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 Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, country B and/or country C, as Claimant against the club, Club D, country B as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I.

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 Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, country B and/or country C, as Claimant against the club, Club D, country B as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 31 January 2011, the Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club from country B, Club D (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 1 March 2011 until 30 June 2014. 2. In accordance with the contract, the Claimant was inter alia entitled to receive: a. EUR 17,000 net as monthly remuneration of payable on 30th of each month; b. “accommodation in form of: House with 4 bedrooms is already equipped with furniture. The Player has the right to decide whether or not to accept the housing offered as suitable. Until suitable housing as here defined has been found. The club will give accommodation in a hotel suite”; c. two round trips between country C and country B in economy per year. 3. According to the Football Association of country B the “Player A was registered as citizen of country B while he was playing in Club D (known as Club D)”. 4. In addition, the Football Association of country B provided the “Minutes of Oath” and the “the Decree of the President of country B”, according to which the player has been a national of country B since 10 October 2011. 5. On 2 May 2012, the Claimant informed the Respondent that he had not been paid remuneration owed for the months of March and April 2012, and that he required a flight ticket to country B. On 15 May 2012, the Claimant reaffirmed by e-mail that he had still not received the unpaid salaries in the total amount of EUR 34,000 and requested EUR 3,000 in housing costs. 6. On 25 May 2012, the Claimant put the Respondent in default by e-mail of the unpaid salaries as well as the housing costs. On 5 June 2012, the Claimant reminded the Respondent that it owed him three monthly salaries and EUR 4,000 in housing costs. He notified the Respondent that he considered the non-payments of monies owed as breach of contract without just cause of the Respondent and that in light of such a development, he would “have to leave country B”. 7. On 19 November 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent maintaining that it had breached the employment relation without just cause and asking that he be paid a total of EUR 615,320 plus 5% interest p.a. as follows: a. EUR 51,000 as outstanding remuneration deriving from the contract; b. EUR 4,000 in outstanding housing costs; c. EUR 425,000 as compensation for the residual amount of the contract for the period beginning in June 2012 until June 2014; d. EUR 33,320 due for agents’ fees, i.e. EUR 3,570 “due prior to the termination” and EUR 29,750 as compensation for the residual value of the contract; e. EUR 102,000 amounting to six months salary for damages specific to sport; f. sporting sanctions. 8. The Claimant claims that he had not been paid his salary for the months of March, April and May 2012 amounting to EUR 51,000 and that the Respondent had not provided him with a return flight from the country C to country B. In addition, the Claimant claims housing costs amounting to EUR 4,000 which were never paid. 9. In addition, the Claimant claims that all fees due to his agent under the terms of the contract have not been paid (cf. point I.5.d. above). 10. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to provide its position regarding the claim, the Respondent did not respond to the claim or make any statement during the course of the investigation. 11. In reply to FIFA’s pertinent request, the player indicated that he has not signed a professional contract since the termination of the employment contract with the club. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 19 November 2012. Consequently, the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (2008 edition; hereinafter: the 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 (2015 edition) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with employment related disputes with an international dimension between a player and a club. 3. In view of the aforementioned provisions the Chamber was eager to emphasise that in principle, and without prejudice to the right of any player or club to seek redress before a civil court for employment-related disputes, it falls under its competence to deal with international employment-related disputes between players and clubs unless an independent arbitration tribunal has been established at national level. 4. The members of the Chamber then referred to the Introductory Provision of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and particularly to its art. 2 and art. 3, according to which some principles outlined in the Regulations are also binding at national level and each association is obliged to draw up its internal regulations. The associations are within the framework of their autonomy, free to adapt their internal rules to the necessity and the particularity of the country concerned. The competence of FIFA therefore is restricted to international transfers and disputes. 5. Furthermore, in the context of labour disputes the Chamber underlined that as a general rule the international dimension is represented by the fact that the player concerned is not a national of the country of the association to which the relevant club is affiliated. 6. When both parties have the same nationality however, the dispute shall be considered as national or internal, with the consequence being that the rules and regulations of the association concerned shall be applied to the matter and the deciding bodies in accordance with the relevant provisions that are to be applied on the issue. If FIFA’s deciding body would deal with such an internal matter, the internal competence of FIFA member associations would be violated. These principles of delimitation between the competence of FIFA and the competence of the associations are primordial for the reciprocal recognition of the organisations and autonomy of FIFA and the member associations. 7. Having said this, the Chamber turned its attention to the circumstances surrounding the double citizenship of a Claimant. The members of the Chamber observed that an increasing number of players with two or more nationalities have appeared in the world of football and that FIFA and its deciding bodies are confronted with an augmented number of cases which concern double citizenship. In this respect, the members of the Chamber emphasised that a player’s nationality is expressed by his passport(s) or identification document(s), but that within the framework of numerous citizenships a player could, under certain circumstances, possibly invoke a “sportive nationality”. The “sportive nationality” is generally linked to the concrete situation of the registration of a player with a club affiliated to the specific association in which it is domiciled in a country of which the player is also a national, in compliance with the rules of registration and eligibility for the club of the association concerned. 8. In such situations, both the club and the player may reap advantages of the “sportive nationality”. For example, the player being registered as a “local player” does not fill any quota of foreign players and would have no difficulty in obtaining a visa or work permit, if at all required. Furthermore, any possible restriction on the number of foreign persons in the country would not be applicable in such a situation. Such circumstances are obviously to the benefit of both the club and the player. 9. In this context, the Chamber recalled the crucial fact that the Claimant holds both country C’s and country B’s nationality. According to the Claimant, he was a citizen of country C when he entered into the contract and notes that although the nationality mentioned in the contract is from country B, this was simply a mistake. In addition, he asserts that the passport number referenced in the contract is that of his passport of country C. He further states that long after the contract was signed, he gained country B’s nationality and that this is proven by the date of issue of his passport of country B, i.e. 4 November 2011. 10. The members of the Chamber further noted that from the information provided by the Football Association of country, the Claimant was registered as a citizen of country B with the Respondent, and that from the documentation provided by the Football Association of country B the Claimant had received his country B’s citizenship on 10 October 2011. The DRC considered it important to note that the Claimant had knowingly signed the employment contract at the basis of the dispute which clearly contained the mention “nationality of country B”. 11. In view of the allegations of the Claimant and the information and documentation provided by the Football Association of country B, the Chamber deemed it important to establish at which moment the analysis of the national or international nature of the dispute should be made. The Chamber concluded that such an analysis should be made when the event giving rise to the dispute occurs. In this particular case, the relevant events are the alleged non-payment of housings costs – for which no specific amount or pay dates are stipulated in the contract – and of the player’s salaries for March until May 2012. 12. In this regard, the members of the Chamber took note that the Claimant was always registered as a player from country B, despite only acquiring the country B’s nationality on 10 October 2011. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber took note that at the time of the alleged non-payment of the player’s salaries of March, April and May 2012, he was undoubtedly a national of country B. 13. On account of all of the above considerations, in particular the fact that the Claimant from country C/country B was registered as a player from country B with the Respondent from the start of his contract, in addition to the fact that when the litigious event leading to the present dispute arose the Claimant had already acquired the country B’s nationality, the case of the Claimant in question comes under the jurisdiction of the football association in the country concerned, i.e. country B; due to the lack of international dimension of a dispute between a player from country B and an club from country B as a result of which FIFA cannot intervene due to a lack of jurisdiction over the matter. 14. Consequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the present matter is not admissible. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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 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