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 a matter between the player, Player S, from country B as Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 and the club, Club K, from country U as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club G, from country T as Counter-Respondent 2 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 a matter between the player, Player S, from country B as Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 and the club, Club K, from country U as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club G, from country T as Counter-Respondent 2 regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. Player S, from country B (hereinafter: the player or Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1), and Club K, from country U (hereinafter: the club or Respondent / Counter-Claimant), concluded a “Preliminary Agreement” dated 23 July 2012 that does not establish any payment obligations. 2. Equally, the player and club signed a document dated 23 July 2012 called ”about additional payments” (hereinafter: ”the USD contract without conditions”), valid as from July 2012 until June 2016. 3. According to art. 1 of the “USD contract without conditions”, the player was entitled to a monthly payment of: • USD 19,500 net as from July 2012 until June 2013; • USD 29,500 net as from July 2013 until June 2014; • USD 29,500 net as from July 2014 until June 2015; • USD 29,500 net as from July 2015 until June 2016. 4. Moreover, in accordance with art. 1.1 of the “USD contract without conditions”, the player was entitled to USD 190,000 net, payable as follows: • USD 85,000 ten days after the issuance of the ITC; • USD 35,000 “in 5 working days before the first match of the season 2013/2014”; • USD 35,000 “in 5 working days before the first match of the season 2014/2015”; • USD 35,000 “in 5 working days before the first match of the season 2015/2016”. 5. In addition, the same art. 1.1 of the “USD contract without conditions” stipulates that: “In case of unilateral groundless termination by Footballer of the Contract with the Club, the amount paid according to this paragraph is due to be returned on pro rata basis according to the amount of time played out by the Footballer, or are withdrawn by the Club from the payments due to the Footballer.” 6. Also, the player and club signed a contract titled “Contract No 12/47 F” dated 23 July 2012 (hereinafter: “the XX contract”) valid as from 23 July 2012 until 30 June 2016, in accordance with which the player was entitled to currency of country U 5,000 per month, which corresponds to approximately USD 600. 7. Furthermore, art. 4.2 of the “XX contract” stipulated that the player “may” be entitled to bonuses. 8. Finally, art. 6.4 of the “XX contract” stipulated: “The sanctions in the amount of currency of country U equivalent of 5,000,000 Euros is applied to the Footballer for early termination of the Contract, also the claims are made for reimbursement to the Club of the amounts paid by it to the Footballer (…).” 9. On 24 August 2013, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA explaining that the club had not paid him his salaries for May, June and July 2013 nor the instalment of USD 35,000 for the 2013/2014 season. As a result, on 8 August 2013, the player made a final attempt to obtain his outstanding salary from the club. In this regard, the player submitted a letter dated 8 August 2013, requesting the club for the payment of the amount of USD 105,315.45 before 13 August 2013. Since no reply was received from the club, the player terminated the contract with the club on 19 August 2013. 10. Moreover, the player indicated that, when he left the country, he was informed that the club had not requested the renewal of his visa, reason for which he was fined with currency of country U 595. 11. As a consequence, the player claimed the amount of USD 398,500 from the club, calculated as follows: • USD 103,500 as outstanding remuneration: -USD 19,500 for the salary of May 2013; -USD 19,500 for the salary of June 2013; -USD 29,500 for the salary of July 2013: -USD 35,000 for the payment due on “8 July 2013”. • USD 295,000 as compensation for breach of contract concerning the remaining value of the 2013/2014 season. 12. Equally, the player claimed the costs of the fine as well as the “corresponding default interest.” 13. In reply to the claim lodged against it, the club indicated that it concluded the following agreements with the player: - a Preliminary Agreement on 16 July 2012; - the “XX contract” on 23 July 2012; - the “USD contract without conditions” on 23 July 2012. 14. The club explained however that on 9 August 2012, it “instituted complex system of motivation for footballers which envisaged bonus scheme depending on results of the team’s performances in the season 2012/2013, as well as measures of financial responsibility that applied to Footballers depending on certain circumstances”. In this respect, the club submitted an “Order” dated 9 August 2012, which established various fines and bonuses. 15. Moreover, according to the club, on 23 August 2012, it signed a new version of the USD contract with the player, which envisaged a structure of payment similar to the one signed on 23 July 2012, apart from adding the condition that the player had to play in the club’s first team in order to be entitled to the USD amounts concerning the monthly salaries (hereinafter: “the USD contract with conditions”). 16. Art. 1 of the “USD contract with conditions” reads as follows: “The parties have agreed about the institution and monthly payment to the Footballer of the personal extras to the salary in course of Footballer’s individual Contract with the Club validity term under condition of his playing for the main squad of country U Premier League team “Club K” in respective month.” 17. Thus, according to the club, the player was entitled to the following payments: • non-conditional payments: - Currency of country U 5,000 per month; - USD 190,000 for 4 seasons combined. • conditional payments depending on the player’s performances: - USD 19,500 (or later USD 29,500) per month in case the player played in the main squad of the club; - Remuneration according to “goal + assists” system, between USD 50,000 to USD 150,000 per season. • conditional payment depending on the team’s performances - Match and ranking bonuses. 