter: the Respondent/Counter- Claimant), and the Club K, from country B (hereinafter: the Claimant/Counter- Respondent) signed a loan agreement for the player, in favor of Club K, valid as from the date of signature, until 30 June 2010. 2. According to art. 2 of the loan agreement, “Club K will have the option for another two seasons, subject to the agreement between Club K and the player”. 3. Finally, art. 9 of the loan agreement stipulates that “After the termination of the agreement between Club K and the player will be terminated, the player will be automatically transferred to Club M”. 4. Also on 19 December 2007, the Player and the Club K signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), as well as an annex to it, both valid as from 1 January 2008 until 30 June 2010. 5. The introduction to the contract stipulates that “as a pre-condition to the validity of this agreement, the following shall apply: the club guarantees to remain in the 1st national division of country B; the player should be physically able to play football”. 6. According to art. of 11 the contract, Club K undertook to pay the Player the following amounts: - EUR 15,000 as monthly salary, payable 12 times a year at the latest on the 10th day of the following month; - EUR 750 per month for a furnished apartment; - EUR 750 per month as travel expenses; - EUR 1,000 of draw bonus in case he is in the first team; - EUR 3,000 of win bonus in case he is in the first team; - EUR 125 of bonus per point in case he is listed as 16th, 17th or 18th player on the match sheet; - EUR 25 per point in case he is in the reserve team; - two air tickets per season for the Player and his wife; - employer's contribution to the pension fund, proportional to the fixed and variable remuneration of the Player. 7. Article 22 of the contract (hereinafter: compensation clause) stipulates that, in case any of the parties unilaterally and prematurely terminates the contract, it shall be held liable to pay the other party compensation in the amount corresponding to the residual salaries due as per the contract, up to double the amount established in art. 5 par. 2 of the Law of 24 February 1978. 8. Both art. 2 of the contract and the annex establish that the parties have the option of extending the contract for two more seasons, i.e. seasons 2010/2011 and 2011/2012. The execution of such option must be communicated to the Player by Club K, per registered mail or equivalent, by no later than 31 March 2010. In case the contract is extended, the Player shall be entitled to receive: - EUR 16,500 as monthly salary; - EUR 1,150 of draw bonus in case he is in the first team; - EUR 3,450 of win bonus in case he is in the first team; - EUR 125 of bonus per point in case he is listed as 16th, 17th or 18th player on the match sheet; - EUR 25 of draw bonus in case he is in the second team; - EUR 75 of win bonus in case he is in the second team; - other advantages contained in the employment contract. 9. On 24 March 2010, Club K sent a letter to the Player, informing him that it had decided to execute the option of extending his contract, as per its art. 2 and the annex, extending it for seasons 2010/2011 and 2011/2012. 10. On 12 April 2010, Club K informed the country B Football Association, in writing, of the extension of the contract, while pointing out the refusal of the Player to acknowledge receipt of it. 11. On 27 April 2010, the Player and Club K signed a document, according to which, should his salary be lower than 8-fold the remuneration foreseen by the Law of 24 February 1978, Club K would have to pay the residual amount due until the end of the contract. 12. On 3 May 2010, the Player requested the extension of his work permit for one more year, which was accepted by the country B authorities on 17 May 2010. 13. On 26 of July 2010, the Player sent a letter to Club K, in which he pointed out the invalidity of the clause allowing the unilateral extension of the contract. Consequently, the unilateral extension exercised by Club K would also be invalid and the contract between the parties should be considered to have expired on 30 June 2010. Based on the aforementioned, the Player requested that Club K should recognize the nonexistence of a valid employment contract between the parties and authorize him to leave Club K and join a club of his choice. 14. On 3 August 2010, the Player informed Club K in writing of the “termination of the agreement”, based on the fact that he had been allegedly excluded from the reserve team and from the team photo, that the amount of EUR 3,800 - corresponding to a fine of which he was unaware - was deducted from his salary and that no valid agreement existed between the parties. 15. On 8 August 2010, the Player signed a new employment contract with Club M, valid until 30 June 2012. 16. On 27 August 2010, in view of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s refusal to authorize the issuing of the Player’s ITC and as per the request of the country I Football Association, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (PSC) decided for the registration of the Player with the Club M, after concluding that “the country B club does not appear to be genuinely interested in the services of the player anymore, but rather in financial compensation. In fact, the documentation received from the country B Football Association does not contain any indication as to its club requesting the return of the player. Moreover, with regard to the alleged extension of the term of the contract between the player and the country B club, the Single Judge referred to the well-established jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, which was confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport, according to which unilateral options in favour of the clubs are, per se, not valid”. 17. On 19 August 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondents/Counter-Claimants, alleging that the Player, induced by Club M, breached the contract without just cause, and claiming compensation in the total amount of EUR 1,130,126.54, plus interests of 4% p.a. as of 1 August 2010, made up of: - EUR 630,126.54, corresponding to the remaining value of the contract, until 30 June 2012, to be paid by the Respondents/Counter-Claimants jointly; - EUR 500,000 as compensation for inducement of breach of contract, to be paid by Club M. 18. On 8 November 2012, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent amended its claim, by requesting, inter alia, that the Respondents/Counter-Claimants should be held jointly liable to pay the amount of EUR 500,000 as additional compensation, that an interest rate of 5% p.a. applies as from the date the Respondents/Counter-Claimants were put in default, as well as the application of sporting sanctions as follows: the Player should be suspended for at least 4 months and Club M should be prohibited to register any players, nationally or internationally, for two registration periods, as from the date of notification of the decision. 19. In its arguments, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent states that, in spite of having been duly informed of the extension of the contract for seasons 2010/2011 and 2011/2012, as per art. 2 of the contract and the annex, the Player abandoned Club K in July 2010 and on 8 August 2010 he concluded an employment contract with Club M. 20. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent points out that not only the option of extension is contained in the contract, but also permitted by the country B Law of 24 February 1978 and the Labour Collective Agreement of 7 June 2006, and therefore it is to be considered as valid. 21. In view of the above-mentioned circumstances, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent deems that the Player, induced by Club M, breached his contract with Club K, which was still valid and binding for the parties. Thus, the Respondents/Counter-Claimants should be held liable to pay compensation to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 22. In their response, the Respondents/Counter-Claimants entirely reject the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and state that the employment contract of the Player with Club K had expired on 30 June 2010, and therefore he was free to sign a new contract with Club M. 23. The 5 contract, since the latter was only drafted in language D and language F, languages he does not understand. Consequently, he was surprised to receive the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s letter of 24 March 2010, informing him of the unilateral extension of the contract, not only because he was unaware of such possibility, but also because he had been hardly fielded by Club K, having made only 6 starting appearances in the 2009/2010 season, having been a candidate for transfer to another club and having played in total only 56 minutes as from 6 December 2009 until 21 March 2010. Therefore, he rejected the extension of the contract, as mentioned by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in its letter of 12 April 2010 (cf. point I.10. above). 24. Believing, however, that this decision of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was irreversible and not having been aware of the alleged invalidity of art. 2 of the contract and its annexe, the Player continued offering his services to Club K. 25. Subsequently, the Player claims having been excluded from the first team at the beginning of season 2010/2011 without an explanation and having had his remuneration dramatically lowered. Later on, the Player was also excluded from the second team and the Claimant/Counter-Respondent imposed on him a fine in the amount of EUR 3,800, without any formal notice or procedure. 26. As the Player was informed by his lawyer of the alleged invalidity of art. 2 of the contract and its annexe, and consequently of the invalidity of the unilateral extension of the contract, he warned the Claimant/Counter-Respondent by means of his letter of 26 July 2010 (cf. point I.13. above), to which Club K allegedly never responded. Consequently, the Player, with his letter of 3 August 2010, considered the contract as terminated and on 8 August 2010 he signed a new contract with Club M. 27. The Respondents/Counter-Claimants agree with the Single Judge of the PSC and deem that art. 2 of the contract and its annexe cannot be considered as valid, since incompatible with art. 18 par. 2 of the FIFA Regulations, the Swiss Law, the principle of the parity of the parties to a contract, and the country B law, which allows the extension of contracts, but only for the maximum period of 3 years, which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent failed to mention. 28. In view of the aforementioned arguments, and in particular of the fact that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent decided to exercise the extension option at a moment where the Player was hardly fielded and also that the latter refused to accept it, the Player considers that such extension is invalid. 29. Bearing in mind the following facts, as well as the introduction to the contract (cf. point I.5. above), according to which the latter is only valid for the country B first division, the Player considers that the contract was anyway no longer valid, since he was not playing with the first team anymore. 