F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 July 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 July 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 October 2011, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid from the date of signature until 1 October 2012. 2. According to art. 4 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive inter alia: - 100,000,000 as a signing-on fee; - 40,000,000 as monthly salary payable for ten months; - “Furnish Player Welfare Facility (such as accommodation, transportation, etc.) shall be provided when the Player signs this Agreement 20 percent”. 3. On 24 May 2012, the Claimant and the Respondent signed an agreement (hereinafter: the agreement), in which the Claimant is referred to as “former midfieler at Club C”. In the agreement, the Respondent accepted owing the Claimant a total amount of 202,500,000 corresponding to: - 80,000,000 concerning two outstanding monthly salaries; - 80,000,000 concerning two monthly salaries as compensation; - 18,300,000 concerning an unpaid flight ticket; - 24,000,000 concerning “over stay of” from December to March 2011. The agreement established that the total amount would be paid in five instalments, respectively: - 20,000,000 on 29 May 2012; - 40,000,000 on 4 June 2012; - 20,000,000 on 13 June 2012; - 40,000,000 on 23 June 2012; - 82,500,000 on 27 June 2012. 4. On 28 February 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent for breach of contract, claiming the total amount of 2,345,472,000, composed as follows: - 200,000,000 as outstanding salaries; - 400,000,000 as moral and psychological damages; - 416,300,000 as reimbursement of expenses; - 960 000 000 as compensation for breach of contract; and - 369,172,000 as interest as from the termination of the contract (one year and seven months). 5. In this respect, the Claimant held that the parties agreed to mutually terminate the contract in April 2012. 6. According to the Claimant, the Respondent signed a document on 24 May 2012 recognizing a debt towards him in the amount of 202,500,000, which was never paid. Subsequently, the country D league allegedly assumed the responsibility to pay the Respondent’s debts to the players, but to this date it only paid him the total amount of 23,500,000. 7. In this context, the Claimant held that, since the Respondent never paid any of the instalments established in the agreement, the latter became null and void and the Respondent must pay the remuneration as established in the contract. 8. According to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to pay the monthly salaries as from February 2012 and the flight ticket in the amount of 18,300,000. 9. Moreover, the Claimant affirmed that the Respondent failed to pay for his working visa and as a consequence, he had to pay a monthly penalty for illegal residence in country D, for himself and his family, amounting to 138,000,000. In addition, the Claimant held that such situation caused moral and psychological damage to his family. 10. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that the Respondent did not provide him with the car, as established in the contract, causing him a financial loss of 60,000,000. 11. Additionally, the Claimant claimed compensation for breach of contract corresponding to 24 monthly salaries. 12. Also, the Claimant requested the amount of 200,000,000 as reimbursement of expenses allegedly incurred regarding accommodation, food, and his stay in the country to receive the outstanding remuneration. 13. Finally, the Claimant indicated that the interest rate for loans in country D is 11,8% per year. 14. Although invited to do so, the Respondent failed to provide its position to the claim of the Claimant. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 28 February 2014. Consequently, the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are 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 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015) 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 a club from country D. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations 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 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 28 February 2014, the 2012 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, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. 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. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that the parties to the dispute had signed an employment contract on 1 October 2011 valid until 1 October 2012 and, subsequently, on 24 May 2012, concluded an agreement, by means of which the Respondent accepted owing the Claimant the total amount of 202,500,000 to be paid in 5 instalments. 6. Furthermore, the members of the DRC took note that the Claimant lodged a claim against the club for breach of contract, requesting a total amount of 2,345,472,000. 7. Subsequently, the Chamber noted that the Respondent failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so. By not presenting its position to the claim, the DRC was of the opinion that the Respondent renounced its right to defence. 8. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, it shall take a decision upon the basis of the documentation already on file; in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 9. In continuation, the Chamber noted that, according to the Claimant, the contract was mutually terminated in April 2012 and, on 24 May 2012, the parties signed the agreement, establishing the Respondent’s obligation to pay him the amount of 205,500,000 divided in instalments. 10. Subsequently, the DRC observed that the Claimant reverted to FIFA indicating that, considering the Respondent had failed to pay the instalments established in the agreement, the latter became null and void. Consequently, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent for breach of the contract. 11. In this respect, the DRC noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant himself indicated that the parties had mutually terminated the contract and that, on the other hand, he alleged the agreement became null and void and the Respondent should pay the remuneration established in the contract. 12. In this context, the DRC deemed necessary to analyse the agreement signed by the parties. 13. First and foremost, the DRC highlighted that the Claimant is a party to the agreement, referred to as “former midfielder at Club C” (emphasis added), which is a clear indication that the contractual relationship was terminated. In addition, the members of the DRC took note that the agreement does not establish that, in case of non-payment of the instalments on the respective due dates, the agreement would become null and void. In fact, the Chamber emphasised that the agreement does not establish any consequence in case of non-payment by the Respondent. 14. Moreover, the Chamber emphasised that the Claimant even accepted having received the amount of 23,500,000 in relation to the agreement. 15. At this point, the DRC recalled that according to the legal principle of the burden of proof, any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). In this respect, the members of the DRC considered that the Claimant had failed to discharge his burden of proof. 16. On account of the above, the Claimant’s argument that the agreement became null and void and that he, therefore, would be entitled to claim remuneration on the basis of the employment contract must be rejected. 17. Considering the documentation provided, the members of the Chamber concluded that the contract was terminated by mutual consent of the parties and thus, the Claimant is only entitled to receive the amounts established in the agreement. 18. In continuation, the DRC recalled that the Claimant accepted having already received the amount of 23,500,000 regarding the agreement. Consequently, the Chamber considered that the amount of 179,000,000 remained outstanding. 19. Consequently, the DRC decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the total amount of 179,000,000. 20. Furthermore, taking into account the Claimant’s petition and the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the members of the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of 179,000,000, as from the respective due dates as established in the agreement until the date of effective payment. 21. Finally, the DRC concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of 179,000,000 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 5 June 2012 on the amount of 36,500,000; b. 5% p.a. as of 14 June 2012 on the amount of 20,000,000; c. 5% p.a. as of 24 June 2012 on the amount of 40,000,000; d. 5% p.a. as of 28 June 2012 on the amount of 82,500,000. 3. In the event that the aforementioned amount plus interest due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent 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