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 March 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Zola Majavu (South Africa), member Philippe Piat (France), member John Bramhall (England), member on the claim presented by the player, F, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club X, from country X 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 18 March 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Zola Majavu (South Africa), member Philippe Piat (France), member John Bramhall (England), member on the claim presented by the player, F, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club X, from country X as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case Facts relating to the preliminary issue of the competence of the DRC: 1. On 27 January 2015, the player F, from country B (hereinafter: Claimant or player), and the Club X, from country X (hereinafter: Respondent or club), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as of 27 January 2015 until “the end of season 2015-2016 and end of 2015 Championship qualification”. 2. The club contested the competence of FIFA to deal with the claim lodged by the player against it in front of FIFA, on 25 August 2015, referring to Art. 6.9 of the contract, which stipulates that “In case of any dispute between the parties.the issue will be taken to Football Federation of country X disciplinary committee”. 3. In this context, the club argued that the player has “authenticated in advance the impartiality and jurisdiction” of the Football Federation of country X Disciplinary Committee and that the player should have lodged a claim before said deciding body. 4. The player, for his part, insisted that FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the present matter. In particular, the player held that the club failed to establish that the Football Federation’s Disciplinary Committee of country X fulfils the requirements of an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principal of equal representation of players and clubs. Facts relating to the substance of the matter: 5. According to Art. 7 of the contract, the club undertook to pay the player the total amount of USD 150,000 as follows: - USD 20,000 “after signing the contract and issuance of the ITC”; - USD 130,000 in 20 weekly payments of USD 6,500. 6. On 25 August 2015, the player lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the club requesting to be awarded outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 120,000 and “compensation for the delay of the club in paying those amounts”. 7. In his arguments, the player stated that he only received the amount of USD 30,000 and that, thus, USD 120,000 remained outstanding. 8. In its answer, the club requested to “dismiss the ill-founded 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 25 August 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, would, in principle, be 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 X. 3. In continuation, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding body on the basis of Art. 6.9 of the employment contract invoking an alleged jurisdiction of the Football Federation Disciplinary Committee of country X. 4. In this regard, the DRC noted that the Claimant rejected such position and insisted that FIFA has competence to deal with the present matter. 5. Taking into account the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the 2015 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players it is competent to deal with a matter such as the one at hand, unless an independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs, has been established at national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to the standards to be imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings, the Chamber referred to the FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. In this regard, the members of the Chamber further referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008. 6. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to Art. 6.9 of the employment contract, which stipulates that “In case of any dispute between the parties.the issue will be taken to Football Federation disciplinary committee of country X”. 7. The DRC considered that the relevant article does not appear to refer to a national dispute resolution chamber or any similar arbitration body in the sense of art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations. 8. What is more, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent has failed to submit documentation corroborating that an independent arbitration tribunal in compliance with the requirements of the FIFA regulations has been established in country X. 9. On account of the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent’s objection to the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to deal with the present matter as to the substance. 10. In continuation, 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 25 August 2015, the 2015 edition of said regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 11. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC 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. 12. In this respect, the DRC recalled that, on 27 January 2015, the parties had signed an employment contract, valid as of 27 January 2015 until “the end of season 2015-2016 and end of 2015 Championship qualification”. 13. In continuation, the Chamber acknowledged that, in accordance with the employment contract provided by the Claimant, the Respondent was obliged to pay to the Claimant USD 20,000 “after signing the contract and issuance of the ITC” and USD 130,000 in 20 weekly payments of USD 6,500 each. 14. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent maintaining that he had only received USD 30,000 as partial salaries during the contractual duration and that USD 120,000 remained outstanding. Consequently, the Claimant asked to be awarded his outstanding dues. 15. The Chamber further noted that the Respondent, for its part, merely requested to “dismiss the ill-founded claim”. 16. In this respect, the DRC recalled the basic principle of the burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. 17. With this in mind, the Chamber noted that the Respondent did not substantiate its defence, as it did not present any evidence in respect of the payment of the Claimant’s alleged outstanding remuneration or any documentation demonstrating valid reasons for non-payment of such remuneration. 18. In view of the above, the DRC concluded that the Respondent has not provided evidence of its defence and that, therefore, it could be established that the Respondent had failed to pay to the Claimant the full amount as agreed upon between the parties in the employment contract dated 27 January 2015. 19. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent must fulfil its obligations in accordance with the contract concluded with the Claimant and, consequently, is to be held liable to pay the outstanding amount of USD 120,000 to the Claimant. 20. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date on which the claim was lodged in front of FIFA, i.e. 25 August 2015, until the date of effective payment. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player F, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant is accepted. 3. The Respondent, Club X, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 120,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 25 August 2015 until the date of effective payment. 4. In the event that the amount plus interest 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. 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