30. Club M, in its turn, confirms the argumentation of the Player with regard to the invalidity of the contract extension. Thus, the Player was not contractually bound to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent as he signed a new contract with Club M on 8 August 2010. As there existed no breach of contract by the Player, consequently Club M cannot be held responsible for the inducement of breach and the Claimant/Counter- Respondent’s claim should be thoroughly rejected. 31. In the event that FIFA considers that the contract between the Player and the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was validly extended, the Respondents/Counter- Claimants request that the contract should be considered as breached without just cause by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. Consequently, the Respondents/Counter- Claimants lodge a counterclaim against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, requesting compensation in the amount of EUR 631,665.56, payable to the Player, plus interests of 5% p.a. as from the maturity date of each obligation, broken down as follows: - EUR 343,648.39 corresponding to the Player’s salaries for the remaining period of the contract, i.e. as from 3 August 2010 until 30 June 2012; - EUR 198,117.17 corresponding to the other benefits due to the Player for the remaining period of the contract, i.e. EUE 17,177.94 as housing and transportation costs, EUR 46,954.84 as paid vacations and EUR 116,806.45 as employer’s contribution; - EUR 90,000 as supplementary compensation due to the specificity of sport. 32. In addition, the Respondents/Counter-Claimants request that sporting sanctions should be applied on the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 33. Finally, the Player claims that in the event that the DRC would consider the contract extension as valid and that he was consequently in breach of contract, he claims that the maximum amount of compensation payable to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent should be EUR 22,500, considering that he failed to give previous notice of the termination with one and a half month in advance. 34. In its replica, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent rejects the counterclaim of the Respondents/Counter-Claimants, as well as the arguments presented to justify the invalidity of the contract. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent states that the fact that the contracts were drafted in language D and F, languages that the Player does not understand, is irrelevant with regard to the legal effect of such contracts. 35. On what concerns the invalidity of the extension clause, the Claimant/Counter- Respondent reminds the parties that, according to the jurisdiction of the DRC and of the CAS, what is forbidden is not the simple existence of an extension clause, but the fact that the latter might be of arbitrary and unilateral nature. In case the clause stipulates a non-excessive duration, an acceptable deadline before the expiry of the contract to exercise such option, the new salary of the Player, equal conditions for both parties, and in case such clause is already included in the original contract, it is to be considered as valid. 36. Furthermore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent deems that the Player did not explicitly reject the extension of the contract, but only refused to acknowledge receipt of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s letter of 24 March 2010. Moreover, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent referred to the document signed with the Player on 27 April 2010 (cf. point I.11. above), which refers to his employment with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for season 2010/2011. In addition, the Claimant/Counter- Respondent referred to the fact that, on 3 May 2010, the Player requested the extension of his work permit for one more year, i.e. for season 2010/2011 (cf. point I.12. above). 37. According to the training sheets presented by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the Player has trained alone as from 6 until 13 July 2010 and with the group as from 14 July until 4 August 2010. The Player allegedly received his remuneration for July 2010 in the net amount of EUR 8,884.22, from which EUR 3,800 were discounted, corresponding to the fine imposed on him. The first time the Player actually contested the validity of the extension of his contract was through his letter of 26 July 2010. 38. In addition, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent states that the contract contains no stipulation concerning the Player’s obligatory participation in the main squad. 39. In view of the fact that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent always paid the Player his salaries as per the contract, including his new salary of July 2010 in the gross amount of EUR 16,500 and that the Player, according to information from Footgoal and Transfermarkt.uk, played 14 matches or 609 minutes during season 2009/2010, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent considers that the Player terminated the contract without just cause, induced by Club M. As a consequence, the Claimant/Counter- Respondent lost the chance of selling the Player, in spite of having allegedly received many offers in this regard. 40. In their duplica, the Respondents/Counter-Claimants reject the Claimant/Counter- Respondent’s amended claim of 8 November 2012, as they consider it prescribed, since it was made more than 2 years after the Player’s termination letter of 3 August 2010. Thus, such amendments should be disregarded. 