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 Decision of the Resolution Dispute 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 matter between the player, Player A, from country B as Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the club, Club C, from country D as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, country F as Intervening Party 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 Decision of the Resolution Dispute 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 matter between the player, Player A, from country B as Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the club, Club C, from country D as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, country F as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. In August 2010, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the player or Claimant / Counter-Respondent) born on 13 January 1987, and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the club or Respondent / Counter-Claimant), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) for “3,5 seasons”, valid as from “the season 2010/2011 until the end of the season 2013/2014.” 2. The player submitted the following three contracts: i) Contract 1: Contract 1 consists of 8 pages and every page is signed by the player, however, not by the club. Contract 1 stipulates that the club would pay the player the amount of USD 775,000 as follows: - USD 100,000 on 1 January 2011; - USD 200,000 in the 2011/2012 season, - USD 225,000 in the 2012/2013 season, and - USD 250,000 in the 2013/2014 season Regarding the amounts due for the 2011/2012, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014, the contract does not provide any further specification as to when the payments are due. Contract 1 also specifies as “special conditions” that the player will receive USD 2,500 per month between 1 January 2011 and 30 June 2011, a signing-on fee of USD 10,000 “on signing date” and 10% of a future transfer. ii) Contract 2: Contract 2 consists of 8 pages and every page is signed by both the player as well as the club. Contract 2 stipulates that the club would pay the player the amount of USD 775,000 as follows: Season 2010/2011, USD 100,000: - “First instalment: amount of (25,000 USD Pound)” - “Only 100,000 USD pound settled on 1 January 2011” - USD 12,500 on 1 February 2011; - USD 12,500 on 1 March 2011; - USD 12,500 on 1 April 2011; - USD 12,500 on 1 May 2011; - USD 25,000 on 1 June 2011; Season 2011/2012, USD 200,000: - USD 50,000 due on 1 August 2011; - USD 100,000 payable in 8 monthly instalments of USD 12,500 each, due on the first day of each month as of September 2011 until May 2012; - USD 50,000 payable on 1 June 2012. Season 2012/2013, USD 225,000: - USD 56,500 payable on 1 August 2012; - USD 112,000 payable in 8 monthly instalments of USD 14,000 each, due on the first day of each month as of September 2012 until May 2013; - USD 56,500 payable on 1 June 2013. Season 2013/2014, USD 250,000: - USD 62,600 payable on 1 August 2013; - USD 124,800 payable in 8 monthly instalments of USD 15,600 each, due on the first day of each month as of September 2013 until May 2014; - USD 62,600 payable on 1 June 2014. Contract 2 also specifies as “special conditions” that the player will receive USD 2,500 per month between 1 January 2011 and 30 June 2011, a signing-on fee of USD 10,000 “on signing date” and 10% of a future transfer as well as a “right of player’s airline ticket per year.” iii) Contract 3: Contract 3 consists of 16 pages and every page is signed by both the player as well as the club and apparently Contract 3 is the contract registered with the Football Association from country D. Contract 3 stipulates that the club would pay the player the total remuneration of USD 775,000 as follows: Season 2010/2011, USD 100,000: - USD 25,000 to be paid on 1 January 2011; - USD 12,500 on 1 February 2011; - USD 12,500 on 1 March 2011; - USD 12,500 on 1 April 2011; - USD 12,500 on 1 May 2011; - USD 25,000 on 1 June 2011; For the 2011/2012, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 season as well as the “special conditions”, Contract 3 includes the same conditions as stipulated in Contract 2. In addition, art. 4 of Contract 3, which is included on page 9 of the contract and therefore not included in Contract 1 and Contract 2, states that: “The player will incur the taxes of the total amount of the contract according to law. The club will settle the taxes to the concerned tax administration and inform the player for the document of paying after the end of the season and before the beginning of the next season.” 3. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Football Association from country D requested the player’s ITC on 4 January 2011 and received it on 27 January 2011. TMS indicates as well that the player was engaged “out of contract, free of payment” and as proof of the “last contract date”, the contract of the player with the club from country B, Club G, is uploaded which has as an expiry date of November 2009. 