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 12 March 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Santiago Nebot (Spain), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member Guillermo Santos Guale (Ecuador), member on the matter between the player, Player A, country B as Claimant and the club, Club C, country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I.

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 12 March 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Santiago Nebot (Spain), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member Guillermo Santos Guale (Ecuador), member on the matter between the player, Player A, country B as Claimant and the club, Club C, country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 18 January 2012, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from 1 February 2012 until 31 December 2013. 2. According to the Addendum B of the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant, inter alia, the following amounts, starting on 15 March 2012: - USD 3,000 as monthly salary during the season 2012, to be paid in biweekly instalments; - USD 3,300 as monthly salary during the season 2013, to be paid in biweekly instalments; - One round trip ticket between country B and country D for the season 2012/2013; - A one bedroom furnished apartment. 3. Furthermore, the contract included, inter alia, the following clauses: “Part 5, Club Obligations (…) (c) (…) Club shall be responsible for obtaining a valid Work Visa prior to paying Player (…) Proper Visa documentation is a precondition to Player’s eligibility. Part 6, Participation in Other Activities Player and Club acknowledge and agree that Player’s participation in certain other sports or physical activities may impair or destroy his ability and skill as a soccer player. Player agrees to seek consent of Club prior to engaging in such other sports or physical activities. Failure to do so in advance may result in termination of the Contract”. (…) Part 19, Camps, Clinics & Other Activities Player agrees that the operation or conduction of any soccer camps, coaching of youth teams clinics or other promotional activities within the geographic territory of the Club is the sole right of Club. Player agrees that he will not participate in any fashion in other camps, youth team coaching, clinics or other promotional activities unless he requests and receives permission in advance in writing from Club for such participation. This shall not apply to any camps that Player has operated or teams that he has coached prior to his signing a professional contract with this Club.” 4. In addition, the contract included the following stipulations in relation to dispute resolution: 13. Dispute Resolution (a) The parties agree that all disputes relating to or arising out of this Contract or Player’s relationship with Club or League including, but not limited, disputes related to compensation, benefits, discipline, or the termination of this Contract shall be presented to the League of country D’s Office, pursuant to the League Bylaws for final decision by the League. (b) If either Player or Club is dissatisfied with the decision of League of country D as referenced in subsection 13 (a) above, it may serve notice of a demand for binding arbitration on the other party within seven (7) calendar days of the receipt of the League’s decision. 5. On 4 July 2013, the Claimant lodged a complaint before FIFA against the Respondent, by means of which he requested “the revision of his case” (in Spanish, “la revision de mi caso”) for breach of contract without just cause, and requested the payment of a total sum amounting to USD 45,800, calculated as follows: - USD 19,800, corresponding to six months of outstanding salaries during the season 2013; - USD 6,000 for housing costs for the period of six months; - USD 8,000 as a compensation for the Respondent’s refusal to transfer him on loan before March 2013; - USD 12,000 for moral damages against him and his family. 6. In addition, the Claimant requested his return tickets to country B to be refunded. At a later stage, on 7 April 2014, the Claimant valued the cost of the return tickets in the amount of USD 2,067. 7. The Claimant explained that, on 24 October 2012, the Respondent sent him a termination notice for the breach of Parts 5 (c), 6 and 19 of the Contract. In the aforementioned notice, the Respondent argued that the Claimant violated the conditions of his work visa as he was receiving a salary from another employer on top of his salary from the Respondent. In addition, the Respondent considered that the Claimant participated in other activities, as he had been training with an indoor football club of the same city, the Club E, without having the Respondent’s consent. Furthermore, the Respondent considered that the Claimant violated Part 19 of the Contract, as he was working as an assistant coach with School F during the 2012 Football Season without the express written permission of the Respondent. In this respect, the Claimant submitted a declaration from School F, in which the latter stated that the Claimant was not a coach and has never been paid in any form by the school, but that he had been training at its facilities with permission of the Respondent’s coach. 8. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that, on 25 October 2012, the Respondent agreed to loan the Claimant to the Club E under the condition that the Claimant would sign an addendum to the contract. According to section 3 of the addendum, the original employment contract between the Claimant and the Respondent may be terminated “at any time after the League of country D’s indoor season which is estimated to conclude on March 15, 2012 …” 9. On 26 October 2012, and according to the Respondent’s email to the Claimant, the League of country D (hereinafter: League of country D) did not accept the wording of section 3 of the addendum and requested the Respondent to amend it due to its unilateral language. 10. In the same email, the Respondent requested the Claimant to sign an amended addendum, which, according to the Claimant, was never signed by him. The Claimant added that no loan transfer took place. 11. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that, after having contacted the Respondent in February 2013, the Respondent informed him that it considered the contract terminated in accordance with Section 3 of the initial addendum. Subsequently, on 21 February 2013, the Respondent requested the Claimant to sign a document in which it offered the Claimant a return flight ticket to country B in exchange of him not contesting this matter via arbitration, civil court or FIFA. 12. In continuation, the claimant explained that on 7 March 2013, and following consultation with the League of country D, he was informed that the League of country D had approved the termination of his contract. In this respect, the Claimant explained that the League of country D “offered him the possibility of studying the case”. 13. Afterwards, the Claimant sought for mediation before the Arbitration Association of country D (hereinafter: Arbitration Association of country D). However, on 25 April 2013, the Arbitration Association of country D notified the Claimant and the Respondent of its refusal to administer the case for not receiving the required fees from the Respondent. 14. On 26 August 2013, the Respondent replied to the claim denying the Claimant’s allegations, and argued that there has never been any discussion about a unilateral termination of the contract, since the Claimant was released by the Respondent on 19 February 2013 in accordance with the provisions outlined in the addendum signed by the Claimant and the Respondent on 25 October 2013. 15. Furthermore, the Respondent declared that, on 17 October 2012, the Claimant told the Respondent’s coach that he was unsatisfied with the work in his team. 16. In this respect, the Respondent explained that the Claimant had lodged a formal claim before the League of country D on 28 February 2013, in accordance with art. 13a of the contract, in order to contest the termination of the contract. Subsequently, on 5 March 2013, the Respondent replied to the Claimant’s claim, insisting on the validity of the contract termination. Finally, on 7 March 2013, the League of country D decided to uphold the termination of the contract by the Respondent. Subsequently, the Claimant intended to start arbitration proceedings before the Arbitration Association of country D. However, on 25 April 2013, the Arbitration Association of country D informed the parties to the arbitration that it declined to administer the case. 17. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the Claimant breached the terms of the contract as he had been working as an assistant coach with School F. In this respect, the Respondent submitted a statement from said school, confirming the aforementioned employment relationship. 18. The Respondent also declared that, on 5 March 2012, it provided the Claimant with a return ticket to country B. In this respect, the Respondent submitted documentation (bank statements, accounting paperwork, quotes and exchange of correspondence with travel agency’s customer service in order to obtain a copy of the tickets) to prove this allegation. 19. Finally, the Respondent made no statement about the claimed outstanding salary or housing costs. 20. In his replica, the Claimant reiterated his previous arguments and emphasized that the arbitration proceedings at the Arbitration Association of country D were not initiated because the Respondent did not want to take part. 21. Despite having been invited to provide its final comments, the Respondent did not make any further statements during the course of the investigation. 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 4 July 2013. Consequently, the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the 2008, 2012 and 2014 editions 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 would, in principle, be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a player from country B and a club from country D. 3. Thereafter, the Chamber deemed it, however, of utmost importance to consider the following chronological crucial facts which are at the basis of the specific litigation at hand. 4. From the documentation submitted by the Respondent, the Chamber observed that the Claimant lodged an undated claim before the League of country D in order to contest the termination of the contract. 5. Equally, from the documentation submitted by the Respondent, the Chamber observed that, on 5 March 2013, the Respondent replied to the aforementioned claim. 6. Subsequently, on 7 March 2013, the parties were informed by the League of country D that the contract was validly terminated on 25 October 2012. 7. Thereafter, the Claimant intended to start arbitration proceedings before the Arbitration Association of country D. However, on 25 April 2013, the Arbitration Association of country D informed the parties that it declined to administer the case. 8. At this point, the Chamber was eager to point out that the foregoing order of events was not contested by the claimant. 9. Having established the foregoing, the members of the Chamber recalled the content of clause 13 of the contract, which contains the following: “(a) The parties agree that all disputes relating to or arising out of this Contract or Player’s relationship with Club or League including, but not limited, disputes related to compensation, benefits, discipline, or the termination of this Contract shall be presented to the League of country D’s Office, pursuant to the League Bylaws for final decision by the League. (b) If either Player or Club is dissatisfied with the decision of League of country D as referenced in subsection 13 (a) above, it may serve notice of a demand for binding arbitration on the other party within seven (7) calendar days of the receipt of the League’s decision.” 10. In this respect, taking into account the aforementioned provision in the contract, the members of the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had simply followed the stipulations of the aforementioned clause 13 in order to seek for redress from a dispute arising from the contract. 11. In this context, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the wording used by the Claimant in his Claim, as he requested to the FIFA DRC to “review his case” (in Spanish, “revisión de mi caso”). 12. In this regard, the Chamber deemed it important to underline that the practice of the Claimant to have his case heard by another decision-making body with the aim to get the most favourable judgment, known as “forum shopping”, cannot be upheld by the Chamber. 13. Finally, the Chamber wished to point out that if a party chooses to pursue the defence of his rights on national level and in accordance with contractual provisions, he should proceed that way. 14. Taking into account all the foregoing considerations, the Chamber decided that it is not competent to deal with the claim lodged by the Claimant. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, 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 (CAS) Avenue de Beaumont 2 CH-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 Enclosed: CAS directives