41. In addition, the Respondents/Counter-Claimants state to be aware of the DRC’s jurisprudence concerning contracts signed in a language not understood by one of the parties, but consider this understanding to be relative insofar as it concerns such an important clause as an extension clause. In this regard, the Respondents/Counter- Claimants also consider that the extension clause is excessive and disproportional, as it stipulates that the contract can be extended for a period of two more years. Moreover, the Respondents/Counter-Claimants observe that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent admits the fact that the Player refused to sign its letter of 24 March 2010, concerning the extension of the contract, and nonetheless it continued with the relevant procedures before the country B Football Association, acting thus in bad faith. The Player claims to have become aware of the extension of his contract only on 27 April 2010. Furthermore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent does not prove that the Player explicitly accepted the extension of the contract and that the reference to his request for a visa extension is not enough to prove such acceptance. His silence could not be interpreted as acceptance, in the present case. 42. The Player further denies having received any remuneration from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for July 2010. The document presented by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, not signed by the Player, does not constitute solid evidence of any salary payments. In addition, the training sheets presented by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, carefully analysed, show that the Player only attended trainings on 6, 9, 12 and 13 July 2010. As from 28 June until 18 July 2010, the Player was, in general, absent from trainings. In addition, while one of the sheets states that the Player was present as from 14 to 18 July 2010, on another one, he was absent on those days. The Respondents/Counter-Claimants also point out that the Player’s name on such sheets was apparently added a posteriori and such documents might have been counterfeited by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. Moreover, while the sheets state that the Player was present at the Claimant/Counter-Respondent as from 19 to 25 July 2010, he was actually in country I. 43. For the Respondents/Counter-Claimants, it is clear that the Claimant/Counter- Respondent had no interest in the Player’s services, but only in financial compensation. In this regard, they mention that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had already tried to sell him during the mid-season transfer window, but could not do it because of the high transfer fee requested. 44. The Respondents/Counter-Claimants further argue that the extension clause is contrary to the country B law, since it stipulates a salary increase of 10%, whereas the country B law requires at least 15%. 45. Finally, the Respondents/Counter-Claimants allege that the employment contract could be considered as null and void, since as per its introduction its validity is made subject to a successful medical examination of the Player, which is contrary to art. 18 par. 4 of the FIFA Regulations. 46. In its final position on the counterclaim, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent insists on the fact that the Player explicitly agreed to the extension of his employment contract until 30 June 2012, and therefore started to execute the new contract in July 2010. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent admits that as from 19 to 25 July 2010 the Player was in country I, probably negotiating his new contract with Club M. In addition, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent alleges having paid Club M the amount of EUR 890,000 for the transfer of the Player and having suffered a considerable loss with his return to Club M. 47. On what concerns the alleged prescription of the amendment to the Claimant/Counter- Respondent’s claim, the latter states that the amendment does not constitute a new claim but a specification of the existing one. Thus, it would not be prescribed. 48. In addition, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent mentions art. 25 par. 6 of the FIFA Regulations, according to which FIFA shall apply, in addition to its Regulations, all relevant arrangements, laws and/or collective bargaining agreements that exist at national level, as well as the specificity of sport. Therefore, the country B law would also be applicable to the present case. 49. Furthermore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that the decision of the PSC Single Judge of the 27 August 2010 did not establish in a definitive manner that the extension clause was not valid, since it is “a provisional measure and as such without prejudice to any decision whish the Dispute Resolution Chamber might be called to take as to the substance of a potential contractual dispute”. 50. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent further states that, by signing the transfer contract in English, the Player was aware of the existence of an extension clause. 51. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent also states that the Player did not reject the extension of the contract, but only to acknowledge the receipt of its correspondence of 24 March 2010. In addition, he signed other documents in relation to the extension of his contract with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, namely a declaration of 27 April 2010, by means of which he declares his professional engagement to Club K, in the context of the request of renewal of his work permit for season 2010/2011. The signature of such document, the renewal of his work permit until 30 June 2011, the fact that he started training with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and received his new salary for July 2010 would prove the Player’s agreement to the extension of his contract. 52. On what concerns the training sheets, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent admits that a mistake has occurred in the drafting of one of the sheets and that the Player was actually in country I between 21 and 25 July 2010. Nonetheless, the sheets confirm that the Player trained individually on 6, 9, 12 and 13 of July 2010, and with the second team for 14 days in July 2010 and for 3 days in August 2010. 53. Moreover, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that according to the DRC’s jurisprudence, the duration of the extension is not excessive, since in the present case it amounts to 4,5 years, i.e. in line with art. 18 par. 2 of the FIFA Regulations. In addition, the exercise of the extension clause was done well in advance, i.e. 3 months before the expiry of the original contract. Furthermore, the Player did not refuse the correspondence of the country B Football Association of 3 May 2010, according to which “we have taken note of the fact that, after the exercise of a contractual option, the contract of the aforementioned player is extended and will end on 30 June 2012”. Furthermore, the Player terminated the contract without any previous warning to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 54. Finally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent states that the Player did not have any contractual guarantee that he would only play for the first team. In this regard, art. 11 par. 2 of his contract even stipulates the amount of his reserve game match bonuses and that this is a tactical decision of the coach. 55. The Player states that, as from 8 August 2010 until 30 June 2012, he was employed with Club M and was entitled to currency of country I 60,000 gross as monthly remuneration and bonuses for league points up to a maximum of currency of country I 100,000, having effectively received the total amount of currency of country I 1,192,976, EUR 393,070.36 less than he would have earned with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent if it had not breached the contract, as per the Player. 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 19 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. In continuation, the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012 and 2010; hereinafter: the Regulations), the DRC was competent to adjudicate on an employment- related dispute with an international dimension, between a country B club, an country I player and an country I club. 3. At this point, the Chamber stated that prior to deliberating on the substance of the matter the DRC must verify whether the competent FIFA body would be able to deal with the present affair or not for formal reasons. In particular, the Chamber took note of the formal objection of the Respondents/Counter-Claimants, according to which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s amendment of 8 November 2012 should be considered as time-barred, since it was submitted more than 2 years after the event giving rise to the dispute, i.e. the Player’s termination letter of 3 August 2010. 4. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations (editions 2012 and 2010), in connection with the Procedural Rules, which stipulates that the decisionmaking bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more than two years have elapsed since the facts leading to the dispute arose and that the application of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in each individual case. 5. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber took note of the fact that the event giving rise to the dispute was the termination of the contract in writing by the Player on 3 August 2010. In addition, the Chamber observed that the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was lodged on 19 August 2011 and that such claim was amended on 8 November 2012, with a view to request that the amount of EUR 500,000 of compensation should be jointly paid by the Respondents/Counter-Claimants, and that interests of 5% p.a. should be applied. 6. Bearing in mind the contents of art. 25 par. 5 of the FIFA Regulations, the DRC observed that, while the amendments to the claim were submitted on 8 November 2012, they do not consist of a new claim, but merely adjust the requests already made in the original claim of 19 August 2011, which was lodged within two years as from the fact giving rise to the present dispute. 7. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber deemed that the objection of the Respondents/Counter-Claimants is rejected and that the amendment of 8 November 2012 is not to be considered as affected by prescription and, thus, shall be admissible. 8. Having established that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim of 19 August 2011 and the amendment of 8 November 2012 are admissible, the Chamber went on to analyse which regulations were applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2, and art. 29 of the 2012 and 2010 editions of the Regulations, and considering that the claim was lodged on 19 August 2011, the 2010 edition of said Regulations was applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 9. 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. 10. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that the Player, Club M and Club K had signed a loan agreement for the transfer of the Player, in favour of Club K, valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2010. 11. In addition, the DRC noted that it was equally undisputed by the parties that, also on 19 December 2007, the Player and the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had concluded an employment contract, as well as an annex to it, both valid as from 1 January 2008 until 30 June 2010, according to which he was entitled to, inter alia, a monthly salary of EUR 15,000. 12. Subsequently, the members of the DRC observed that the parties do not dispute the fact that, on 24 March 2010, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent sent a letter to the Player, informing him of its decision to extend the contract, as per its art. 2 and the annex, for seasons 2010/2011 and 2011/2012. In this regard, the Chamber also noted that all parties acknowledge the fact that the Player refused to acknowledge receipt of the aforementioned letter. 13. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the parties also do not dispute the fact that, on 12 April 2010, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent informed the country B Football Association, in writing, of the extension of the contract, while pointing out the Player’s refusal to acknowledge its receipt. 14. In addition, the DRC took due note of the fact that, on 3 August 2010, the Player sent the Claimant/Counter-Respondent a letter, by means of which he informed it of the termination of the contract, based on his exclusion from the reserve team and from the team photo, the unannounced imposition of a fine in the amount of EUR 3,800 and the invalidity of the agreement between the parties. 15. Finally, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that, on 8 August 2010, the Player signed a new employment contract with Club M, valid until 30 June 2012. 16. Entering the arguments set forth by the parties, the Chamber took note of the contents of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim, according to which the Player, induced by Club M, breached the contract signed with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s on 19 December 2007, by concluding a new employment contract with Club M on 8 August 2010, while being aware of the execution of the option to extend his employment contract with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for seasons 2010/2011 and 2011/2012, as established in art. 2 of the contract and in the annex. 17. In view of the above-mentioned circumstances, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent requests, after amending its claim, that the Respondents/Counter-Claimants should be held jointly liable for the payment of compensation for breach of contract in the total amount of EUR 1,130,126.54, plus interests of 5% p.a. as from the date the Respondents/Counter-Claimants were put in default, as well as the application of sporting sanctions for both Respondents/Counter-Claimants, as specified in point I.18. above. 18. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the Respondents/Counter-Claimants entirely reject the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, alleging the nonexistence of a valid contract between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Player, since the contract of the 19 December 2007 had expired on 30 June 2010. 19. In this respect, the Chamber particularly noted that the Player’s main arguments - detailed in Section I. above - are his unawareness of the existence of an extension option in the contract and in the annex, as they were drafted in unknown languages; the fact that the extension was executed after a season in which he had been hardly fielded and was available for transfer; and his explicit refusal to accept such extension, by not acknowledging receipt of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s correspondence of 24 March 2010. 20. The Chamber further noted that the Player claims having become aware of the invalidity of art. 2 of the contract and its annexe, and consequently of the unilateral extension of the contract, only at a later stage. In this regard, he contacted the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 26 July 2010 and terminated the contract on 3 August 2010. 21. In continuation, the DRC took note of the main arguments of Club M, equally detailed in Section I. above, as per which both the extension clause and the unilateral extension of the contract by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are invalid. Thus, as the Player signed the new contract with Club M on 8 August 2010 he was no longer contractually bound to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. Therefore, the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent should be entirely rejected. 22. In case the DRC decides that the contract between the Player and Club K was validly extended, the Respondents/Counter-Claimants lodge a counterclaim against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for breach of contract, requesting the payment of compensation in the amount of EUR 631,665.56, plus interests of 5% p.a. as from the maturity date of each obligation, as well as sporting sanctions. 23. Finally, the Player claims that, in case the extension of the contract is considered valid and he is considered to have breached the contract, the maximum amount of compensation payable to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent should be EUR 22,500. 24. The Chamber subsequently acknowledged that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in its replica insists on the validity of the extension clause and of the extension of the contract and claims that Player’s refusal to accept the extension of the contract was not explicit, as he merely refused to acknowledge receipt of the letter of 24 March 2010, requested the extension of his work permit for one more year on 3 May 2010 and resumed his activities with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in July 2010. Therefore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent insists on its claim. 25. In continuation, the members of the DRC took note of the main arguments of the Respondents/Counter-Claimants’ duplica, which restate the invalidity of the unilateral extension of the contract and the bad faith of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in executing the relevant procedures before the country B Football Association in spite of the Player’s refusal. In this respect, the Player also claims having been mostly absent from trainings after the extension of the contract and denies having received any remuneration for of July 2010. 26. Finally, the members of the DRC acknowledged the content of the final position of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on the counterclaim, in which it claims to have suffered considerable financial damage with the Player’s return to Club M. 27. Having established the aforementioned, the DRC deemed that the underlying issue in the present dispute, considering the claim of Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the allegations of the Respondents/Counter-Claimants, was to determine whether the employment contract signed between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Player had been validly extended and whether it was still in force when the latter signed the new contract with Club M. If so, the DRC would further need to establish if the Player’s contract with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had been actually breached by the Player, and if such breach had been induced by Club M. The Chamber also underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the employment contract between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Player was still valid and binding for the parties and had, in addition, been actually breached by the Player, induced by Club M, it would be necessary to determine the consequences for the party(ies) that caused the unjust breach of the relevant employment contract. 28. In view of the above, the DRC subsequently noted that the controversy at the basis of the aforementioned dispute lies fundamentally on the validity of the execution of the extension clause contained in art. 2 of the contract and the annex. 29. The DRC deemed that, in this particular case, it is crucial to analyze the circumstances under which the extension option contained in the aforementioned contract was executed and, in this respect, it deemed appropriate to recapitulate the sequel of events that led to the emergence of the contractual dispute at hand. 30. In this context, the Chamber first and foremost recalled the wording of art. 2 of the contract and of the annex, which stipulate that the parties have the option of extending the contract for two more seasons, i.e. seasons 2010/2011 and 2011/2012, and that the execution of such option must be communicated to the Player by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, per registered mail or equivalent, by no later than 31 March 2010. 31. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the Claimant/Counter- Respondent’s letter of 24 March 2010, addressed to Player, informing him of its decision to execute the option of extending his contract for seasons 2010/2011 and 2011/2012. 32. Subsequently, the DRC observed that it was undisputed by the parties that the Player had refused to acknowledged receipt of the aforementioned correspondence. 33. In continuation, the members of the Chamber referred to the correspondence of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, dated 12 April 2010 and addressed to the country B Football Association, by means of which it informed the country B Federation of its decision to extend the Player’s contract, while pointing out his refusal to acknowledge receipt of its correspondence of 24 March 2010. 34. The DRC further noted that, in accordance with the training sheets presented by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and with the arguments of the Player, the latter requested the extension of his work permit for another year on 3 May 2010 and resumed his activities with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, having taken part in several training sessions, mainly during the month of July 2010. 35. At this point, the Chamber pointed out that, in view of the aforementioned facts, the parties have fundamentally divergent positions: on the one hand, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that the extension of the employment contract was validly concluded, since the option had been pre-stipulated in the original employment contract duly signed by both parties, executed within the established deadline and not explicitly refused by the Player, who began executing the new contract, tacitly accepting its continuation. On the other hand, the Respondents/Counter-Claimants claim that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent acted against the Regulations and in bad faith, as it, in spite of being aware of the Player’s refusal to extend the contractual relation, unilaterally executed the extension option against the Player’s will. 36. In this context, the DRC deemed it appropriate to remind the parties of the basic elements of a valid contract, namely an offer, consisting of an expression of willingness to contract on a specific set of terms with a view that they are accepted by its counterparty and that both sides will become contractually bound, and an acceptance of said offer, consisting of an expression of absolute and unconditional agreement to all the terms set out in the offer. 