F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 August 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Taku Nomiya (Japan), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member on the claim presented by the player, Player R, from country C as Claimant against the club, Club G, from country K as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 August 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Taku Nomiya (Japan), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member on the claim presented by the player, Player R, from country C as Claimant against the club, Club G, from country K as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 19 February 2011, Player R, form country C (hereinafter: the Claimant) and Club G, from country K (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2011. 2. According to art. 1 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled, inter alia, to the following: a. a signing-on fee of USD 340,000 to be paid by 28 February 2011; b. a monthly salary of USD 10,000 as from February 2011 until December 2011. 3. Moreover, art. 7 of the contract stated that “The side that breaks this agreement after it takes effect is supposed to make reparation of US$ 1,000,000 in a month from the first day of breaking it”. 4. On 30 June 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA asking as follows: a. USD 70,000 “for the monthly value of the contract as from June 2011 until 31 December 2011”; b. USD 4,500 to cover all the psychological treatment expenses incurred by his family; c. USD 1,000,000 in compliance with art. 7 of the contract. 5. In particular, the Claimant explained that he had been persistently targeted and harassed by the Respondent’s officials, even presenting themselves in his home in view of persuading his wife into making him abandon the team. Even so, and despite the fact that since his arrival in February 2011, he had only taken part in one game with the club, albeit a friendly, the Claimant maintains to have always been willing to continue with his obligations. 6. In this respect, the Claimant asserted that on 16 May 2011, whilst training in the presence of his wife and children, he was verbally and physically assaulted by the Respondent´s assistant coach. According to the Claimant, this regretful scene, together with all the negative events witnessed during their stay in country K, had apparently left his family in constant need of psychological help. 7. On account of the above, the Claimant stressed that by means of a letter dated 14 June 2011, he unilaterally terminated the employment contract with the Respondent alleging just cause and stating that “My interest is to continue at the club to fulfill my contract until December 31 2011, but my family and I have NO guarantees to stay in the Team, after the physical assault and continued verbal abuse from the coaching staff, also I’m not participating in the matches of 1st division of the K-league”. 8. In addition, the Claimant attached a letter of the Respondent dated 18 June 2011, by means of which the latter stated that “You have deserted our club without any sort of written authorization/permission of the club (…) Therefore our clubs announce and make notice of early-terminating the contract with you”. 9. Furthermore, the Claimant stressed that the Respondent offered him two salaries for the mutual termination of the employment contract, but that he rejected the offer and asked for the remaining value of the contract. 10. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent fully rejected the claim and considered the Claimant the party responsible for the breach of contract without just cause. According to the Respondent, it was the Claimant who left the club on 16 June 2011 without its authorization or consent. 11. In respect to the alleged assault by the team’s assistant coach, the Respondent acknowledged having launched an internal investigation into the matter, but underlines that the person in question had resigned and was no longer with the Respondent. 12. Moreover, the Respondent sustained that several conversations were held with the Claimant in view of solving the matter amicably; an amicable agreement even seemed to have been reached but unfortunately, the Claimant abandoned the country without prior notice and authorization from the Respondent. 13. Notwithstanding the above, and despite the Claimant´s attitude and behavior, the Respondent argued that in good faith and in view of not hindering his professional career, it agreed not to oppose to the issuance of the International Transfer Certificate, thus allowing the Claimant to subsequently sign a contract, on 3 August 2011, with Club T, from country V. 14. Having been asked to do so, the Claimant informed FIFA that on 4 August 2011, he concluded an employment contract with Club T, from country V, valid as from 5 August 2011 until the last game of the season, scheduled to be in May 2012. In accordance with said contract, the Claimant was entitled, inter alia, to a signing-on fee of currency of country V 59,500 to be paid in September 2011 and to a monthly salary of currency of country V 59,500. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 30 June 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 of the 2008, 2012 and 2014 edition 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 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2014), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country C player and a country K club. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010, 2012 and 2014), and considering that the claim was lodged on 30 June 2011, the 2010 edition of the aforementioned regulations (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, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. First of all, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that, on 19 February 2011, the parties entered into an employment contract in accordance with which the Respondent would pay to the Claimant USD 340,000 by 28 February 2011 as a signing-on fee and a monthly salary of USD 10,000 as from February until December 2011. 6. The Chamber further observed that the Claimant unilaterally terminated the contract on 14 June 2011 invoking just cause, and that he subsequently lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent seeking payment of the amount of USD 1,074,500, corresponding to the remaining value of the contract, to the psychological treatment expenses allegedly incurred by his family as well as to the amount stipulated in art. 7 of the contract. 7. In continuation, the members of the Chamber took note of the Claimant’s position who stresses that he was verbally and physically assaulted by the Respondent’s assistant coach and that during his stay in country K, he was pressured and harassed by the Respondent’s officials, in order for him to leave the Respondent. Moreover, the Chamber acknowledged that, according to the Claimant, one of the assaults happened in front of his family and that this left them in need of psychological help. 8. Furthermore, the Chamber observed that the Respondent, for its part, asserts that the Claimant abandoned the team without any kind of permission or authorization from it. Therefore, in the Respondent’s view, the Claimant terminated the contract without just cause since he had no reasons to leave. 9. In view of the foregoing considerations and the opposite positions of the parties, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the Claimant on 14 June 2014, and which party was responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship in question. 10. At this point, the DRC wished to recall that according to the legal principle of the burden of proof contained in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact carries the burden of proof. In casu, the Claimant bears the burden of proving that he had a just cause to terminate the employment relationship with the Respondent. 11. In this respect, the members of the Chamber concurred that the Claimant failed to provide any kind of evidence which could corroborate that he had been in fact assaulted and/or harassed in any way by the Respondent’s assistant coach or officials and/or that his family had been in need of psychological treatment. 12. Furthermore, the Chamber acknowledged that whilst the alleged assault suffered by the Claimant apparently occurred on 16 May 2011, the latter terminated the contract only on 14 June 2011. In this respect, the Chamber wished to emphasise that between 16 May 2011 and 14 June 2011 several conversations were held between the Claimant’s representative and the Respondent and apparently even an amicable settlement was discussed. What is more, and whilst focusing on the Claimant’s letter dated 14 June 2011, the Chamber was of the opinion that the reasons given by the Claimant thereto to terminate the relevant employment contract were more in relation to his level of participation with the team than to any other motive. Moreover, the Chamber emphasised that it was undisputed that all the Claimant’s salaries were paid up to the date when the early termination occurred. 13. In this context, the Chamber decided that the Claimant had not been able to prove that he had a just cause to terminate the relevant employment contract. 14. In view of all the foregoing considerations, the members of the Chamber were of the unanimous opinion that the Claimant’s claim should be rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber The claim of the Claimant, Player 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 Encl. CAS directives