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 15 October 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Taku Nomiya (Japan), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), 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.

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 15 October 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Taku Nomiya (Japan), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), 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 23 January 2015, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: player or Claimant) and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: club or Respondent) signed an employment contract stipulating a duration as from 23 January 2015 until 30 June 2016. 2. The employment contract further stipulates that in the event of a relegation of the club at the end of the 2014-15 season, the contract automatically ends on 30 June 2015. 3. In accordance with the employment contract, the player is entitled to receive the following remuneration: 2014-15 season: a. EUR 6,000 monthly salary payable at the end of each month; b. EUR 200 monthly accommodation allowance payable on the 1st of each month as of 1 February 2015; c. EUR 8,000 bonus payment on condition that club is not relegated at the end of the 2014-15 season, payable by 31 May 2015. From 1 July 2015 until 30 June 2016: d. EUR 8,333 monthly salary payable by the 20th day of the following month; e. EUR 200 monthly accommodation allowance payable on the 1st of each month. 4. In addition, the contract stipulates that the player can terminate the contract with immediate effect in the event that the club does not perform its obligation to pay one monthly salary within 30 days from its due date, provided that the player’s default notice has not been respected by the club. 5. On 6 July 2015, the player put the club in default of payment of his salary for April, May and June 2015, 5 monthly accommodation allowances as well as the EUR 8,000 bonus payment, setting 10 July 2015 at noon as the time limit to remedy the default. 6. This default notice having remained without reaction, on 10 July 2015, the player notified the club of the termination of the contract. 7. On 10 July 2015, the player signed an employment contract with Club E from country F, valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2016. 8. On 10 July 2015, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA maintaining that he had just cause to terminate the contract and asking that the club be held liable to pay the following monies: Outstanding remuneration: a. EUR 18,000 – salaries of April, May, June 2015 b. EUR 8,000 – bonus payment of 31 May 2015 c. EUR 1,200 – 6 monthly accommodation allowances as of February 2015 d. Interest of 5% p.a. as of the respective due dates Compensation: e. EUR 102,196 – residual value as from 1 July 2015 until 30 June 2016 (according to the player 12 salaries and 11 accommodation allowances) f. Interest of 5% p.a. as of 11 July 2015 9. According to the player, the club maintained its place in the first league at the end of the 2014-15 season on sporting merits and therefore, the condition for payment of the EUR 8,000 bonus was fulfilled and the contract continued until 30 June 2016. 10. Furthermore, the player highlights that up to the date of the termination of the contract by him, the club had not raised any issues with respect to the contract or to his services. 11. In addition, the player emphasises that he acted in accordance with the contractual clause dealing with the termination of the contract by the player (cf. point I./4. above). 12. In reply to the claim, the club denied that it acted in breach of contract and indicated that its current financial situation does not allow to pay “the sum that is in the claim”. 13. The club further holds that it was disqualified based on the rules of the first league of country D, which is the cause of its inability to pay. 14. In addition, the club states that the EUR 8,000 bonus is not due to the player, since it was relegated at the end of the 2014-15 season. 15. According to the Transfer Matching System (TMS), as of the 2015-16 season, the club has been registered in the 3rd division. 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 10 July 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 10 July 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. In particular, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS). 5. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that, on 23 January 2015, the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract stipulating a duration as from 23 January 2015 until 30 June 2016. 6. The members of the DRC took particular note of the contractual clause according to which in the event of a relegation of the club at the end of the 2014-15 season, the contract would automatically end on 30 June 2015 (hereinafter: relegation clause). 7. In continuation, the Chamber reviewed the claim of the Claimant, who maintains that the Respondent failed to pay his monthly salary as from April 2015 until June 2015 as well as monthly accommodation allowances as of February 2015, which is why he terminated the employment contract on 10 July 2015 after having put the club in default. The Claimant further holds that the employment contract was to last until 30 June 2016, since the Respondent allegedly had not been relegated at the end of the 2014-15 season. Therefore, the Claimant asks to be awarded payment of outstanding remuneration as well as compensation for breach of contract. 8. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber noted that the Respondent, for its part, holds that the club was in fact relegated for the 2015-16 season, since “it was disqualified based on the rules of the first league of country D”. Therefore, the Respondent sustains that the Claimant is not entitled to receive the contractual EUR 8,000 bonus. The Chamber took into account that as regards the other monies claimed by the Claimant as outstanding remuneration, the Respondent has merely indicated that its current financial situation does not allow it to make the relevant payments. 9. On account of the above, bearing in mind the parties’ opposing viewpoints with regard to the contractual relation for the 2015-16 season in consideration of the relegation clause, the Chamber deemed that it shall firstly be established as to whether the employment contract ended on 30 June 2015 on the basis of said relegation clause. Subsequently and in the negative only, will the Chamber have to examine as to whether the employment contract was terminated by the Claimant on 10 July 2015 with or without just cause and establish the consequences thereof. 10. The members of the Chamber noted that the relegation clause reads as follows: “The Parties agree that in case the club gets relegated to a lower division at the end of the Season 2014/15 this Contract shall automatically end on 30 June 2015, without the necessity of justifying the termination in writing”. “ …”. 11. In this respect, the DRC highlighted that it has remained undisputed that during the 2014-15 season, i.e. the season during which the parties started the execution of the employment contract, the Respondent was playing in the first league of country D. 16. In continuation, the members of the DRC noted that the Claimant alleges that the Respondent maintained its place in the first league on sporting merits at the end of the 2014-15 season and that, therefore, the employment contract was to continue until 30 June 2016 in accordance with the relegation clause. In this regard, the Claimant submitted information taken from an internet site, dated 10 July 2015, displaying the position of the club and the season 2014-15. 17. Subsequently, the Chamber took into account that, whereas the document presented by the Claimant appears to indicate that the Respondent was placed in the first division towards the end of the 2014-15 season, the TMS, however, demonstrates that the Respondent has been registered in the 3rd division as of 1 July 2015. 18. On account of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent, in fact, was relegated at the end of the 2014-15 season, although, as the Respondent also seems to imply, who refers to a disqualification according to the first league rules, not for sporting reasons. In this context, the Chamber highlighted that the Respondent appears to have been relegated from the 1st to the 3rd division. Should sporting merits have been at the basis of the relegation, the Respondent would most probably have been relegated to the 2nd division. 12. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the relegation clause in the matter at stake does not specify as to whether the relegation should be for sporting merits. Indeed, it merely refers to a relegation at the end of the 2014-15 season. 13. On account of all the above, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s argumentation with respect to the length of the contractual duration and decided that the employment contract ended on 30 June 2015 due to the relegation of the Respondent for the 2015-16 season in accordance with the relegation clause. 14. Having established that the employment contract ended on 30 June 2015, the Chamber considered that it did not need to address and analyse the question as to whether the Claimant’s notice of termination dated 10 July 2015 constitutes a termination with or without just cause. Thus, it decided to reject the Claimant’s claim for compensation for breach of contract. 15. Subsequently, the Chamber proceeded to examine the Claimant’s claim pertaining to remuneration that allegedly was outstanding upon expiry of the employment contract on 30 June 2015. 16. In this regard, the members of the Chamber recalled that the Respondent denies the Claimant’s entitlement to the contractual EUR 8,000 bonus on the basis of its relegation. 17. As regards the bonus of EUR 8,000, which is payable to the Claimant on condition that the club was not relegated at the end of the 2014-15 season, the DRC disagreed with the Respondent’s argument. Indeed, the members of the Chamber agreed that a bonus payable by a club to a player in the event of non-relegation is typically linked to non-relegation on the basis of a team’s performance, i.e. on sporting merits. In this regard, taking into consideration, as stated above (cf. point II./18. above), that the Respondent was not relegated on sporting merits, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive the bonus of EUR 8,000, which fell due on 31 May 2015. 18. In addition, as regards the other monies claimed by the Claimant, the Respondent indicated that its current financial situation does not allow it to make the relevant payments. In other words, the Respondent does not deny that the monies claimed by the Claimant as outstanding remuneration have not been paid and merely invokes financial reasons for non-payment. 19. Taking into account all of the above, the Chamber decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the outstanding salaries of April, May, and June 2015 in the amount of EUR 6,000 each, five monthly accommodation allowances of EUR 200 each (February until June 2015) as well as the bonus of EUR 8,000, totalling the amount of EUR 27,000. 20. Furthermore, taking into account the Claimant’s pertinent request, the Chamber decided to award interest of 5% p.a. on each of the relevant instalments as of the day following the day on which the instalments fell due. 21. The Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant. 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 EUR 27,000 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 200 as of 2 February 2015; b. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 200 as of 2 March 2015; c. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 200 as of 2 April 2015; d. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 200 as of 2 May 2015; e. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 200 as of 2 June 2015; f. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 6,000 as of 1 May 2015; g. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 6,000 as of 1 June 2015; h. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 6,000 as of 1 July 2015; i. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 8,000 as of 1 June 2015. 3. In the event that the amount 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 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 Acting Secretary General Encl.: CAS directives