37. Bearing in mind the aforementioned elements as well as the particular circumstances of the present case, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Player’s refusal to acknowledged receipt of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s letter of 24 March 2010 is to be considered as a clear sign of his disagreement with the execution of the option to extend the employment contract. The fact that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was aware of the Player’s lack of interest in prolonging their contractual relation is confirmed not only by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s argumentation, but is also clearly stated in its letter of 12 April 2010 to the country B Football Association. 38. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the DRC went on to analyze the Claimant/Counter- Respondent’s argument, according to which, the fact that the Player resumed his trainings with Club K and requested the extension of his work permit accordingly, would mean that he tacitly agreed to the extension of the employment contract. Therefore, by abandoning his activities with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and signing a new employment contract with Club M on 8 August 2010, the Player would have breached, without just cause, the contract with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, induced by Club M. 39. In this context, the Chamber once again referred to the basic elements of a valid contract mentioned in point II. 36. above, and in this respect the DRC deemed that the fact alone that the Player resumed trainings with Club K for approximately one month does not imply his tacit acceptance of the extension, considering his previous categorical refusal to it, as well as the arbitrary unilateral extension communicated in spite of him to the country B Football Association. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s allegations in this respect had to be rejected. 40. Furthermore, the Chamber pointed out that already in the first month after the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s unilateral extension of the contract, the player was assigned to train with the second team or individually, which is alleged by the Player and confirmed by the training sheets provided by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. In addition, it is also uncontested by the parties that, during this period, a fine in the amount of EUR 3,800 was imposed on the Player and the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was not able to provide evidence regarding its previous notification, following a due process. 41. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant/Counter- Respondent, by carrying out the procedure for the extension of the employment contract for seasons 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 before the country B Football Association, while being aware of the Player’s clear refusal of such extension, acted unilaterally and in bad faith, causing consequently the invalidity of such extension, since it lacks one of the fundamental elements of validity of a contract, namely, the agreement of both contractual parties. In addition, the Chamber concluded that the Player’s participation in some of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s training sessions for a period of approximately one month, after the extension had already been unilaterally concluded by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent cannot be considered as a sign of the Player’s acceptance of the extension of the contract. 42. At this point and for the sake of completeness of the analysis of the parties’ submissions, the Chamber recalled the argument of the Player, according to which he was unaware of the existence of an extension option in the contract, since the latter was only drafted in language F and language D, languages he does not understand and, consequently, such clause should not be considered as valid. 43. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that a party signing a document of legal importance, as a general rule, does so on its own responsibility and is consequently liable to bear the possible legal consequences arising from the execution of such document. Therefore, based on its well-established jurisprudence, the DRC concluded that the aforementioned argument of the Player had to be rejected. 44. In view of all the above considerations, the Chamber concluded that, on 8 August 2010, the player was no longer contractually bound to the Claimant and, as such, he was free to enter an employment relationship with any club of his choice. As a consequence, the Chamber deemed that neither the Player breached his contract with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, nor had Club M induced any type of breach. 45. In view of all the aforementioned, the Chamber decided to entirely reject the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, as well as the counterclaim of the Respondents/Counter-Claimants. ** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Club K, is rejected. 2. The counterclaim of the Respondents/Counter-Claimants, Player O and Club M, 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 Enclosed: CAS directives