18. What is more, the club held that between 23 July 2012 and 30 June 2013, the player received the following payments: - Currency of country U 5,000 per month; - USD 19,700 per month from August 2012 until April 2013; - USD 200 per month for rent; - USD 90,000 as “first payment for signing the contract”; - USD 21,750 as bonuses in accordance with the “Order”. 19. In continuation, the club held that i) on 27 May 2013, it imposed on all players of the main team a fine for the unsatisfactory sporting achievements “in the form of deprivations of personal extras to the salary for May 2013.”; ii) during the 2013/2014 season, the player continued to receive his salary of currency of country H 5,000; and iii) the player’s salaries were always paid on time. 20. Furthermore, the club indicated that, on 19 August 2013, it became aware that the player had signed for Club G, from country T. The club stressed that the information regarding the transfer was published on 19 August 2013 at 18:53, whereas the notification of the termination of the contract was sent at 14:12 on the same day. The club states that it is impossible to fly to country T, conduct negotiations and sign a contract within 4,5 hours. Therefore, the club concludes that the player left the club’s training camp with the purpose of signing a contract with Club G. In this respect, on 23 August 2013, the club sent a notification to Club G informing said club that the player had still a contract with it until 30 June 2016. 21. The club asserts that the player did not have just cause to terminate the contract; his statement that he did not receive his salaries for over 3 months is incorrect, since he did receive all his salaries in accordance with the “currency of country U contract”, including the months of May to July 2013. What is more, and in relation to the USD contracts, the player was fined with the salary of May 2013 and “the condition of Footballer’s appearances for the main team in June and July 2013 was not complied with.” Thus, the amounts requested as USD 19,500 for May and June 2013 and USD 29,500 for July 2013 are unfounded and not due. 22. As for the payment of the amount of USD 35,000, the club argued that the payment was planned, whilst outlining that the “previous” payment was also effected with an insignificant delay. The club held that a few weeks of delay is not sufficient to serve as a justification for the premature termination of the contract. 23. As to the fine related to the visa, the club indicated in detail that there was a change in the system in country U which led to a “legal collapse”. The player’s temporary residence certificate expired on 14 August 2013, but he had been informed about the situation as well as that the club was trying to solve it. 24. Finally, the club argued that it was still interested in the player, which, in their view, could be proven by the fact that it “declared” the player to participate in the club’s official matches for the 2013/2014 season. 25. On account of the above, the club lodged a counter-claim requesting the following: - EUR 5,000,000 from the player and Club G in accordance with art. 6 par. 4 of the “currency of country U contract”; - USD 38,205.84 from the player in accordance with art. 1.1 of the “USD contract with conditions”. 26. In his replica, the player contested the way the club portrays that the contracts were signed. The player held that it is unconceivable that he first signed a contract entitling him to a monthly income of USD 19,500/USD 29,500 plus the “pocket money” of currency of country U 5,000 and that 17 days later he gave up his fixed salary and changed it for a salary of currency of country U 5,000 and a conditional payment of USD 19,500/USD 29,500. The player stated that a player of his stature would never sign a contract in accordance with which he would only earn currency of country U 5,000 a month. Instead, the player holds that the following timeline is accurate: - 23 July 2012: The Preliminary agreement, the “currency of country U contract” and the “USD contract with conditions” were signed. The player holds that the latter two agreements contain the incorrect date of 23 August 2012. In this regard, the player submitted another version of the “currency of country U contract” this time dated 23 August 2012, but with an identical content as the “currency of country U contract” dated 23 July 2012. - November 2012: The amended version of the “currency of country U contract” and the “USD contract without conditions” were signed. - With the signing of these amended versions, the dates were corrected to 23 July 2012, i.e. the start of the employment relationship, and the condition of “playing for the main squad of country U Premier League team” was taken out from the “USD contract with conditions”. 27. The player further explained that the only reason that the player accepted to sign two contracts, i.e. one for currency of country U 5,000 per month and one for USD 19,500/USD 29,500 per month, was so that the club could register the contract for currency of country U 5,000 with the Football Federation of country U, “apparently for tax reasons.” 28. As to the reason why the player initially signed the “USD contract with conditions”, the player asserts that he did not read the contract carefully upon signing it. It was only after his teammates had approached him regarding the same clause, that the player discovered the clause and started to worry. Although until that moment he had received all his salaries, he realised the potential consequences and asked the club to remove the relevant clause. The player asserts that only because he was performing very well and since the fans loved him, the club agreed to remove the relevant provision from the contract. Therefore, on 13 November 2012, the club sent the amended version to his agent via email and the club took this opportunity to also amend the dates on said contracts. 29. The player submitted the aforementioned email dated 13 November 2012, which is addressed to the agent of the player and reads as follows: “Dear XY, like I was telling you, I’m sending 3 files: 1. Contract in PDF-file which was sent initially by e-mail for registration (with July 23). 2. Scanned copy of the origin in which mistakenly it was typed August 23 instead of July 23 on the 1st and 4th pages. 3. Doc version of the contract in which correct date July 23 is typed and it is necessary Player S signs it once again in origin to substitute these pages in Premier League.” 30. In the alternative, the player held that in any case the relevant clause is null and void as it is up to the sole discretion of the club to field the player. The player argued that no player can renounce to receive salary and the relevant clause has exactly this effect. 31. Furthermore, the player stressed that he was always registered for the first team, hence the “first-team” condition was in fact met. 32. Also, the fact that the club paid the currency of country U 5,000 does not change any of the foregoing, since it would then be theoretically possible to establish a monthly salary of USD 1 and a bonus of USD 20,000 and pay each month the USD 1 so that a player does not have a just cause to terminate the contract. 33. As to the “Order” dated 9 August 2012, the player stressed that he did not sign it and pointed out that the signatures of the players are all on a white sheet and not on the “Order” itself. Furthermore, the player stated that the fine is excessive, not based on a disciplinary infraction and cannot be considered as a reason to deduct his salary. 34. Finally, the player stressed that the club was not informed via the media of his departure, since he had already written to the club on 8 and 10 August 2013. 35. In conclusion, the player emphasised that his salary of June and July 2013 were not paid, that he never signed the “Order” and thus that the May 2013 salary was unlawfully withhold too. Equally, the payment due on 8 July 2013 for the amount of USD 35,000 had never been paid by the club, reason for which the player clearly had a just cause to terminate the relevant employment contract. 36. In its reply to the counter-claim, Club G indicated that on 19 August 2013 it was informed by the player’s agent that the player had terminated the contract with the club with just cause. It had subsequently received all the relevant documentation from the agent of the player and, after a review, it confirmed that the player had indeed unilaterally terminated the contract. In view of the foregoing, the club states that it was clear that it did not induce the player to terminate the contract with the club. 37. In its final position, the club insisted on its chronology, i.e. that the Preliminary Agreement was signed on 16 July 2012, and that the “USD contract with conditions” dated 23 August 2012 replaced the “USD contract without conditions” dated 23 July 2012. 38. Moreover, the club outlined that: i) the condition for payment was the player’s presence on the pitch and not his registration with the club; ii) the currency of country U 5,000 is not “pocket money” as it is twice the average salary in the city of country U; iii) the player did not play for the club’s main team in June and July 2013; iv) the player did sign the “Order” together with the other 27 players and the head coach. The club stressed that during the whole season, the players received bonuses depending on the club’s results in accordance with said “Order”. Hence, the salary for May 2013 was not due. 39. The employment contract concluded between the player and Club G dated 21 August 2013 runs from 21 August 2013 until 31 May 2014 and provides for a yearly salary of EUR 350,000. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as the 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 2013. Consequently, the 2012 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. article 21 of the 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 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 country B player and an country U club, with the involvement of a country T 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, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012 and 2014) and reiterating that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 24 August 2013, the 2012 edition of said 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. Having duly considered all the contracts presented by the parties in the present matter, the Chamber first of all came to the unanimous conclusion that it was obvious that the amounts stipulated in the two USD contracts were to be considered the genuine salary of the player, contrary to the amounts stipulated in the XX contracts. In this regard, the Chamber emphasised that the club had not provided any plausible explanation why two different contracts had been signed with the player, i.e. one containing salary payments in currency of country U and one containing salary payments in USD. 6. In continuation, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that one of the main disputes in the present matter was the chronology in which the various employment contracts had been concluded between the player and club. Whereas the player held that the “USD contract without conditions” replaced the “USD contract with conditions”, the club held that the “USD contract with conditions” replaced the “USD contract without conditions”. The Chamber, however, was of the unanimous opinion that the timetable of the conclusion of the various employment contracts was irrelevant for reasons set out below. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that art. 1 of the “USD contract with conditions” reads as follows: “The parties have agreed about the institution and monthly payment to the Footballer of the personal extras to the salary in course of Footballer’s individual Contract with the Club validity term under condition of his playing for the main squad of country U Premier League team “Club K” in respective month.” 7. The Chamber emphasized that art. 1 of the “USD contract with conditions” is unilateral and to the benefit of the club only; the decision to have the player playing for its main squad is left fully to the discretion of the club, a decision on which the player has no influence whatsoever. In light of such potestative character of the pertinent contractual clause, the members of the Chamber agreed that art. 1 of the “USD contract with conditions” cannot be accepted in player-club relationships and that, thus, even if the “USD contract with conditions” had replaced the “USD contract without conditions”, the provision of art. 1 is to be disregarded. Indeed, if the player would not have been selected for the club’s first team for the entire season or would have been injured during the full season, he would not have been entitled to his monthly salaries in USD, which, as mentioned before, was clearly the player’s genuine salary. As a result, the Chamber held that, in any case, the player was entitled to his salaries for the months of June and July 2013. 8. As a result, the Chamber rejected the Respondent’s argument in this respect and decided that the club was liable to pay the player his salary for the months of June and July 2013 in the amount of USD 19,500 and USD 29,500, respectively. 9. As to the non-payment of the May 2013 salary, the Chamber took note of the argument of the club that it had fined the main team with one monthly salary for the unsatisfactory sporting achievements of the club. Indeed, in accordance with the fine submitted by the club dated 27 May 2013, it had imposed a sanction for “unsatisfactory results of the Club K team in 2012/2013 season (27 points, 14th place in standings), which was a result of improper execution by “Club K” team player of their duties, incl. insufficient level of personal sporting and volitional qualities, non-fulfillment of coaches’ instructions, avoidance of sporting challenges, on the basis of i.10 part 1 of Order No 09/1-08/12 dated 09.08.2012.” 10. In this respect, the Chamber referred to its well-established jurisprudence and underlined that a player cannot be fined for alleged poor performance, as this is a purely unilateral and subjective evaluation by the club. Thus, the Chamber emphasised that poor or unsatisfactory performance cannot, by any means, be considered as a valid reason to reduce a player’s salary or fine a player. Hence, the Chamber considered that by fining the player based on poor performance, the club acted in an abusive manner and therefore, decided to disregard the fine imposed by the club on the player on 27 May 2013. 11. Finally, the Chamber stressed that the club acknowledged that it had failed to pay the player the instalment in the amount of USD 35,000, due “5 working days before the first match of the season 2013/2014.” 12. As a result, the Chamber concluded that at the time the player terminated the contract, the total amount of USD 103,500 was outstanding, corresponding to the May, June and July 2013 salary as well as to the payment due at the beginning of the 2013/2014 season. Therefore, the Chamber considered that the club had seriously neglected its contractual obligations towards the player in a continuous and repeated manner, reason for which the player had a just cause to terminate the contract on 19 August 2013, having previously put the club in default of its financial obligations on 8 August 2013. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the club is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact with just cause by the player. 13. Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber went on to deal with the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the player. 14. First of all, the Chamber, whilst reiterating that the club was responsible for the termination of the contract with just cause by the player, decided to reject the counter-claim lodged by the club against the player and Club G. 15. In continuation, the members of the Chamber concurred that the club must fulfill its obligations as per the employment contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay to the player the remuneration that was outstanding at the time of the termination i.e. the amount of USD 103,500 consisting of the three monthly salaries of May, June and July 2013 as well as of the payment due at the beginning of the 2013/2014 season in the amount of USD 35,000. 16. Furthermore, and considering the player’s claim for interest, the Chamber ruled that the club must pay 5% interest on the amount of USD 103,500 as from the date on which the player lodged his claim. 17. In continuation, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the player is in principle entitled to receive from the club compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding salaries on the basis of the relevant employment contract. 18. In this context, the Chamber outlined that in accordance with said provision, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise 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, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period. 19. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties 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. 20. Having recalled the aforementioned, and in order to evaluate the compensation to be paid by the club, the members of the Chamber took into account the remuneration due to the player in accordance with the employment contract as well as the time remaining on the same contract, along with the professional situation of the player after the early termination occurred. In this respect, the Chamber remarked that the remaining value of the contract for the 2013/2014 season amounted to USD 295,000. Therefore, and considering the claim of the player, the Chamber established that the amount of USD 295,000 shall serve as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 21. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages. 22. Indeed, the player found employment with Club G, where, between 21 August 2013 and 31 May 2014, he was entitled to receive a salary in the amount of EUR 350,000, which corresponds to approximately USD 468,000. 23. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that, even though the club is considered liable for the breach of the relevant employment contract, the player did not suffer any financial loss from the violation of the contractual obligations by the club apart from the outstanding remuneration. Therefore, the Chamber decided that there is no amount to be awarded to the player as compensation for breach of contract in the matter at hand. 24. In conclusion, for all the above reasons, the Chamber decided to partially accept the player´s claim and determined that the club must pay to the player the amount of USD 103,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest as from 24 August 2013. 25. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the player is rejected. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1, Player S, is partially accepted. 2. The counter-claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Football Club K, is rejected. 3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 103,500 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 24 August 2013 until the date of effective payment. 4. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 in accordance with the above-mentioned number 3. is not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 is rejected. 6. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant 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: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives