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 7 June 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Piat (France), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member on the claim presented by the player, I, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club X, from country I as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 7 June 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Piat (France), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member on the claim presented by the player, I, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club X, from country I as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. The player, I from country B (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the country I club, club X (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid from 23 July 2011 until the end 2011-2012 country I football season, i.e. 26 May 2012. In addition, the parties entered into a “Supplement” agreement valid for the same term as the contract (hereinafter: the supplement agreement) (hereinafter, the contract and the supplement agreement are jointly referred to as the contractual arrangements). 2. According to the contractual arrangements in place between the parties, the Claimant was entitled to the following remuneration : - Pursuant to the contract, the Claimant shall receive an overall amount of USD 312,000 payable as follows: i. USD 93,600 at the beginning of the contract; ii. USD 62,400 in 12 monthly installments amounting to USD 5,200 each; iii. USD 93,600 at the end of the first term of the season; and iv. USD 62,400 at the end of the season. - Pursuant to the supplement agreement, the Claimant was to receive an overall net amount of USD 218,000 payable as follows: i. USD 65,400 at the beginning of the contract; ii. USD 43,600 in 12 monthly installments amounting to USD 3,633 each, but the last one, that amounts to USD 3,637; iii. USD 65,400 at the end of the first term of the season; and iv. USD 43,600 at the end of the season. 3. Clause 15 of the contract established that “In case of any dispute for any reason between two parties of contract, firstly discipline Committee of Club will solve it, if dispute wasn’t solved, the Disciplinary Committee of the related federation as the impartial judge will solve it and the sentence of the federation’s disciplinary committee will be definitive and both parties can not object about it and should the dispute not resolved, it will be submitted to the FIFA Arbitral Tribunal”. 4. On 17 August 2012, the Claimant lodged before FIFA a claim against the Respondent for breach of contract. 5. According to the claim, the Claimant had honored his obligations under the contractual arrangements from the date of its signature until its expiry at the end of the 2011-2012 country I football season. However, the Claimant claimed that after the first payment of USD 93,000 the club failed to observe the payment scheme agreed. In this respect, the Claimant reported that the only payments made during the term of the contractual relationship were the following: USD 30,000 in January 2012; and other two payments in the amount of USD 40,000; and USD 33,000. The Claimant acknowledged that he had received an aggregate amount of USD 196,000 from the club and that therefore USD 334,000 was still outstanding. 6. Further, the Claimant claimed that he had suffered sporting, financial, moral and image damages as a result of the Respondent’s breach of the contract. Consequently, the Claimant argued that he is entitled to financial compensation. Lastly, the Claimant held that pursuant to art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations the Respondent’s conduct must result in the imposition of sporting sanctions. 7. In light of the above, the Claimant requested the DRC: - to order the Respondent to pay: i. USD 334,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as of the date on which the relevant amount became due; ii. USD 170,000 as compensation for moral and image damages; iii. legal expenses incurred by the Claimant as a result of the present proceedings. - to impose sporting sanctions on the Respondent. 8. In response to the claim, the Respondent limited itself to challenging the competence of the DRC to deal with the present matter at first instance on the basis of clause 15 of the contract. In this respect, the Respondent did not provide any documentary evidence in order to prove that the present matter should be dealt with by the deciding body under the Football Federation of country I. 9. Furthermore, the Respondent did not submit its position as to the substance of the matter. ***** 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 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 17 August 2012, thus, after the aforementioned Rules entered into force on 1 July 2008. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the edition 2008 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand. 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 and 2 in combination with art. 22 b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012; hereinafter: the FIFA Regulations), the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on employment-related disputes between a club and a player that have an international dimension. 3. As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the DRC) would, in principle, be the competent body to decide on the present litigation involving a player and a club regarding breach of an employment contract. 4. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of clause 15 of the contract (cf. point I./3. above). 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 in 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. While analysing whether it was competent to hear the present matter, first and foremost, the Dispute Resolution Chamber deemed of utmost importance to highlight that the present dispute pertains to the execution of the contractual arrangements. 7. Having said this, for the sake of completeness, the members of the Chamber turned to clause 15 of the contract, on the basis of which the Respondent contested FIFA’s jurisdiction. According to said clause 15, “In case of any dispute for any reason between two parties of contract, firstly discipline Committee of Club will solve it, if dispute wasn’t solved, the Disciplinary Committee of the related federation as the impartial judge will solve it and the sentence of the federation’s disciplinary committee will be definitive and both parties can not object about it and should the dispute not resolved, it will be submitted to the FIFA Arbitral Tribunal”. 8. In this context, the members of the DRC considered that the wording of clause 15 was not clear and did not refer to a national dispute resolution chamber in the sense of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, only making reference to the Disciplinary Committee. Additionally, the DRC considered that said clause refers also to the competence of FIFA. 9. Further, the DRC noted that the Respondent did not provide any documentary evidence in order to prove that the present matter should be dealt with by the deciding body under the Football Federation of country I. 10. Hence, the Chamber concluded that clause 15 did not constitute a clear arbitration clause in favour of the competence of the deciding body under the Football Federation of country I. 11. Having said this, for the sake of completeness, the members of the DRC referred to the principle of equal representation of players as well as of clubs and underlined that this principle is one of the very fundamental elements to be fulfilled, in order for a national dispute resolution chamber to be recognised by FIFA. 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 (…).” Equally, the FIFA Circular no. 1010 provides 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.” 12. On account of the above, the members of the Chamber made reference to article 12 par. 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof, and concurred that, even if the contractual arrangements at the basis of the present dispute would have included a clear arbitration clause in favour of the national dispute resolution chamber, the Respondent did not provide any documentary evidence in support of its arguments. As a consequence, the Respondent was unable to prove that, in fact, the deciding body under the Football Federation of country I meets the minimum procedural standards for independent arbitration tribunals as laid down in art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in the FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations. 13. In view of all the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent’s objection towards 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. 14. In continuation, the Chamber analysed which edition of the FIFA Regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012 and 2010), and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 17 August 2012. The DRC concluded that the 2010 version of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 15. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, entering into the substance of the matter, the members of the Chamber reminded that the parties had signed contractual arrangements, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive the remuneration set out in point I./2. above. 16. Subsequently, the Chamber noted that the Respondent in its reply had failed to respond to the claim as to the substance, in spite of having been invited to do so. In this way, so the Chamber, the Respondent renounced its right to defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 17. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the Chamber concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules it shall take a decision regarding the substance of the matter upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 18. In line with the above, the DRC then turned to the complaint of the Claimant, who maintained that the Respondent had paid him USD 196,000 out of the agreed overall remuneration and thus, there was USD 334,000 still outstanding. Consequently, the Claimant requested the payment of USD 334,000 by the Respondent as well as 5% interest p.a.. 19. Considering both the contract and the supplement agreement, the Respondent was obliged to pay to the Claimant the total amount of EUR 530,000. 20. Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his petition, the DRC concluded that the Claimant has substantiated his claim pertaining to outstanding remuneration with sufficient documentary evidence. 21. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC established that the Respondent failed to pay the Claimant the remuneration as established in the contractual arrangements. 22. Hence, the Chamber decided that, in virtue of the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”, and in accordance with point II./18. above, the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of USD 334,000 to the Claimant, which is due to the latter player on the basis of the contractual arrangements concluded between the parties. 23. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim regarding interest, and in particular that the Claimant did not specify the exact due dates of the outstanding amounts, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount granted as of the date of the claim, that is 17 August 2012. 24. In addition, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s claim pertaining to legal costs in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence in this regard. 25. The Chamber then referred to the request of the Claimant to impose sporting sanctions on the Respondent. In this regard, the members of the DRC highlighted that, in accordance with art. 17 of the Regulations, sporting sanctions shall only be imposed in cases involving the early termination of a contract. Therefore, considering the matter at hand concerns outstanding remuneration, the request of the Cliamant is rejected. 26. In conclusion, the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that the claim is admissible, that it is partially accepted, obliging the Respondent to pay the amount of USD 334,000 to the Claimant, and that any further requests filed by the Claimant are rejected. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, I, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. 3. The Respondent, Club X, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 334,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 17 August 2012 until the date of effective payment. 4. In the event that the amount plus interest due to the Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned number 3 are not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. 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