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 25 September 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), 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 arisen 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 25 September 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), 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 arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 7 August 2012, 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 first contract), valid from the date of signature until 31 May 2014. 2. According to clause 3 of the first contract, the Claimant was entitled to a total remuneration of USD 200,000 for the season 2012/2013, divided in ten equal instalments of USD 20,000 each, the first instalment due on 30 August 2012. For the season 2013/2014, in case the Respondent remained in the first league, the monthly instalment would remain USD 20,000, amounting to a total remuneration of USD 200,000. In case the Respondent participated in the super league in the season 2013/2014, the monthly instalment would be of USD 32,000 each, amounting to a total remuneration of USD 320,000. 3. Moreover, the Claimant was entitled to “compensation for the season 2012/2013” in the amount of USD 40,000, upon the signature of the contract, and also to the amount of USD 20,000 in case the Respondent participated in the playoff for the season 2012/2013. 4. In addition, the Claimant was entitled to the amount of USD 40,000, to be paid in July 2013, in case the Respondent remained in the first league in the season 2013/2014 as well as to the amount of USD 20,000, to be paid after 15 days after the last game, in case the Respondent ended in the first or second place in the league at the end of the season 2013/2014. 5. On 17 July 2013, the Claimant and the Respondent signed another employment contract (hereinafter: the second contract), valid as from 1 June 2014 until 31 May 2015. 6. According to clause 3 of the second contract, the Claimant was entitled to a total remuneration of USD 200,000 for the season 2014/2015, divided in ten equal monthly instalments of USD 20,000 each, the first instalment due on 30 August. 7. Moreover, the Claimant was entitled to “compensation for the season 2014/2015” in the amount of USD 40,000, upon the signature of the contract, and other team performance bonuses. 8. On 7 January 2015, the Claimant terminated the second contract in writing. In particular, the termination letter made reference to default notices dated 19 September 2014, 3 and 14 October 2014, 12 November 2014 and 3, 12 and 16 December 2014, which allegedly all remained unanswered by the Respondent. 9. On 26 March 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract, requesting to be awarded the aggregate amount of USD 355,450, composed as follows: - “USD 135,450” as outstanding remuneration; - USD 100,000 relating to the remaining period of the second contract; and - USD 120,000 as additional compensation for damages corresponding to six monthly salaries. 10. According to the Claimant, the parties signed the first contract, valid until 31 May 2014, and subsequently, signed the second contract, extending the terms of the first contract until 31 May 2015. 11. In this respect, the Claimant held that he was entitled to receive a total remuneration of USD 520,000 on the basis of the first contract, during the seasons 2012/2013 and 2013/2014, composed of: - USD 40,000 due upon the signature of the contract; - USD 200,000 for the season 2012/2013; - USD 20,000 as performance bonuses; - USD 40,000 due in July 2013; - USD 200,000 for the season 2013/2014; and - USD 20,000 as performance bonuses. However, the Claimant alleged having only received the amount of USD 481,335 even though he had fulfilled his contractual obligations until the end of the season 2013/2014 and that, thus, the amount of USD 33,665 remained outstanding on the basis of the first contract, considering that the Respondent imposed a fine of USD 5,000. 12. Furthermore, regarding the second contract, the Claimant alleged having received only USD 41,215 until the termination of the second contract, i.e. until 7 January 2015, and that therefore, USD 98,785 remained outstanding on the basis of the second contract. 13. The Claimant presented a list of all payments due and received regarding both contracts. 14. The Claimant emphasised having put the Respondent in default on several occasions without having received any answer, reason why he had no other choice than terminating the contractual relationship. 15. Although the Respondent asked for an extension of the deadline to reply to the Claimant’s claim, it failed to submit its response within the established deadline, i.e. 5 June 2015. 16. On 26 June 2015, the investigation-phase of the present matter was closed. 17. On 10 July 2015, the Respondent replied to the claim. 18. The Claimant informed FIFA that he concluded an employment contract with the club from country D, Club E, on 13 January 2015, valid until 31 May 2016, according to which the Claimant was entitled inter alia to receive the amount of USD 80,000 for the season 2014/2015, i.e. from January 2015 until the end of May 2015. 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 matter at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 26 March 2015. Consequently, the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015; 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 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 26 March 2015, the 2015 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. Having said this, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent entered into an employment contract valid as of 7 August 2012 until 31 May 2014, and subsequently, signed a second employment contract valid as of 1 June 2014 until 31 May 2015. 6. Furthermore, the DRC took note that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent for breach of contract in front of FIFA, maintaining that he had terminated the employment contract with just cause on 7 January 2015, after previously having put the club in default on several occasions, since the Respondent allegedly failed to pay the Claimant’s remuneration as established in the first and in the second contract. 7. In this respect, the Claimant held having only received the amount of USD 481,335 regarding the first contract, according to which he would be entitled to receive the amount of USD 520,000 and that, thus, the amount of USD 33,665 remained outstanding. Moreover, the Claimant held that, regarding the second contract, he had only received the amount of USD 41,215 until 7 January 2015 while being entitled to receive USD 140,000 and that therefore, at that moment, the amount of USD 98,785 was outstanding. 8. Subsequently, the Chamber observed that the Respondent, for its part, in spite of having been invited to do so, failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant within the relevant time-limit. In fact, the reply of the Respondent was only received after the investigation-phase of the matter had already been concluded. As a result, the DRC decided not to take into account the reply of the Respondent and established that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, it shall take a decision upon the basis of those documents on file that were provided prior to the closure of the investigation-phase, in casu, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 9. Having said this and taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his petition, the Chamber established that the Respondent, without any valid reason, had failed to remit to the Claimant, until 7 January 2015, date on which the Claimant terminated the second contract, the total amount of USD 98,785, which corresponded to approximately 5 monthly salaries in accordance with the second contract. 10. Moreover, the DRC highlighted that the Respondent had equally failed to fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant with respect to the first contract, in particular, the Respondent had not paid the amount of USD 33,665 to the Claimant. 11. Consequently, and considering that the Respondent had repeatedly and for a significant period of time been in breach of its contractual obligations towards the Claimant, the Chamber decided that the Claimant had just cause to unilaterally terminate the second contract on 7 January 2015 and that, as a result, the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact with just cause by the Claimant. 12. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of such termination. In this respect, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts which were outstanding at the moment of the termination both under the second contract, i.e. USD 98,785, and under the first contract, i.e. USD 33,665. 13. Furthermore, the Chamber decided that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Respondent is liable to pay compensation to the Claimant. 14. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation payable to the Claimant by the Respondent 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 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 Claimant 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. 15. 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. 16. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant 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. 17. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the second contract until 31 May 2015, taking into account that the player´s remuneration until and including December 2014 is included in the calculation of the outstanding remuneration. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 100,000 (i.e. remuneration as from January 2015 until May 2015) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 18. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant 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. 19. Indeed, on 13 January 2015, the Claimant found employment with the club from country D, Club E. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, which has been made available by the Claimant, valid until 31 May 2016, the Claimant was entitled to receive for the season 2014/2015, i.e. from January 2015 until the end of May 2015, the amount of USD 80,000. 20. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 20,000 as compensation for breach of contract in the present matter. 21. In conclusion, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant´s claim and that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 132,450 as outstanding remuneration and USD 20,000 as compensation for breach of contract. 22. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. II. 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 outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 132,450, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 20,000, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 4. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant are not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limits, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limits and 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 is rejected. 6. 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 Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS directives