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 29 November 2013, in the following composition: Mr. Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Mr. Taku Nomiya (Japan), member Mr. Mohamed S. Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member Mr. Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member Mr. Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mr. Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member Mr. Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Mr. Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Mr. John Bramhall (England), member on the claim presented by the player, Player K, from country P as Claimant against the club, Club I, from country T 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 29 November 2013, in the following composition: Mr. Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Mr. Taku Nomiya (Japan), member Mr. Mohamed S. Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member Mr. Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member Mr. Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mr. Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member Mr. Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Mr. Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Mr. John Bramhall (England), member on the claim presented by the player, Player K, from country P as Claimant against the club, Club I, from country T as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. Club I, from country T (hereinafter: the Respondent or the club), and Player K, from country P (hereinafter: the Claimant or the player), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 1 June 2011 until 31 May 2013. 2. According to article 6.1 of the contract, in the 2011/2012 season, the player was to be remunerated with the total amount of EUR 450,000, payable in 10 installments of EUR 35,000 and EUR 100,000 “is to be paid as the attendance fee based on 34 official league matches only in the respective football season”. 3. Furthermore, and in the 2012/2013 season, the player was to be remunerated with the total amount of EUR 475,000 net, payable as follows: - 10 installments of EUR 35,000 on the 25th of every month as of September 2012 until June 2013; and, - EUR 125,000 “is to be paid as the attendance fee based on 34 official league matches only in the respective football season.” 4. Equally, and as stipulated in article 6.2 of the contract, the player was entitled to USD 2,000 to cover rent costs. 5. On 29 March 2013, the player lodged a claim in front of FIFA, explaining that the Respondent was in constant delay of its payment obligations, reason for which he sent letters to the club on 7 November 2012, 27 December 2012 and 28 January 2013 asking for the relevant payments. However, no reply was received from the club and, consequently, the player issued a termination letter on 11 February 2013. 6. In his claim, the player indicated that, at the time of the termination, the following payments were outstanding: - EUR 30,870 “as remuneration for each appearance of the player in the starting line up of the team during the season 2011/2012”; - EUR 175,000 for the salaries of September, October, November, December 2012 and January 2013; - EUR 12,826 as remuneration for 11 days of February 2013; and, - USD 6,000 for three months of accommodation. 7. The player further outlined that following the termination of the contract, he signed a new employment contract with Club G, from country P, valid from 18 March 2013 until 30 June 2013, in accordance with which he would receive his salary in three monthly installments of 5,800 currency of country P each, amounting to a total of 17,400 currency of country P. 8. On account of all the above, the player deemed that he had terminated the contract with just cause and that he should be awarded the following amounts: - EUR 30,870 “as remuneration for each appearance”; - EUR 187,826 as outstanding salaries; - USD 6,000 as rent costs; - EUR 34,644 as damages for the period as from 12 February 2013 - 17 March 2013; and, - EUR 82,160 as damages for the period as from 18 March 2013 - 31 May 2013 (EUR 86,324 - EUR 4,164). 9. In its reply, the club stated that it had fulfilled all its contractual obligations towards the player and submitted a list of payments apparently made to the player. 10. In his replica, the player stated that the list provided by the club did not seem to be an official bank document. Nevertheless, and above all, the player indicated that the payments listed by the club did not correspond to any of the payments claimed by the player, and this rather supported his claim than contested it. 11. In its duplica, the club presented the same list as provided in its reply, however, this time it was signed by an employee of the bank. Furthermore, the Respondent reiterated that the player’s claim was groundless. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 29 March 2013. Consequently, the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 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 conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012; hereinafter: the Regulations), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country P player and a country T 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, and considering that the present claim was lodged on 29 March 2013, the 2012 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. Once the competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations were established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case, as well as the documentation contained in the file. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the parties had signed an employment contract valid as from 1 June 2011 until 31 May 2013, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive, inter alia, a total amount of EUR 475,000 for the 2012/2013 season (which consisted of 10 installments of EUR 35,000, and EUR 125,000 as an attendance fee based on 34 official league matches during the season) and USD 2,000 per month to cover the rent costs. 5. In continuation, the members of the Chamber took into account that, on 11 February 2013, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent by means of which he terminated his contract on the basis of outstanding remuneration. Conversely, the Chamber noted that the Respondent alleged that the remuneration claimed by the Claimant, was in fact paid. 6. In view of the above, the DRC highlighted that the central issue in the matter at stake would be to determine whether the alleged outstanding remuneration claimed by the Claimant, was in fact paid by the Respondent. 7. In this respect, the Chamber wished to emphasize that, according to the Claimant, at the time of the termination of the contract on 11 February 2013, the total amount of EUR 205,870, corresponding to the salaries of September, October, November, December 2012 and January 2013, as well as the remuneration for appearances in league matches, and USD 6,000 related to the rent, were yet to be paid by the Respondent. 8. In this context, the DRC noted that the Respondent had submitted payment lists as documentary evidence to support its position that it had already paid the amounts claimed by the Claimant. After examining the relevant lists, the members of the Chamber, whilst emphasising that they did not contest the accuracy and validity of such lists, concluded that these lists did not reflect the payments demanded by the Claimant. Rather, the documentary evidence submitted by the Respondent referred only to the payments related to the salaries of the 2011/2012 season as well as to part of the rent costs paid to the Claimant during the 2012/2013 season, which however stopped in October 2012. Hence, the lists provided by the Respondent did not specify any payment made for the salaries of the 2012/2013 season, which is the relevant season for which the Claimant is claiming outstanding remuneration in the matter at hand. 9. As a consequence of the aforementioned considerations, and after taking into account the documentation presented by the parties to the dispute, the Chamber established that the Respondent had been unable to prove that the salaries corresponding to September, October, November, December 2012 and January 2013, as well as the “attendance fee” for the 2011/2012 season, were no longer outstanding. Furthermore, the Respondent had neither been able to prove that the rent costs of November and December 2012, as well as of January 2013, were paid. In this regard, the Chamber concurred that the Respondent had thus seriously neglected its financial obligations towards the Claimant. 10. On account of the above and taking into consideration the Chamber’s longstanding jurisprudence in this respect, the DRC decided that the Claimant had just cause to unilaterally terminate the contract on 11 February 2013 since the Respondent had neglected its contractual obligations towards the Claimant in a continuous and constant manner. As a result, the Chamber determined that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the contract with just cause by the Claimant. 11. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. EUR 205,870 corresponding to the salaries from September 2012 to January 2013 and the “attendance fee” of the 2011/2012 season. Furthermore, the DRC found that that the Respondent is also liable of paying the rent costs of three months of a total value of USD 6,000. 12. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period. 13. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that first of all it had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake. 14. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body. 15. The members of the Chamber then turned their attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, which criterion was considered by the Chamber to be essential. The members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and the new contract in the calculation of the amount of compensation. 16. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract as from its date of termination with just cause by the Claimant, i.e. 11 February 2013, and concluded that the Claimant would have received in total EUR 140,000 as remuneration had the contract been executed until its expiry date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 140,000 serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand. 17. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages. 18. The Chamber recalled that, on 18 March 2013, the Claimant signed an employment contract with Club G, from country P, valid until 30 June 2013, in accordance with which he would receive his salary in three monthly installments of 5,800 currency of country P each (EUR 1,388), amounting to a total of 17,400 currency of country P (EUR 4,164). 19. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the Claimant’s general obligation to mitigate his damage, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and determined that the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 135,836 as compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand. 20. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player K, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club I, from country T, has to pay to the Claimant the amounts of EUR 205,870 and USD 6,000 as outstanding remuneration, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 135,836 as compensation for breach of contract, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 4. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant in accordance with the above- mentioned numbers 2. and 3. are not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limits, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limits and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl.: CAS directives