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 30 August 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the player, Player W, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club M, from country E 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 30 August 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the player, Player W, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club M, from country E as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 15 January 2012, Player W, from country S (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant), and Club M, from country E (hereinafter: the club or also referred to as the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid for the season 2011-2012. 2. According to the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the season 2011-2012 in country E started on 20 July 2011 and ended on 15 May 2012. 3. In accordance with the third part of the contract (financial provision), the player was entitled to receive a total amount of USD 175,000 payable in six instalments as follows: a. USD 90,000 on 01.02.2012; b. USD 15,000 on 06.03.2012; c. USD 15,000 on 06.04.2012; d. USD 15,000 on 06.05.2012; e. USD 15,000 on 06.06.2012; f. USD 25,000 on 05.07.2012. 4. In addition, art. 10 of the contract provides that “the club has the right to inform the player in writing to terminate the contract between them at the end of the season during its validity within fifteen days after last national official match for the club. In this case the player does not deserve any compensation for the rest of the period of the contract the player will receive his financial dues up to the end of the contract.” 5. On 11 November 2012, the player lodged a claim in front of FIFA, requesting from the club a total outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 175’000. 6. According to the player, no salary was ever paid and when the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) was received he was not registered for the club. 7. Furthermore, the player pointed out that on 1 May 2012 he was released from the club and free to join any club of his choice as a free player. In particular, the player argued that the “releasing document”, dated 1 May 2012, submitted by the club was to be considered as “an official cancellation” of the contract concluded between the parties. 8. On 6 December 2012, the club replied explaining the circumstances of the present matter. According to the club, they were about to sign with the player for six months and requested via the country E Football Association the ITC from the Association of Football Federations of country A. The club further stated that they were surprised when the Association of Football Federations of country A answered that the player was still under contract with his former club until the season 2013/2014, and therefore the ITC was not sent to the country E Football Association. Furthermore, the club brought up the fact that during the aforementioned procedure, after the match between Club A and Club M, the country E league was suspended. 9. The club stated that the player, taking into consideration that the ITC has not been issued, asked for evidence that he is not contracted nor recorded with the club for the season 2011/2012. According to the club, the player participated in matches with his club of origin during the period 2011/2012. 10. On 30 December 2012, the player provided FIFA with information of his employment situation as of the alleged breach of the contract signed until the original expiry of the contract. According to the player, as of 1 June 2012, he signed a new contract with the Club N, from country A. The contract in question is valid as from the date of its signature until 1 June 2013 and the player was entitled to receive the total amount of USD 320,000 payable as follows: • USD 50,000 to be paid immediately after signing; • USD 50,000 to be paid until 1 August 2012; • USD 20,000 to be paid to the manager of the football player; • USD 200,000 to be paid in 12 monthly instalments, i.e. USD 16,666 per month. 11. According to information contained in the TMS the player and Club N signed an employment contract with start date 2 May 2012. In the relevant transfer instruction also a release letter from the Club M was uploaded, which is dated 10 February 2012. 12. The country E Football Association confirmed by a letter dated 18 July 2013 that the first division league, in which the club was participating, was suspended from 2 February 2012 until 2 February 2013 when the new season started. Furthermore, the country E Football Association confirmed that the player was not registered for the club since the ITC was granted after the accident occurred at the Port Said Stadium (resulting in the league suspension). 13. In this regard, according to the information in TMS, the player was registered at the country E Football Association in May 2012. In fact, the “provisional registration” of the player was confirmed in TMS by the country E Football Association on 30 May 2012 based on the decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee dated 24 February 2012. As registration date “1 May 2012” was inserted in the system. 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 case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 11 November 2012. Consequently, the previous edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 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 combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012) the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on employment-related disputes between a club and a player that have an international dimension. 3. In continuation, the Chamber analysed which edition of the 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 (editions 2010 and 2012), and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 11 November 2012. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the 2010 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. 4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the members of 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 on 15 January 2012, valid for the season 2011-2012, in accordance with which the player was entitled to receive a total amount of USD 175,000 payable in six instalments. 5. In this context, the Chamber noted that the Claimant based his claim on an alleged breach of the employment contract by the Respondent on 1 May 2012. In this respect, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant argued that the Respondent never paid his remuneration in the amount of USD 175,000 and failed to register him when the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) was received. 6. The DRC then turned its attention to the arguments of the Respondent and acknowledged that, according to the club the relevant ITC was requested via the country E Football Association but never issued. Furthermore, the Chamber took note that the Respondent pointed out that during the course of the relevant ITC procedure the country E league was suspended. 7. The members of the Chamber continued their deliberations by establishing that the country E league was indeed suspended from 2 February 2012 until 2 February 2013. In this respect, the Chamber took due note that the country E Football Association therefore, despite the authorisation by the decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee dated 24 February 2012, only proceeded to provisionally register the player on 1 May 2012, just before the player had signed a new employment contract with Club N, from country A, on 2 May 2012. 8. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the player’s registration for the Respondent at the country E Football Association was only a technical act in order for the player to be subsequently transferred back to the Club N affiliated to the Association of Football Federations of country A. Consequently, the DRC deemed that due to the suspension of the country E league the player was never actually registered at the country E Football Association with the Respondent for playing purposes and the execution of the relevant contract had, thus, never started. 9. On account of all of the above-mentioned considerations, the members of the Chamber decided that the Respondent can not be held liable for the failure to execute the employment contract. Consequently, and taking also into account that the Claimant does not appear to have offered his services to the Respondent, the DRC decided to reject the claim put forward by the Claimant. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber The claim of the Claimant, Player W, 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 Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives