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 10 April 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman John Bramhall (England), member Jon Newman (USA), member Taku Nomiya (Japan), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member on the claim presented by the player, A, country S represented by Ms xxxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country I as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute 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 10 April 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman John Bramhall (England), member Jon Newman (USA), member Taku Nomiya (Japan), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member on the claim presented by the player, A, country S represented by Ms xxxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country I as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. The player from S, A (hereinafter: the player or Claimant), and the club from I, B (hereinafter: the club or Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), at an unknown date, valid from 29 June 2012 until the end of the sporting season 2013/2014. 2. Art. 7-1 of the contract states that: “The value of the contract for the first year is 500.000 USD (five hundred US Dollars) and for the second year in case of not using the option of the article 6-12 will be 600.000 USD (six hundred US Dollars).” 3. Art. 6-12 of the contract defines that: “In case the Club is not willing to keep the player for the second year of the contract, it would be allowed legally to terminate the contract unilaterally at the end of the first season of the contract. In such case, the second year of the contract will be cancelled and the player hereby approves that he will not have any claim in regard of the second year of the contract at any time.” 4. According to art. 7-2 until art. 7-5 of the contract, the club undertakes to pay the player, inter alia, the following amounts: - USD 125,000 after signing the contract, passing the medical test and receiving the ITC; - USD 125,000 until 1 August 2012; - USD 75,000 until 1 November 2012; - USD 75,000 until 1 March 2013; - USD 100,000 until 15 June 2013; - USD 180,000 until 15 July 2013: - USD 140,000 until 1 November 2013; - USD 140,000 until 1 March 2014; - USD 140,000 until 1 July 2014. 5. According to the player, the parties negotiated a mutual termination of the contract since he ruptured his cruciate ligament. In this respect, the player argues that the club agreed to pay USD 150’000 until 20 September 2012 in accordance with an unsigned handwritten note, which was inserted in the last page of the employment contract and which reads as follows: “Hereby, I A confirm that I already received 100.000$ in Cash and it is agreed that club will pay 150000$ until 20 Sep 2012 which in that case this contract will be canceled and I devest any financial and spiritual rights, claiming to football federation of I, xxxxx FIFA or CAS”. 6. On 4 January 2013, the player’s representative sent a reminder to the club stating that: “It has been agreed in written form that the contract of our client should have been cancelled after paying the sum of 150.000 USD by 20 September 2012.” Furthermore and in the same letter, the player set a new deadline until 5 February 2013 for the above-mentioned payment and claimed that if the payment was not wired by then, he would claim the residual value of the contract instead. 7. On 18 March 2013, the player lodged a claim with FIFA against the club for outstanding remuneration and requested to be awarded payment of USD 300,000 corresponding to the salary instalments of the contract with interest due as follows: - 5% of USD 150’000 as of 1 August 2012; - 5% of USD 75’000 as of 1 November 2012; - 5% of USD 75’000 as of 1 March 2013. Furthermore, the player requested the payment of EUR 2,237.56 as an indemnity. 8. In his arguments, the player acknowledged receipt of USD 100,000 as part of the first instalment agreed upon in the contract adding that no further payments were received and that, therefore, the amount of USD 300,000 was outstanding up to the date of the claim. Furthermore, the player argued that the contract was not terminated by mutual agreement, due to the fact the club did not pay the sum of USD 150,000 in accordance with the aforementioned handwritten note. 9. On 15 September 2014, the player amended his claim and requested to be awarded payment of USD 1,000,000 corresponding to the salary instalments of the contract with interest due as follows: - 5% of USD 150’000 as of 1 August 2012; - 5% of USD 75’000 as of 1 November 2012; - 5% of USD 75’000 as of 1 March 2013; - 5% of USD 100’000 as of 15 June 2013; - 5% of USD 180’000 as of 15 July 2013; - 5% of USD 140’000 as of 1 November 2013; - 5% of USD 140’000 as of 1 March 2014; - 5% of USD 140’000 as of 1 July 2014. Furthermore, the player requested the payment of EUR 2,237.56 as an indemnity. 10. In his reasoning, the player held that the contract was never terminated and that further salary payments had fallen due. The player highlighted that the club did not sign the handwritten note included in the contract and that he warned the club that the contract remained valid. 11. The player informed FIFA that he remained unemployed during the relevant contractual period. 12. Despite being invited to do so, the club has not replied to the player’s claim. 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 18 March 2013. 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 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 S and a club from I. 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 18 March 2013, 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 Chamber recalled that, the parties had signed an employment contract valid as from 29 June 2012 until the end of the sporting season 2013/2014. 6. According to the Claimant, the parties mutually agreed to terminate the employment contract an undated handwritten note, drafted by the player, was inserted on the last page of the contract, which states that the parties agreed that the Respondent would pay USD 150,000 to the player until 20 September 2012, following which the contract would be cancelled. 7. Furthermore, the Claimant argues that he never received the aforementioned payment of USD 150,000 and that the contract, therefore, was never terminated, as a result of which further salary payments became due. Consequently, the Claimant claims that he is entitled to receive the entire residual value of the contract. 8. Subsequently, the DRC 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 any reply to the claim, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Respondent renounced its right of defence. 9. 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. 10. Having said this, the DRC acknowledged that the central issue in the matter at stake was to determine as to whether the contract was terminated by mutual agreement in the light of the above-mentioned handwritten note in the contract. 11. With the foregoing considerations in mind, the Chamber reviewed the handwritten note presented by the Claimant in support of his petition and highlighted that it bears the signature of the Claimant only. Furthermore, the relevant text was drafted in the singular first person personal pronoun, i.e. I, and merely represents a declaration of the Claimant, which basically does not require the signature of the counterparty, and the Chamber had no reason to consider this note as invalid. 12. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber recalled that it has remained uncontested that the Respondent has not paid the amount of USD 150,000 to the Claimant in accordance with said handwritten note. 13. On account of the above and bearing in mind the contents of the relevant handwritten note, the Chamber concluded that the contract continued to be valid and in force. Having said this, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that both parties, thus, continued to be contractually obliged to fulfil their contractual obligations, which implies for the Claimant to render his services to the Respondent, or in the event of an injury, to at least inform the club and keep the club informed of his medical condition and progress on recovery. 14. In this context, the DRC took into account that the Claimant has not presented any evidence that, after 20 September 2012, he offered his services to the Respondent and/or informed the Respondent of his medical condition and progress. 15. Additionally, the Chamber wished to highlight that, on 4 January 2013, the Claimant sent a default notice to the Respondent referring to the alleged mutual termination and claiming the payment of USD 150,000 until 5 February 2013 only. 16. With these considerations in mind, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant’s behaviour and actions demonstrated that he considered the contractual relationship as terminated after 20 September 2012. 17. Consequently, the DRC decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount established in said handwritten note, i.e. the amount of USD 150,000. 18. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 150,000 as from 21 September 2012 until the date of effective payment. 19. 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, A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, B, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 150,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 September 2012 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s 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 article 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