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 18 February 2016, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member on the claim presented by the player, A, from N represented by Mr xxxx as Claimant against the club, B, from T as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen 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 18 February 2016, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member on the claim presented by the player, A, from N represented by Mr xxxx as Claimant against the club, B, from T as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 13 July 2011, the player from country N, A (hereinafter; the Claimant) and the club from country T, club B (hereinafter; the Respondent) concluded an employment contract valid as of the date of its signature until 31 May 2014. 2. On “11 May 2011”, the parties concluded a “Protocol” (hereinafter; the agreement) which governed the financial aspects of the contract, valid for the seasons 2011/2012, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 and whereby it was agreed that the Respondent would pay to the Claimant “a total of EUR 300,000 for the season” broken-down as follows: a. EUR 100,000 as advance payment in two equal instalments of EUR 50,000 payable on 25 August 2011 and 27 September 2011; b. “EUR 85,000 / 34 euro match = EUR 2,500 per match fee”; c. EUR 115,000 payable in 10 equal instalments of EUR 11,500. 3. In addition, the agreement provided that the match bonuses would be paid as follows: a. 100% if the player starts in the first eleven; b. 75% if the player is fielded as a substitute; c. 50% if the player is in the “squad of 18”. 4. On 18 November 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA requesting outstanding remuneration for the season 2013/2014 in the amount of EUR 61,875 plus 5% interest as of 31 May 2014. 5. In particular, the Claimant explained that in the 2013/2014 season, he was entitled to the total amount of EUR 291,875 comprised of EUR 100,000 as advance payment, EUR 115,000 as salaries and EUR 76,875 as match bonuses. In this respect, the player argued that the Respondent only paid him EUR 230,000 therefore, the amount of EUR 61,875 remains outstanding. 6. In its reply, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant and stressed that the outstanding remuneration amounts to EUR 4,832.26 only. In this respect, the Respondent explained that during the whole duration of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to the total amount of EUR 888,124 and that he received EUR 883,291.74. As to the season 2013/2014, the Respondent stressed that the Claimant was entitled to EUR 300,000 as advance payment, EUR 115,000 as salaries and EUR 71,875 as match bonuses. 7. Along these lines, the Respondent enclosed the following payment receipts related to the season 2013/2014: Date of payment Amount Payment method 4 February 2011 “9,986 [xx(x)] (EUR 4,560)” Cash 8 February 2011 “x 10,700 ( EUR 5,000)” Cash 16 February 2011 x 8,000 Cash 2 March 2011 x 8,000 (EUR 4,000) Cash 5 May 2011 “x 2,100 (EUR 962)” Cash 5 May 2011 “x 12,900 (EUR 5,616)” Cash 13 May 2011 x 18,573 Cash 7 June 2011 x 14,000 Cash 6 July 2011 EUR 45,000 Bank transfer 14 October 2011 x 110,000 Bank transfer 14 October 2011 x 2,200 Bank transfer 21 October 2011 EUR 5,500 Bank transfer 23 November 2011 EUR 37,860 Bank transfer 30 December 2011 EUR 20,000 Bank transfer 26 January 2011 EUR 20,800 Bank transfer 23 March 2011 x 119,500 Bank transfer 30 March 2011 EUR 37,999 Bank transfer 2 July 2012 EUR 55,579 Bank transfer 14 August 2012 EUR 61,500 Bank transfer 1 November 2012 EUR 61,500 Bank transfer 16 November 2012 EUR 8,750 Bank transfer 7 December 2012 EUR 11,500 Bank transfer 15 January 2013 EUR 19,624 Bank transfer 14 March 2013 EUR 35,000 Bank transfer 24 June 2013 EUR 34,500 Bank transfer 14 October 2013 EUR 50,000 Bank transfer 11 November 2013 EUR 25,000 Bank transfer 9 January 2014 EUR 50,000 Bank transfer 7 March 2014 EUR 100,000 Bank transfer 27 March 2014 EUR 27,818 Bank transfer 8 May 2014 EUR 34,925 Bank transfer 16 May 2014 15,700 (currency not clear) Cash 8. In his replica, the Claimant firstly disputed being entitled to only EUR 71,875 as match bonuses and emphasised that, in accordance with the evidence submitted, he is entitled to EUR 76,875. Equally, the Claimant alleged that “the Respondent is trying to mislead the decision making body of FIFA by sending distorted and unrelated payment documents and by including the unrelated football seasons that are not subject to this dispute”. 9. Moreover, the Claimant explained that all the amounts agreed in the contract were in EUR, therefore “all the payments made in x are bonus payments that are not stated in the contract and these were made on the ground of successful results”. In this respect, the Claimant argued that it is a common practice among clubs to make extra payments in x which are not contractually agreed. In order to support his position, the Claimant enclosed the CAS award 2012/O/xxxx. Therefore, the Claimant “expressly rejects those payment documents which are not related to the contractual and overdue unpaid amounts”. In particular, the Claimant referred to the payment receipts of 7 June 2011 and 16 May 2014 and stressed that they were wrongly translated “in order to diminish the receivables”. 10. On account of the above, the Claimant reaffirmed his claim. 11. In its duplica, the Respondent rejected the allegations of the Claimant and stressed once again that the outstanding remuneration amounts to EUR 4,832.26 only. 12. As to the receipt dated 16 May 2014, the Respondent argued that i) it can be clearly seen that such payment was in EUR and ii) its “records” also show that said payment was made in EUR. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 18 November 2014. Consequently, the 2014 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 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 N and a club from country T. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber 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 claim was lodged on 18 November 2014, the 2014 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter; the 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, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file. 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. First of all, the members of the DRC acknowledged that on 13 July 2011, the parties entered into an employment contract valid until 31 May 2014. Likewise, the Chamber took note that the parties concluded a Protocol valid for the seasons 2011/2012, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014, which governed the financial aspects of the contract and whereby it was agreed that the Claimant would be entitled for each season to the following amounts: a. EUR 100,000 as advance payment in two equal instalments of EUR 50,000; b. “EUR 85,000 / 34 euro match = EUR 2,500 per match fee”; c. EUR 115,000 payable in 10 equal instalments of EUR 11,500. 6. Having established the above, the members of the Chamber focused their attention on the claim of the Claimant who argues that the Respondent has an outstanding amount towards him of EUR 61,875 corresponding to the 2013/2014 season. In particular, the DRC noted that, according to the Claimant, whilst he was entitled for the aforementioned season to the total amount of EUR 291,875, the Respondent only paid him a sum of EUR 230,000. 7. The Chamber further noted that, conversely, the Respondent, while enclosing several payment receipts, rejected the Claimant’s claim and argued that its only debt towards the Claimant amounts to EUR 4,832.26. 8. Furthermore, the Chamber duly noted that the Claimant challenged some of the payment receipts presented by the Respondent. In particular, the Chamber noted that, according to the Claimant, “all the payments made in xx are bonus payments that are not stated in the contract and these were made on the ground of successful results” and that the payment receipts of 7 June 2011 and 16 May 2014 were wrongly translated “in order to diminish the receivables”. 9. With the aforementioned considerations in mind, the Chamber wished to stress, first and foremost, that the claim of the Claimant refers only to outstanding salaries related to the 2013/2014 season. Indeed, the Claimant even argued that “the Respondent is trying to mislead the decision making body of FIFA by sending distorted and unrelated payment documents and by including the unrelated football seasons that are not subject to this dispute”. As a consequence, the Chamber considered that the only payments which are relevant in order to determine the actual amount, if any, that the Respondent owes to the Claimant are those made during the 2013/2014 season. 10. In this context and for the sake of clarity, the Chamber deemed that it first needed to determine the total amount to which the Claimant was entitled for the 2013/2014 season. In this respect, the Chamber established that the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent as salaries the amount of EUR 215,000. Moreover, the Chamber considered that the Claimant had substantiated his claim related to match bonuses in the amount of EUR 76,875. As a consequence, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant was entitled to the total amount of EUR 291,875 for the 2013/2014 season. 11. Having said that, the Chamber proceeded to analyse the receipts presented by the Respondent related to payments made during the 2013/2014 season. In this regard, the Chamber wished to recall that the only payments challenged by the Claimant are the payments made in xx as well as the payment of 16 May 2014. 12. With the aforementioned consideration in mind, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which stipulates that any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof and emphasised that the evidence submitted by the Claimant is not fit to corroborate his sayings as to the alleged nature of the payments made in xx. In particular, the DRC was of the unanimous opinion that the Claimant failed to prove that the payments made in xx were “bonus payments that are not stated in the contract and these were made on the ground of successful results”. 13. In this context, the DRC were of the unanimous opinion that the CAS award presented by the Claimant refers to a very particular situation which involves a completely different club. Moreover, said award is not sufficient on its own to prove that it is a common practice in Turkey to make payments in xx which are not related to the amounts established in the contract. 14. As a consequence, the DRC considered that even if it could be determined that the payment receipt of 16 May 2014 is in fact in xx, this amount should be regarded as a payment made in accordance with the contract. 15. Along these lines, the Chamber referred to the payment receipts related to the season 2013/2014 as per the table described in point I./7. ut supra and determined that the Claimant received from the Respondent for said season the total amount of EUR 293,243, namely: i) EUR 50,000 on 14 October 2013, EUR 25,000 on 11 November 2013, EUR 50,000 on 9 January 2014, EUR 100,000 on 7 March 2014, EUR 27,818 on 27 March 2014, EUR 34,925 on 8 May 2014 and x 15,000 on 16 May 2014, corresponding to approximately EUR 5,500. In this respect, the members of the Chamber were of the unanimous opinion that the amount established in the receipt of 16 May 2014, was in fact in x and not in EUR. 16. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber highlighted that the Respondent explicitly acknowledged owing the Claimant the amount of EUR 4,832.26 which, in the Chamber’s view, needs to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. 17. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 4,832.26 as of 31 May 2014 until the date of effective payment. 18. Finally, the Chamber concluded its deliberations 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, is ordered to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 4,832.26 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 31 May 2014 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the amount plus interest due to the Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned number 2. 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: _____________________________ Marco Villiger Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives