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 27 February 2013, in the following composition: on the claim presented by the player, Player S, from country R, as Claimant against the club, Club M, from country P as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute 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 27 February 2013, in the following composition: on the claim presented by the player, Player S, from country R, as Claimant against the club, Club M, from country P as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 12 July 2009, the player S (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant), and the club M from country P (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2009. 2. Article 2 of the contract provided that the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, a total remuneration of EUR 250,000 for the duration of the contract, as follows: • EUR 50,000 “within 15 days upon the effectiveness of this contract”; and • EUR 200,000 payable in four monthly instalments, payable “at the middle of each month”, starting on 15 August 2009. 3. Article 6 of the contract provided inter alia that “[the player] must keep himself in top physical condition in order to compete to his maximum ability and refrain from any action that may be unfavourable to [the club]. To facilitate this principle, [the player] must: 1. Participate in all matches, team training and special training discussions as well as other activities organized by [the club] with a healthy and fresh status. Provided that (…) [the player] “refuses to have match(es) or training without cause acceptable to [club], [club] may deduct half of [player]’s monthly salary each time, and as from the second time Party A shall also be entitled to terminate the contract without any further obligations to [the club]”. 4. Article 13 of the contract specified that “all the disputes about the contract shall be solved by negotiation between two parties. If two parties of the contract could not reach to Contract, and the disputes shall be referred to Football Association of country P and even F.I.F.A court” and that “the decision will be final”. 5. In a letter dated 17 November 2009, the player requested the payment of the four monthly salaries agreed under the contract in the aggregate amount of EUR 200,000, establishing a deadline for payment until 23 November 2009. 6. In a letter dated 23 November 2009, the club replied to the player’s letter and stated that “as that player S was selected to National Team of country R for FIFA WC qualification match (country R-country F, on 14 October 2009). After the match he absence of timely and rejoin to Club M. Please tell him to submit written reasons for our club.” 7. On 7 December 2009, the player lodged a claim against the club with FIFA, requesting the payment of the four monthly salaries agreed under the contract in the aggregate amount of EUR 200,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the respective due dates of each salary payment. The player also requested the imposition of sporting sanctions on the club. 8. In this regard, the Claimant held that the fact that all salaries were outstanding must constitute just cause for the unilateral termination of the contract without any consequences. 9. According to the Claimant, the contents of the Respondent’s letter dated 23 November 2009 are related to his late return from an international match for his national team. He held, however, that such late return was caused by the Respondent, since it did not arrange for his visa renewal on time. The Claimant further stated that, in any case, before such late return episode, the Respondent was already in default by not having paid the first three salaries under the contract. 10. The Respondent submitted its response, by means of which it contested FIFA’s competence to deal with the present matter, claiming that the present dispute should first be submitted to the Football Association of country P as per article 13 of the contract. The club further stated that, according to article 56 of the “Articles of Football Association of country P”, affiliated members shall not take their disputes to court, but rather submit them to the Football Association’s of country P arbitration body. 11. In this regard, upon request, the Football Association of country P (hereinafter: the PFA) submitted a copy of the internal regulations, which stipulate provisions regarding the national dispute resolution chamber (hereinafter: the NDRC). The PFA and the club provided, inter alia, a copy of the Regulations of the PFA’s Arbitration Committee that came into force as from 16 June 2009. 12. Upon request, the PFA confirmed that, regarding the composition of the NDRC, “that there is no representative from players in our committee”. 13. Notwithstanding the above, the Respondent submitted its position as to the substance of the matter, asserting that it had consented to the Claimant’s absence only from 6 October 2009 to 15 October 2009, considering he had two official matches in country R on 10 October 2009 and 14 October 2009. Furthermore, it stated that: “It is disciplinary responsibility for Player S to return back to city V right away. While, he took the flight transferring from City B on 17 October 2009 knowingly or should have known his visa will expire on 17 October 2009. His failure to pass the Custom is without any doubt. Finally he returned to city V on 21 October 2009 with our remedial help.” 14. Moreover, the Respondent alleged that it had never received any request from the Claimant for any additional leave and that his absence was therefore unauthorised. 15. In continuation, the Respondent asserted that, after the Claimant flew back to country P, he refused to attend, and did not participate in the physical recovery sessions following an alleged injury, which were held from 26 October 2009 until 30 October 2009. In this regard, the Respondent provided photos of absence notices apparently left on the player’s dressing room door for that period. The Respondent held, therefore, that in accordance with the contract and the club’s internal regulations, it had “the legal right to refuse to pay for all of his wages”. 