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 16 October 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Todd Durbin (USA), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member John Bramhall (England), member on the claim presented by the player, Player T, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club M, from country S 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 16 October 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Todd Durbin (USA), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member John Bramhall (England), member on the claim presented by the player, Player T, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club M, from country S as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 21 December 2010, Player T, from country B (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club M, from country S (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid from the day of its signature until 30 June 2015. 2. On the same date, the Claimant and the Respondent signed an annex to the contract, valid for the same period of time. 3. According to art. III of the annex, the Respondent undertook to provide the Claimant with, inter alia, the following amounts: a) EUR 800,000 net for the remaining time of the 2010/2011 season; b) EUR 1,600,000 net for the season 2011/2012; c) EUR 1,600,000 net for the season 2012/2013; d) EUR 1,600,000 net for the season 2013/2014; e) EUR 1,600,000 net for the season 2014/2015. 4. In addition, according to art. 6 of the contract and art. X of the annex, “For anything else not stipulated in the present contract, reference shall be made to the Royal Decree 1006/1985 of 26 June, which regulates the special labour relation of the professional athletes, the Collective Agreement and other applicable rules”. 5. Article 19 of the Royal Decree 1006/1985 stipulates that “Any conflicts arising between a professional athlete and their club or sport entity, as a consequence of their employment contract, will fall under the jurisdiction of the labour justice”. 6. On 3 October 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, requesting from it, after amending his claim, the payment of the total amount of EUR 469,297.76, corresponding to outstanding payments for seasons 2010/2011 and 2011/2012, until 25 August 2011. 7. In his claim, the Claimant claims that by the end of August 2011 the contract was amicably terminated by the parties. 8. The Claimant further explains that, as per the annex to the contract, for the period during which he was employed with the Respondent, he should have received the total amount of EUR 1,066,666.67, made up of EUR 800,000 for season 2010/2011 and EUR 266,666.67 for July and August of season 2011/2012. The Respondent, however, only paid him the amount of EUR 597,368.91. 9. By means of his correspondence dated 12 September 2012, the Claimant reminded the Respondent of its arrears in the amount of EUR 469,297.76. On 18 September 2012, the Respondent replied to the Claimant’s correspondence, stating that the total amount due to the Claimant was EUR 704,935.26, corresponding to EUR 800,000 as his remuneration for season 2010/2011, plus EUR 133,333.33 for 1/12 of season 2011/2012, minus EUR 228,398.07, as several discounts due. As per the calculation sheet enclosed to the Respondent’s email, the amount of EUR 382,209 was transferred to the Claimant on 2 August 2011. Thus, according to the Respondent, the amount of EUR 322,726.26 was still due. 10. As the Claimant, through his e-mail of 20 September 2012, insisted on the amount of EUR 469,297.76 still being due, the Respondent on 21 September 2012 informed him that his claim would already be time-barred as per the country S law. Based on art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the FIFA Regulations), the Claimant lodged the present claim in front of FIFA. 11. In its reply, the Respondent contests the competence of FIFA to deal with the present case, claiming that the country S legislation for the professional players establishes the exclusive competence of the labour courts over employment-related disputes between players and clubs. In this regard, it refers to art. 22 of the FIFA Regulations and claims that national or international arbitration as a means of resolution of employment-related conflicts is only possible where the jurisdiction of labour courts is not exclusive and obligatory. 12. As to the substance of the dispute, the Respondent claims that the Claimant is only entitled to the net amount of EUR 800,000 for the 2010/2011 season and not EUR 1,066,666.67, as he claims. In this regard, it points out that the Claimant did not participate in 15 official matches for at least 45 minutes, thus he should not be entitled to the amounts requested. Finally, the Respondent refers to the calculation sheet mentioned in point I.9. above and claims that the maximum amount the Claimant should be entitled to is EUR 322,726.26. 13. In his replica, the Claimant insists on the competence of FIFA over the present dispute, based on art. 22 lit. b) of the FIFA Regulations. In addition, the Claimant claims that the country S Football Federation, as a member of FIFA, should comply with the FIFA laws and regulations and that the exclusive competence of country S labour courts over employment-related disputes between players and clubs is, therefore, not possible. 14. As to the substance, the Claimant points out that the Respondent acknowledges part of the debt, the difference corresponding to the amounts due for the 2011/2012 season and the allegedly mandatory discounts, which the Claimant refuses to accept. Thus, the Claimant insists on the payment of the amount requested in his original claim. 15. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not submit its final comments on the Claimant’s claim. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: 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 (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 3 October 2012. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the edition 2008 of the Procedural Rules was applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 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 b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010, 2012 and 2014; hereinafter: the Regulations), the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on employment-related disputes between a club and a player, with an international dimension. 3. Having said that, the DRC stated that it would, in principle, be the competent body to decide on the present litigation involving a country B player and a country S club regarding an employment-related dispute. 4. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of the FIFA DRC to deal with the present case, alleging the exclusive competence of the country S labour courts, based on art. 19 of the Royal Decree 1006/1985, which regulates the labour relation of the professional athletes, the Collective Agreement and other applicable rules. 5. In particular, the Chamber took due note of the Respondent’s argument, according to which the parties, by means of art. 6 of the contract and art. X of the annex (cf. point I.4. above), had voluntarily agreed upon the exclusive competence of the labour courts in country S to deal with any employment-related dispute arising between them. 6. The Chamber also noted that the Claimant rejects the competence of the country S labour courts over the present affair, based on art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations and on the international dimension of the matter at hand. Therefore, the Claimant deems that the FIFA DRC should have jurisdiction over the present case. 7. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 6 of the contract and art. X of the annex, according to which “For anything else not stipulated in the present contract, reference shall be made to the Royal Decree 1006/1985 of 26 June, which regulates the special labour relation of the professional athletes, the Collective Agreement and other applicable rules”. 8. In this context, the Chamber pointed out that the content of art. 6 of the contract and art. X of the annex was voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, when signing the contract and its annex on 21 December 2010. 9. In this regard, the Chamber also referred to the wording of art. 19 of the Royal Decree 1006/1985, which establishes that “Any conflicts arising between a professional athlete and their club or sport entity, as a consequence of their employment contract, will fall under the jurisdiction of the labour justice”. 10. At this point, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to emphasize that art. 22 of the Regulations does not prohibit players and clubs to refer any employment-related disputes possibly arisen between them to the local, national courts. 11. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that, in the present case, the parties, when signing the contract and its annex on 21 December 2010, had voluntarily and beforehand agreed upon the content and the applicability of art. 6 of the contract and art. X of the annex, and accepted the exclusive jurisdiction of the country S labour courts to decide upon any employment-related dispute arisen between them, in accordance with art. 19 of the Royal Decree 1006/1985. 12. In consideration of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant’s claim before the FIFA DRC was inadmissible. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player T, is inadmissible. ***** 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