4. On 9 February 2011, the coach of the club, Mr H, informed the agent of the player that the board of the club wanted to deduct USD 50,000 from USD 100,000 for the ITC and that it promised him “to pay 25,000 from the 50,000 to get his ITC. (…) I have advised Player A to take the 27,500 now and send a very strong message that he will not participate in the Championship (in 2 weeks) before he gets the remaining signing fee money. (…) ps they also want to make a new contract with 20 percent taxes, I told them to increase all numbers by 20% to get the same net income for Player A.” 5. On 10 February 2011, the agent of the player wrote an e-mail to a certain Mr X informing him of the following: “(…) Consequent to the ongoing discussion with my client, Player A, regarding the payment of his sign on fee. It is my believe that a broad based conversation about this and other matters would help Player A and I make informed decisions as well as enhance our working relationship with the club throughout the duration of his contract. (…)”. Apparently, no reply was received to the aforementioned e-mail and a similar e-mail was sent to the club on 24 February 2011. 6. On 5 May 2011, the agent wrote an e-mail to Mr X in which he, inter alia, stated that “(…) you agreed to making travel arrangement that would bring me to country D for discussions on contract extension and related matters. (…) It is important for you to know that Player A and I, are fully aware of the inconsistencies in the contract you registered with the Football Association from country D. Those inconsistencies could serve as reasonable grounds to opt out of the contract, once we are convinced that the Club C organization does not represent our best interest. (…)” 7. On 22 July 2011, the player sent an e-mail to Mr X by means of which he informed the club that he intended to terminate the contract by the end of July 2011, that the club would be made aware of the grounds for termination when a copy of the termination letter was sent to the club, FIFA and the Football Association from country D, whilst indicating that he would be open to negotiate a new contract for the next season. 8. On 11 and 17 August 2011, the agent wrote to a certain Mr Y outlining the situation and indicating that he still believed that the situation could be resolved. 9. On 24 August 2011, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA and held that, for the first half of the season (i.e. January 2011 to July 2011), it was agreed that he would receive a net salary of USD 120,000 (later amended to USD 125,000, cf. par. I./25. below), to be paid as follows: - USD 100,000 as a sign-on fee, - USD 2,500 as a monthly salary from January until July 2011. To support his position, the player submitted an e-mail exchange dated 27 August 2010 between the player’s agent and Mr Z, the latter confirming “I have an okay from the president for 100,000 USD on jan 1st 2011 plus jan-until june 6 x 2,500 per month and 10,000 this weekend after he signed the contract is a total 125,000 for the first half season.” 10. Nevertheless, the player indicated that he was only paid “USD 27,500 in salary and sign on fee in three instalments between January and July 2011. Plus 2 matches unpaid bonus of USD 1,000. I am therefore owed USD 93,500.” In this respect, the player submitted the following cheques/payment receipts: USD 1,000 Date illegible USD 1,500 14 November 2010 USD 5,000 (cheque nr 25570) 12 February 2011 USD 10,000 (cheque nr 25573) 9 March 2011 USD 10,000 (cheque nr 25583) 18 May 2011 11. The player explained that on 29 August 2010, he had signed a blank pre-contract, drafted in English and the language of country D, in country B (Contract 1). Thereafter, Club C allegedly “privately post dated and filled out the signed contract paper with inaccurate contract agreement and registered with Football Association from country D in January 2011 without giving me or my management a chance to review the final document.” 12. The player indicated that he only realized the fraud when he requested a copy of the contract and was given Contract 1 and Contract 2, which were however different from the contract the club had registered with the Football Association from country D (Contract 3). In particular, the player pointed out that “USD 100,000 was registered on the contract by Club C, instead of agreed USD 120,000 net salary and fee for the first half season, January to July 2011. Club C was supposed to add 20% tax to the USD 775,000 net salary as agreed. Instead they only registered USD 775,000 with the Football Association from country D, which means that I would lose 20% of my net salary in taxes (…)”. 13. The player alleged having confronted the club regarding the discrepancies of the terms of the various contracts, after which the club’s president allegedly proposed a contract amendment. However, according to the player, the club’s president did not show up for the scheduled meeting. In this respect, the player submitted a copy of the alleged amendment agreement, which is undated, not signed by any party and specifies the following terms: Season 2010/2011, USD 156,250: - USD 78,125 payable in May 2011; - USD 78,125 payable in June 2011 Season 2011/2012, USD 250,000, Season 2012/2013, USD 281,250; Season 2013/2014, USD 312,500; Season 2014/2015, USD 343,750. 14. The player added that the page with the “special conditions” of the blank pre-contract contained a condition added by the coach of the club, by means of which he was entitled to 10% of any future transfer. However, the contract (Contract 3) handed to the player contained different handwriting, reason for which he believes his signature “may have been compromised”. The player further explained that the contract has the date of “January 1 2011 as the signing date and TMS for my ITC request was sent on 4 January 2011, while I was still in country B”. The player states he obtained his visa on 13 January 2011, travelled to country D on 14 January 2011 and, therefore, he could not have signed a contract on 1 January 2011 in country D. 15. In its reply, the club provided another version of Contract 3 and explained that they started negotiating with the player in August 2010 in country B, which resulted in the conclusion of the contract valid as from 1 January 2011. The club alleged that for the first 6 months the player was entitled to the total gross amount of USD 125,000: - USD 100,000 as salary, - USD 10,000 as a sign-on fee, - USD 2,500 as additional salary for the first 6 months. 16. The club held that the player received all amounts due for the 2010/2011 season (USD 100,000) after deducting 20% relating to taxes and submitted the corresponding bank statements and cheques: USD 10,000 (in cash) 29 August 2010 USD 1,000 (western union) 3 January 2011 USD 1,000 (cheque nr 25563) 20 January 2011 USD 50,000 (cheque nr 23994) 27 January 2011 USD 5,000 (cheque nr 25570) 12 February 2011 USD 10,000 (cheque nr 25573) 9 March 2011 USD 1,500 (cheque nr 25577) 18 April 2011 USD 10,000 (cheque nr 25583) 10 May 2011 USD 11,500 (cheque nr 1009598) 11 July 2011, paid on 17 July 2011 17. The club indicated that it paid all amounts by no later than the end of the league “because of the revolution in country D and the stopping of any football activity from 22 January 2011 to 14 April 2011”. The club provided a letter from the Football Association from country D confirming such information as well as indicating that the season ended on 10 July 2011 and that the club registered the player on 18 August 2011 “within its main list”. 18. The club explained that in country D, one must submit to the Football Association from country D 4 original copies of the contract. After registering the player, the Football Association from country D gives one copy to the club, one copy to the player and keeps 2 copies for its records in order to ensure that nobody alters the contract after registering it. 19. As to the alleged contractual fraud, the club explained that “the player signed one copy in country B and filling it with all the agreed points which are total USD 775,000 for three and a half years in addition to USD 10,000 signing on fee and USD 2,500 monthly salary and 10 percent of the transfer as stated in the special conditions. and he sent this copy to Club C, and then the club filled in the rest of the copies the same as the one he signed in country B as the club couldn’t make any change to the contract otherwise it will not be registered at the Football Association from country D. After new negotiations, the player requested an air ticket and the club added this to the copy he signed in country B and to the other three copies, then the player signed on all the pages of the other 3 copies and to 4 other copies in the language of country D, it is clear from the copy of the blank contract and the same one after registering it that an airplane ticket was added which proves that Club C didn’t work in dishonesty.(…) Therefore his allegation that the club filled in the contract with inaccurate contract agreement is not true as it is the same like the one was signed by him in country B but just added the airplane tickets to it as per a new agreement between them.” 20. The club also disputed that it put USD 100,000 instead of USD 120,000 in the contract; the contract signed by the player in country B already specified USD 100,000 plus other amounts for the first season and also specified “USD 775,000 as the total amount for the whole contract and the player signed all the copies”. Equally, the tax provision under art. 4 was already included in those contracts. 21. In conclusion, the club holds that it did not act fraudulently; the player signed 4 copies in English, 4 copies in the language of country D and he read the contract before he signed it in country B. 22. The club further outlined that the player immediately received a copy of the contract when he asked for it, participated in the complete second round of the championship with Club C and never complained about his contract. 23. Finally, the club stated that it had booked a flight ticket for the player to return to country D on 2 August 2011 and requested the player to return and fulfil his contractual obligations until a final decision would be issued by FIFA. 24. On 7 November 2011, the player amended his claim requesting payment of the total amount of USD 193,500, which was further amended on 17 November 2011 to the amount of USD 293,500 plus interest. 25. In his replica dated 11 April 2012, the player stated that he mistakenly stated that the parties agreed upon USD 120,000 for the first season, which should be USD 125,000 (cf. par. I./9. above). Furthermore, the player acknowledged having received the amount of USD 49,000 from the club as follows: - USD 10,000 in cash on 29 August 2010; - USD 5,000 by cheque; - USD 10,000 by cheque; - UDS 1,500 by cheque; - USD 10,000 by cheque; - USD 1,000 by cheque; - USD 11,500 by cheque in July 2011. As to the amount of USD 11,500, the player stated that he mistakenly forgot to acknowledge receipt of this amount in his initial claim. 26. Therefore, the player claims that the amount of USD 76,000 is outstanding, to which USD 200,000 should be added regarding the 2011/2012 season, totalling the amount of USD 276,000. 27. As to the cheque nr. 23994 of USD 50,000 (cf. point I./16. above), the player denies having ever received said amount as it was paid to his former club, Club G, as a transfer fee in cash before his ITC was released. The player stated that he “did not see, sign or tomb print the USD 50,000 check and had no idea if my name was written on the check.” 28. In this respect, the player argued that a transfer fee was paid to Club G since Club G falsely claimed that he was still under contract with it. Club C then decided to pay the player’s former club the amount of USD 50,000 to settle the matter. The player further explained that Club C had approached him asking him if it could use half of the USD 100,000 he was supposed to get as a sign-on fee and which it would pay back later. 29. The player added that if the USD 50,000 was “withdrawn from the bank with a check that had my name, I certainly was not aware of it and was not given the money.” In this regard, the player submitted an e-mail exchange dated between February and March 2011 between his agent and the club’s coach, in which the coach outlined the problems in relation to Club G and the alleged proposal of the club to pay the player only USD 50,000 as a sign-on fee, as it had to pay USD 50,000 for the player’s ITC. Equally, the player submitted his finger print in order to compare it with the one on the cheque of USD 50,000. 30. Furthermore, the player denies that the USD 1,000 paid by the club on 3 January 2011 is part of his salary, since this money was sent to cover his travel and hotel expenses. 31. Moreover, the player stated that: “Club C produced a signed hand written document that states that I received USD 10,000 in cash, as sign on fee, on the 29th of August 2010 in country B. The coach and club president actually gave me USD 10,000 cash, on the day I signed the blank English contract paper and the contract paper in the language of country D that was supposed to be a pre-contract, but the hand written document they presented to FIFA is fake, as it was not presented with any hand written paper to sign on that day.” The player indicated that the USD 10,000 was a monetary gift promised if he signed for Club C instead of Club J, the big rival of Club C in country D; the USD 10,000 was not supposed to count against my salary, if they kept their promise. I will therefore, include the fund in my amended claim, even-though the handwritten paper is bogus.” 32. As to the blank contract signed, the player asserts that the club asked him to sign such document as an assurance that he would sign with the club in January 2011;”a copy of the blank paper was not given to me”. The player was only provided with a copy after his agent came to country D and demanded a copy of the blank contract. 33. As to the allegations of the club that the flight ticket was inserted in the contract only after the negotiations, the player denies such allegations stating that the flight tickets were offered from the very beginning. In this respect, the player submitted an e-mail of the club’s coach dated 18 August 2010 in which he offered the agent of the player the relevant terms including one roundtrip country D-country B. 34. The player denies that he signed any copies when he was in country D; instead, he only signed one blank contract in English and the language of country D in country B. The player further points out that the cheques provided by the club are inconsistent, since the cheque of USD 50,000 “has a signature and tomb print outside the body of the check, and the same USD 5,000 check I sent with my earlier claim without my signature, showed up in their defence document with a signature on it.” 35. Finally, the player stressed that his sign-on fee amounted to USD 100,000, otherwise his agent and the coach would not have referred to it so often in their e-mail correspondence. 36. On 15 November 2012, the club provided its duplica and lodged a counter-claim against the player requesting the amount of USD 800,000 plus 5% interest as well as sporting sanctions and legal expenses. The club deemed that the player terminated his employment contract without just cause, since he was absent from the club since almost a year. 37. The club stated that the player’s claim is mainly supported by correspondence sent by the coach of the club at the time, as well as by his agent. However, the coach did not have authority to act as a club’s official and whatever he mentioned in his emails and negotiated with the agent cannot be taken into account. 38. In this respect, the club stated that the coach of the club was “in alliance with the player agent” and not with the club’s president, which, according to the club, can be proven by an e-mail dated 27 August 2010 in which the coach proposes a deal to the agent. 39. Regarding the alleged transfer fee of USD 50,000, the club submitted the player’s TMS information which confirmed that the player was transferred free of payment and added that, if there was any dispute, it was handled between the player and his former club. 40. The club recognized that it told the player to settle his problems with his former club. In this context, the club alleged that the player then requested the club “to give him 50,000 USD from his salary as to settle the problem of the ITC with his former club and thus the club issued a cheque amounting to 50,000 USD in favour of the player as to help him settle any pending issues with his former club […]”. “Nevertheless, the club president promised the player at the that time that the club may pay for him amount of USD 25,000 in the form of extra bonuses during the contract duration to compensate him for the supposed USD 50,000 by him to his former club, Club G, to solve his problem with them as to encourage the player to perform well with the team, this promise was provided that the board officially accept it and everything goes well, which never occurred due to the player termination of the contract after the season (…)” 41. The club reiterated that the player received USD 100,000 net for the first 6 months he stayed in the club, despite the club’s troubles due to the revolution in country D. The club stressed in this respect that the player had received a sign-on fee in August 2010 in the amount of USD 10,000 when he signed the contact, “the club then took the blank contract and completed the ordinary information of the parties in the first paper and wrote the start date of the contract 1 January 2011 (…)”. Thereafter, the player signed 3 more copies when he arrived in country D. 42. Finally, the club denied having forged the player’s signature or fingerprint. 43. On 24 November 2012, the club provided a letter dated 19 November 2012, which was issued by its bank, certifying that the cheque number 23994 in the amount of USD 50,000 was withdrawn on 27 January 2011 by the player himself. 44. In his reply to the counter-claim, the player stated that: i) The email exchange between his agent and the coach occurred during the transfer negotiations; ii) The coach was “basically the face of the club. He had fully authority to negotiate and acquire any player he wanted. He only needed approval from the president.” iii) The USD 10,000 the club paid in cash in August 2010 was a monetary gift promised if he signed for Club C instead of Club J. He was not informed it would be considered as his salary. The player reiterated that said amount was supposed to be paid in January 2011, was referred to as a signing-on fee in various e-mails, and there “couldn’t have been two signing fees in one contract. I went into the hotel room, took the money and signed on the blank paper and left the room. The USD 10,000 signing fee they wrote with the special condition on page 8 was not written in my presence. The coach, who was on the phone with my agent, told my agent he would write that the club will pay me 10% of any transfer fee they get in case of my transfer as a special condition. I trusted them and had no reason to suspect any foul play. I only saw the USD 10,000 on page 8 as signing fee in November, when my agent retrieved the blank contract paper from the club.(…) I subsequently included the USD 10,000 in my amended claim to avoid further argument. The signed hand written paper the club presented was forged.” iv) As to the USD 50,000, the player repeated the sequence of events regarding his former club and the issuance of the ITC and reiterated that on 19 January 2011 the coach of the club sent the player’s agent an e-mail that reads as follows: “Club G send a letter to make a compromise agreement to settle the issue, my president almost wanted to call him but after consulting Player A I called it off”. v) The club had already agreed with Club G to pay USD 50,000 as a settlement. They paid said amount in cash and “a day or two later, my ITC was released to Club C. I did not see or cashed the USD 50,000 check. How the club or this lawyer produced a USD 50,000 check with my name, forged signature and tomb print is still a mystery to me.” vi) He did notify the club of its arrears, referring to the e-mails dated 10, 24 February, 15 May, 22 July, 16 and 17 August 2011; vii) The player indicated that when he signed the pre-contract “I didn’t have to worry about the fine prints of the blank contract” because the parties planned on signing a real contract in January 2011 in Club C; viii) The player denies having signed 3 copies of the contract; ix) He did not terminate his contract to make more money; x) Even if 20% was to be deducted from the USD 125,000, the club should have paid USD 104,000 instead of USD 100,000. 45. In its final position, the club reiterated its previous position and added that: i) The player received all amounts due for the season 2010/2011, including the USD 50,000 which can be confirmed by the original documents. ii) There was no “pre-contract” signed between the parties; iii) The Football Association from country D standard contract signed by both parties and stamped by the Football Association from country D proves that the player agreed to the “total amount of USD 750,000 in addition to USD 10,000 as signing fee and USD 2,500 every month for six months starting from January 2011 for the three and half years duration of the contract. Thus the player was entitled to USD 125,000 for half the season 2010/2011, which, after 20% tax, amounts to USD 100,000.” iv) The player never sent a formal notice to the club; the email dated 22 July 2011 addressed to the former president of the club stipulates that the player intended to terminate his contract and that “you shall be made aware of my grounds for termination the contract when a copy of the termination letter is sent to Club C, FIFA, and Football Association from country D. Consequently, I shall be open to negotiating a fresh contract with Club C, should my services be required next season and beyond”. The club deems that such statement cannot serve as a valid notice of termination as it was not officially sent to the club, he did not mention the reasons for his termination and he merely showed his intent. v) The player first went to the country U to sign a contract, so the argument in relation with the contract in country B should not be taken into account. 46. Upon request, the player indicated that he signed a contract with the Club K in country U in August 2011 and with Club R in country B in June 2012, however both transfers fell through as the Football Association from country D refused to grant the ITC. On 27 March 2013, the player signed a contract with the club from country F, Club E, valid as from 1 April 2013 until 31 July 2013 in accordance with which he would receive a monthly salary of 35,000. The player indicated that this was a 4-month trial contract, which was extended until 30 June 2015. 47. Having requested Club E for its comments in relation to the present matter, said club replied stating that it was aware of the matter and “currently have the player under a provisional ITC contract that was granted by FIFA, after all protocols were observed.” II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as 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 24 August 2011. Consequently, the 2008 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. art. 21 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 par. 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 deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from country B and an club from country D, with the involvement of a club from country F. 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, it 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 present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 24 August 2011, the 2010 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: 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. Having duly examined the arguments of all parties, the members of the Chamber stated that the first issue that needed to be addressed was which version of the employment contract should be considered the employment contract binding the parties in the present dispute. 6. After a careful evaluation of the various contracts submitted, the Chamber concluded that whereas all contracts submitted established the payment of the amount of USD 125,000 for the first half season of employment, only Contract 3 seemed to be complete and contained a signature on each and every page. In this respect, the members of the Chamber noted that the player stated that he had signed a blank contract on 29 August 2010 in country B and that the club had filled in said contract with inaccurate information. The club however disputed that a blank contract was signed and indicated that the player signed Contract 3 which already contained all the relevant information. 7. At this point, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that it could not establish with certainty what had happened exactly in August 2010 during the contract negotiations between the player and club, as no conclusive evidence had been provided by any of the parties. However, the Chamber stressed that should the player have signed a blank contract, as indicated by him, it found that the player had acted with negligence, in the sense that he wilfully took the risk that the eventual contract would not contain the exact information which he had agreed on, or at the least, thought to have agreed on. In any case, and with reference to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which states that any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof, the Chamber was unanimous in its opinion that the player had not been able to prove that he had signed a blank contract in August 2010 nor that the club had acted fraudulently. 8. In relation to the above, the Chamber also clarified that it did not give much weight to the e-mails sent by Mr Z, the coach of the club at the time. The Chamber underlined that it had not been provided with any document confirming that the coach was indeed authorised to act on behalf of the club and noted that it rather seemed that Mr Z was passing on messages from the club to the player and vice versa. As a result, the Chamber held that the e-mail communications with Mr Z could not serve as evidence as to which exact contractual provisions the player and club had agreed on. 9. As a consequence, and in order to establish the contractual basis of the relationship between the player and the club, the Chamber determined to exclusively take into account Contract 3, which consisted of 16 pages and appeared to contain the genuine signatures of both the player and club (hereinafter: the contract). 10. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber turned its attention to the e-mail of the player dated 22 July 2011 by means of which he showed his intention to terminate the contract by the end of July 2011, but, at the same time, indicated that he was open to negotiate a new contract with the club. Although the player stated that he only “intended” to terminate the contract, the Chamber observed that the player, as from 22 July 2011, effectively stopped rendering his services to the club and had not returned to the club on 2 August 2011, in accordance with the flight ticket bought by the club. 11. As a result, the Chamber determined that by not returning to the club in August 2011, the player had de facto terminated the employment contract with the club. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that the subsequent question which needed to be addressed was whether the player had terminated the contract with or without just cause. 12. In this context, the Chamber emphasised that the reason for which the player had not returned to country D and consequently put an end to the contract, was his belief that the club had failed to honour its financial obligations towards him. Prior to assessing this issue, the Chamber underlined that in accordance with the contract the player was entitled to the total gross amount of USD 125,000 for the first half season and that, thus, tax was to be deducted by the club from the relevant payments. Since the percentage of 20% was not contested by the player, the Chamber was satisfied that the percentage of 20% corresponded to the tax to be deducted from the payments at the time the player was playing at the club. As a result, the Chamber came to the conclusion that the player was entitled to a net amount of USD 100,000 during the first half season of employment with the club. 13. In continuation, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the player asserted having received the amount of USD 49,000, whereas the club sustained that had it paid the full amount of USD 100,000 to the player. Thus, the main dispute between the parties was whether or not the player received the amount of USD 50,000 which was allegedly paid on 27 January 2011. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the player explained that he never received said amount and that he never signed the relevant cheque. 14. In this respect, the Chamber wished to underline that although the player argued that the documents submitted by the club were forged, the club provided the original documentation. At this stage, the DRC considered it appropriate to remark that, as a general rule, FIFA’s deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the ones of alleged falsified signatures or documents, and that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority. 15. In this context, the DRC recalled that all documentation remitted shall be considered with free discretion and, therefore, it focused its attention on the original documents containing the player’s signature, provided by the club in the present dispute. After a thorough analysis of the relevant documents, in particular, comparing the relevant signatures of the player with the signatures in the other documents provided in the present affair, the DRC had no other option but to conclude that, for a layman, the signatures appear to be the same. Therefore, the Chamber considered the cheque to be valid. 16. The Chamber was comforted in its conclusion by two supporting elements: i) the statement of the bank in country D provided by the club which confirmed that the player had received the money and ii) the fact that according to TMS the player was engaged “out of contract, free of payment”; thus the Chamber could not follow the player’s allegation that the payment of the amount of USD 50,000 was in settlement of a dispute between the club and his former club regarding his transfer. 17. As a result, the Chamber, taking into account that the club provided a copy of the cheque with the original signature of the player, by means of which he confirmed having received the amount of USD 50,000, concluded that the player had received the USD 50,000 and that therefore he received the total amount for the first half of season of employment. 18. The Chamber emphasised that the consequence of the foregoing conclusion is that the player did not have a just cause to terminate the contract and leave the club by the end of July 2011. As an additional point, the Chamber also pointed out that by the end of July 2011 the player did not appear to consider the relationship between the parties to be disrupted to the extent that a continuation was no longer an option, since he himself indicated that he was willing to negotiate a new contract with the club. In view of all the foregoing, the Chamber determined that the player is to be held liable for the early termination of the contract. As such, the Chamber first of all decided to reject the claim lodged by the player against the club. 19. Consequently, having determined which party terminated the employment contract without just cause, the Dispute Resolution Chamber focused on the financial consequences for the player of said termination of contract without just cause. The Chamber decided that, by unilaterally and prematurely terminating the employment contract with the club without just cause, in accordance with article 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the player is liable to pay compensation to the club. 20. In continuation, the Chamber focussed 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 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 player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, the fees and expenses paid or incurred by the former club (amortised over the term of the contract) and whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period. 21. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains a provision by which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable 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. 22. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter 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. Furthermore, the Chamber highlighted that each request for compensation for breach of contract has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis taking into account all specific circumstances of the respective matter, as well as the Chamber’s specific knowledge of the world of football and its experience gained throughout the years. 23. Having said this, the Chamber turned its attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract. The members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of article 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and any new contract(s) in the calculation of the amount of compensation thus enabling the Chamber to gather indications as to the economic value attributed to a player by both his former and his new club(s). 24. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the total remuneration of the player with the club, after deducting the 20% of tax, amounted to the sum of USD 540,000. 25. Equally, the Chamber noted that subsequent to the moment in time when the breach of contract occurred, starting as from July 2011, until April 2013, the player remained unemployed until he signed a contract with Club E. Said contract was valid as from 1 April 2013 until 31 July 2013, and further extended until 30 June 2015, and stipulated that the player would receive a total salary of approximately USD 76,000 for the overlapping period of time. 26. In this respect, the DRC came to the conclusion that, in the present matter, the salaries of the player were the only indication as to the economic value attributed to the player and, thus, as to the potential market value of the player. 27. Notwithstanding the above, the members of the Chamber, after considering all the facts of the case, deemed it important to recall that, although it had considered that the player was to be held responsible for having terminated the contract without just cause, one should not omit the fact that the club’s behaviour had not been without flaws either, a fact that should be taken into account when establishing the amount of compensation payable for breach of contract without just cause. 28. Indeed, the mitigating factors, in the Chamber’s view, are the following: i) the fact that more than 1 version of the employment contract had been signed and provided, therefore, creating some confusion in establishing which version of the employment contract governed the employment relationship; ii) the fact that the club had not specified the salary payments, i.e. the club did not indicate to which contractual payment obligation each payment related, and iii) the fact that the salaries were paid on different dates from the dates established in the contract. 29. On account of all of the above-mentioned considerations, in particular the attenuating circumstances and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the player must pay the amount of USD 125,000 to the club as compensation for breach of contract, which was considered by the Chamber as a fair and adequate amount of compensation in the present matter. Furthermore, in accordance with the unambiguous content of article 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, the Chamber established that the player’s new club, i.e Club E, shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation. 30. In this respect and in relation to Club E, the Chamber was eager to point out that the joint liability of a player’s new club is independent from the question as to whether this new club has committed an inducement to contractual breach. This conclusion is in line with the well-established jurisprudence of the Chamber that was repeatedly confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Hence, the Chamber decided that Club E is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the relevant compensation. 31. The Chamber concluded its deliberation by rejecting any further claim lodged by the club. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Player A, is rejected. 2. The claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C, is partially accepted. 3. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent has to pay to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 125,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 15 November 2012 until the date of effective payment. 4. The Intervening Party, Club E, is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned amount. 5. In the event that the amount due to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 6. Any further claim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected. 7. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant is directed to inform the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Intervening Party, 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