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 28 April 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Santiago Nebot (Spain), member Alejandro Maron (Argentina), 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 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 28 April 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Santiago Nebot (Spain), member Alejandro Maron (Argentina), 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 arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On an unspecified date, 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 (hereinafter: contract) valid as from 13 January 2015 until 31 May 2016. 2. According to art. 3 of the contract, the club undertook to pay the player the following remuneration: EUR 380,000 in relation to the sporting season 2014/2015, payable via 5 equal monthly installments of EUR 76,000 each, as from January 2015 until May 2015; EUR 760,000 in relation to the sporting season 2015/2016, payable via 10 equal monthly installments of EUR 76,000 each, as from August 2015 until May 2016. 3. Additionally, the club undertook to pay the player EUR 3,750 during the sporting season 2014/2015 and EUR 7,500 during the sporting season 2015/2016 in relation to fringe benefits (accommodation, flight tickets and expenses). 4. By means of a termination notice dated 8 July 2015, the player terminated the contract as a result of the club’s alleged non-compliance with its financial obligation to pay him his monthly salaries for the months of March, April and May 2015, totalling EUR 228,000. 5. On 4 January 2016, the player lodged a claim against the club before FIFA and claimed that based on the club’s repeated and substantial breach of its financial obligations, he had just cause to terminate the contract. 6. Furthermore, the player requested that the club be ordered to pay him EUR 995,500, composed as follows: EUR 228,000 as outstanding salaries for the sporting season 2014/2015; EUR 760,000 as compensation for breach of contract, consisting of the player’s remuneration for the sporting season 2015/2016; EUR 7,500 as compensation for breach of contract relating to the player’s fringe benefits for the sporting season 2015/2016; Procedural costs in the amount of CHF 5,000 to be borne by the club. 7. In his statement of claim, the player explained that whereas he always complied with his obligations, the club inter alia stopped paying his salaries as from the month of March 2015. According to the player, the club’s behaviour gave him just cause to terminate the contract. 8. Finally, the player explained having had several conversations and meetings with the club, notably a last meeting on 7 July 2015, but that the club continued to refuse to pay him his salaries. 9. The club, for its part, rejected the player’s claim arguing that it is groundless since, on 14 January 2016, the player signed a “Mutual Termination and Release Agreement” (hereinafter: agreement) with the club, which, inter alia, reads that: The employment contract signed by the parties is thereby terminated; The player declares that the club has fulfilled all its contractual obligations and discharges the club from all of its further obligations; The player waives his right to claim against the club and agrees to immediately withdraw the claim at hand. 10. The player stated that he signed the agreement with the club, but deemed that it is null and void and thus has to be disregarded. In this respect, the player inter alia held that: The agreement violates the principle of good faith and the FIFA Code of Ethics, since the club, who was in breach of its obligations, extorted the player’s consent in exchange of the club’s promise that it would not oppose to a request for the issuance of an International Transfer Certificate for the player; The agreement stands as a violation of art. 13 of the aforementioned regulations, since the club forced the player to accept that the club be discharged of its unfulfilled obligations inter alia against a waiver from the player; The agreement is null and void, since a) the contract had already been terminated by the player in writing in July 2015 and b) its date of entry into force, i.e. 14 January 2016, is posterior to the date of the player’s claim before FIFA against the club. 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 4 January 2016. 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 and par. 2 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 4 January 2016, 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. 5. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that the parties had signed an employment contract valid as from as from 13 January 2015 until 31 May 2016. 6. In continuation, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent on 4 January 2016, maintaining that he had terminated the employment contract with just cause on 8 July 2015. 7. In this respect, the Claimant submits that the Respondent had failed to pay his remuneration for the months of March, April and May 2015 at the time he terminated the employment contract. Consequently, the Claimant inter alia asks to be awarded payment of outstanding salaries as well as compensation for breach of the employment contract. 8. The Chamber took into consideration that the Respondent, for its part, rejected the Claimant’s claim in light of the fact that, on 14 January 2016, the Claimant had signed the agreement, by means of which the Claimant, inter alia, acknowledged that the Respondent had fulfilled all of its contractual obligations towards him and discharged the Respondent from further obligations. 9. The members of the Chamber further took into account that the Claimant confirmed having signed said agreement, which, according to the Claimant, should however be considered null and void. 10. Having so found, the Chamber proceeded to further analyse the agreement and the Claimant’s arguments related thereto. 11. In this context, the Chamber noted that the agreement, which is signed by both parties, reads that by its signature, the Claimant inter alia agreed that the club had complied with all its contractual obligations towards him, waived his right to lodge a claim against the club in connection with the contract signed by the parties and agreed to withdraw the claim he had already lodged against the club before this deciding body. 12. Furthermore, the Chamber took note of the arguments presented by the Claimant to challenge the validity of the agreement, i.e. that the Respondent allegedly extorted the Claimant’s consent in exchange of the club’s promise that it would not oppose a request for the issuance of an International Transfer Certificate. In addition, according to the Claimant, the agreement is null and void, since i) the contract had already been terminated by him in writing on 8 July 2015 and ii) its date of entry into force, i.e. 14 January 2016, is posterior to the date of the Claimant’s claim before FIFA against the Respondent. 13. In connection with the preceding paragraph, the Dispute Resolution Chamber referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. 14. In this respect, the DRC concluded that the Claimant had not presented evidence demonstrating that the Respondent indeed coerced him into signing the agreement and that, therefore, his argumentation that the agreement shall be deemed null and void on such basis had to be rejected. 15. In continuation, and as regards the Claimant’s arguments that the agreement at stake is null and void since it was signed after the Claimant had already terminated the contract and lodged his claim against the Respondent before FIFA, the DRC held that such contention was unconvincing. Accordingly, the Chamber could not uphold this line of argument of the Claimant. 16. Having said this, the Chamber concurred that the agreement is valid and binding upon the parties. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the contents of the agreement and agreed that the relevant clauses (cf. point I./9. above) inter alia unambiguously stipulate that the Respondent has fulfilled all of its contractual obligations towards the Claimant and that the Claimant discharged the Respondent of all of its further obligations. 17. On account of the above, the Chamber decided that the claim of the Claimant in relation to outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract had to be rejected. 18. Furthermore, in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence in this regard, the Chamber further decided that the Claimant’s claim relating to procedural costs also had to be rejected. 19. On account of all of the above, the Chamber decided to reject the claim of the Claimant in its entirety. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is rejected. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 58 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