16. In support of its position, the Respondent submitted a copy of the “Implementation regulations of Club M discipline of daily attendance and leave application” (hereinafter: the club’s internal regulations) according to which a player who is absent without authorisation once shall pay a penalty of one month’s salary. If the unauthorised absence is for more than three times during one year, the penalties may be “punishment of suspension training or match or degradation to reserves”. Finally, if the unauthorised absence is for more than seven times during one year, the penalties can be “punishment of bandh or expulsion”. 17. In the light of the above, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim entirely. 18. The Claimant presented his replica and firstly affirmed that he considered FIFA to be competent to deal with the matter at stake and underlined that the NDRC within the scope of the PFA does not comply with the minimum procedural requirements. 19. Regarding his alleged late arrival in country P after representing his national team, the Claimant maintained that he was only able to return on 21 October 2009, although authorized only until 15 October 2009, due to visa issues and that said issues should have been avoided by the Respondent. He also disputed the argument that he should be aware that his visa had expired. In this respect, the Claimant further emphasised that, considering that the Respondent ended up resolving the visa issue enabling his return to country P on 21 October 2009, it was perfectly aware of his absence and of the pertinent reasons, thus it could not apply any sanctions in this regard. 20. Regarding the club’s internal regulations, the Claimant stated that such document cannot bind him since he was never made aware of its contents. 21. Moreover, the Claimant denied having missed the recovery sessions between 26 and 30 October 2009 and stated that he was indeed present at the club. In this respect, the Claimant submitted testimonials of other players received via e-mail. Finally, he maintained that the photos submitted as evidence that absence notices had been posted are false. 22. The Respondent presented its comments and re-affirmed that clause 13 of the contract establishes that any dispute must be firstly submitted to the NDRC and, only if said NDRC “cannot solve”, to FIFA. 23. In relation to the club’s internal regulations, the Respondent stated that the Claimant was aware of its contents and undertook to abide by them. In this regard, the Respondent submitted testimonies from two players of the club confirming that every player was aware of the contents of such document. 24. Concerning the Claimant’s absence from the club between 26 and 30 October 2009, the Respondent insisted that such was the case and held that the testimony provided by the player lacks credibility since it is only an exchange of e-mail. The Respondent submits a testimony from the club’s “former leader” and from its assistant coach, confirming that the Claimant had, in fact, been absent during that period. The club maintains, therefore, that according to the contract and its internal regulations, it was entitled to refuse to pay all the outstanding salaries. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter referred to as the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 21 par. 1 and 2 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 7 December 2009, after 1 July 2008. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand. 2. With regard to the competence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its jurisdiction in the light of art. 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from country R and a club from country P. 3. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players by arguing that there are deciding bodies under the auspices of the PFA and that, according to the contract, the Claimant had to first revert the dispute to the PFA. 4. In this regard, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant contested the competence of the deciding bodies of the PFA, affirming that it did not comply with the applicable regulations and insisted on the fact that FIFA has jurisdiction to deal with the present matter. 5. Taking into account the above, the Chamber emphasised that, in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, it is competent to deal with a matter such as the one at hand, unless an independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs, has been established at national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to the standards to be imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings, the Chamber referred to the FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. In this regard, the members of the Chamber further referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008. 6. Having said this, the members of the Chamber turned to article 13 of the contract, according to which the parties accepted the jurisdiction of the PFA as well as of FIFA. 7. First, the PRC highlighted that the relevant clause does not exclude the jurisdiction of FIFA. On the contrary, it expressly refers to FIFA, reaffirming its competence. 8. Moreover, and regardless of the fact that the relevant employment contract contains a reference to dispute resolution at national level, which reference, the Chamber pointed out, was worded in a rather vague manner in the sense that it merely refers to the PFA and not to a specific deciding body, the members of the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 22 b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players as well as to the respective well-established jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber according to which, in general, in employment-related disputes between a club and a player that have an international dimension, i.e. the parties do not belong to the same country, both parties were entitled to refer the dispute to FIFA’s deciding bodies, unless an independent arbitration tribunal respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs with an independent chairman has been established at national level. 9. In this context, the DRC referred to the principle of equal representation of players and clubs and underlined that this principle was one of the very fundamental elements to be fulfilled, in order for a national dispute resolution chamber to be recognised as such. Indeed, this prerequisite is mentioned in the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in the Circular no. 1010 as well as in art. 3 par. 1 of the NDRC Regulations, which illustrates the aforementioned principle as follows: “The NDRC shall be composed of the following members, who shall serve a four-year renewable mandate: a) a chairman and a deputy chairman chosen by consensus by the player and club representatives (…); b) between three and ten player representatives who are elected or appointed either on proposal of the players’ associations affiliated to FIFPro, or, where no such associations exist, on the basis of a selection process agreed by FIFA and FIFPro; c) between three and ten club representatives (…).” In this respect, the FIFA Circular no. 1010 states the following: “The parties must have equal influence over the appointment of arbitrators. This means for example that every party shall have the right to appoint an arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators appoint the chairman of the arbitration tribunal (…). Where arbitrators are to be selected from a predetermined list, every interest group that is represented must be able to exercise equal influence over the compilation of the arbitrator list.” 10. In this context, the Chamber went on to examine the documentation presented by the Respondent and acknowledged that the applicable national regulations do not establish the composition of the NDRC. Additionally, the DRC took note that the PFA confirmed that, regarding the composition of the NDRC, “there is no representative from players in our committee”. 11. In view of all the above, the Chamber established that in the case at hand the Respondent has failed to prove that an independent arbitration tribunal in compliance with the requirements of the FIFA regulations has been established in country P. As a consequence, the Chamber decided that the Respondent’s objection to the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance. 12. Subsequently, the DRC analysed which edition of the regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012, 2010 and 2009), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 7 December 2009, the 2009 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 13. The competence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the applicable regulations having been 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. The DRC further acknowledged that on 12 July 2009 the parties to the dispute had signed an employment contract, valid as from that date until 31 December 2009. 14. In continuation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber noted that on 7 December 2009 the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent for breach of contract and requested the payment of an aggregate amount of EUR 200,000 plus 5% interest as of each due date. 15. Further, the DRC observed that the Claimant, on 17 November 2009, that is prior to lodging his petition before FIFA, put the Respondent in default regarding the monthly instalments that became due since 15 August 2009. 16. Having said this, the DRC first was eager to underline that the Respondent accepted not having paid the salaries claimed by the Claimant. In continuation, the members of the DRC turned its attention to the arguments of the Respondent and, in particular, took note that, according to the Respondent, during the execution of the contract, the Claimant was absent without authorization as well as that he allegedly missed recovery sessions, which in accordance with the club’s internal regulations would entitle the Respondent to stop to pay any remuneration to the Claimant. 17. In this context, the Chamber recalled that according to the legal principle of the burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules), the Respondent shall carry the burden of proof as regards the alleged breaches of the contract by the Claimant as well as in relation to the other arguments put forward by it in the present matter. 18. In this respect, the members of the DRC ascertained that the Respondent was unable to prove the alleged contract breaches by the Claimant and that the arguments of the Respondent could not be upheld. 19. In continuation, the Chamber considered that it is uncontested by the parties that the Claimant had rendered his services to the Respondent during a period of over three months and that the Respondent had failed to pay any of the monthly instalments due on 15 August 2009, 15 September 2009, 15 October 2009 and 15 November 2009. 20. In this context, the members of the DRC underlined that, as a general principle, a club is obliged to remunerate a player, as agreed between the parties, for the period of time during which the player has rendered his services to the club, unless the club can justify the non-payment of the agreed remuneration. 21. In this respect, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent has failed to prove that it had any valid reason or justification in order not to pay the claimed amounts. 22. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the Chamber established that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s monthly salaries in the total amount of EUR 200,000. 23. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Respondent, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, is liable to pay to the Claimant outstanding salaries in the total amount of EUR 200,000. 24. Finally, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on each of the outstanding monthly salaries as of the day following the day on which such salaries had fallen due. ******* III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Mr. S, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant is accepted. 3. The Respondent, Club M, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 200,000, plus interest at 5% p.a. until the date of effective payment, as follows: • 5% interest p.a. over EUR 50,000 as of 16 August 2009; • 5% interest p.a. over EUR 50,000 as of 16 September 2009, • 5% interest p.a. over EUR 50,000 as of 16 October 2009; and • 5% interest p.a. over EUR 50,000 as of 16 November 2009. 4. In the event that the aforementioned amount, plus interests, is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a formal decision. 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives