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 1 December 2010, 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 its signature date until 30 November 2013. 2. According to art. 1 of the contract, “the two parties agreed to sign this contract with sum of USD 300,000. According to this contract, [the Claimant] have the right to receive the sum of USD 50,000 as down payment equal to salary of ____ and monthly salary the sum of USD 5,000.” 3. According to art. 3.1 of the contract, “[the Respondent] shall to pay down payment against signature of [the Claimant] equal to salary of (…) one year if the contract is more than one year”. 4. According to art. 3.2 of the contract, the club undertook to pay the player a monthly salary of USD 5,000. 5. By means of a notice dated 31 March 2015, the player put the club in default of payment of USD 250,000, setting a deadline for payment expiring on 15 April 2015. In said notice, the player mentioned that he received all his salaries and a payment of USD 50,000 as part of the general amount of USD 300,000. 6. On 17 April 2015, the player lodged a claim against the club before FIFA, alleging that the since the club only paid him USD 50,000 and all his monthly salaries, he is entitled to receive USD 250,000 as outstanding remuneration. After having received the club’s reply to his petition of 17 April 2015, the player amended his claim and asserted that the club only paid him USD 50,000 out of an alleged total contractual remuneration of USD 480,000. 7. Therefore, the player alleged that the club still owes him the amount of USD 430,000, composed of outstanding monthly salaries in the amount of USD 180,000 and USD 250,000, i.e. the allegedly unpaid part of the amount of USD 300,000. 8. The player added that, depending on the interpretation given to the financial terms of the contract, the club would have actually failed to pay him USD 430,000, USD 250,000 or USD 70,000. 9. In addition, the player highlighted that, as the contract does not specify any date for the payment of the remainder of the amount of USD 300,000 set forth in art. 1 of the contract, said amount was payable until 30 November 2013 and therefore, the player’s request in this respect is not time-barred. 10. Consequently, and by means of the submission of various subsidiary requests, the player requested that he be granted one of said aforementioned amounts as well as interest on the amount awarded calculated as from 1 December 2010. 11. In addition, the player asked that the club be ordered to pay him USD 40,000 for moral damages and USD 15,000 to reimburse his legal expenses and that sporting sanctions be imposed on the club. 12. In its reply, the club rejected the player’s claim and argued that the player has misunderstood the contractual terms. In this respect, the club asserted that the contract provided for a total value of USD 300,000, payable via an advance payment of USD 50,000 and monthly salaries payable over three years in the amount of USD 5,000 each. 13. The club further held that it paid the player all his contractual receivables and submitted various payment receipts. 14. In his replica, the player rejected the club’s interpretation of the contractual terms and insisted that according to the contract, he was entitled to USD 300,000 as a lump amount plus USD 180,000 payable via equal monthly installments of USD 5,000 each, i.e. a total amount of USD 480,000. 15. In addition, the player asserted that regardless of the interpretation given to the contractual terms, the figures do not match and that, in any case, the club would still be in breach of its obligation to pay his remuneration, except for the USD 50,000 he acknowledged having received. In this respect, the player submitted that: a. if the global value of the contract is USD 480,000, the club is indebted towards him in the amount of USD 430,000; b. if the global value of the contract is USD 300,000, the club is indebted towards him in the amount of USD 250,000; c. if the global value of the contract is USD 300,000 and should it be considered that the club paid him all his monthly salaries, which he ultimately denied, as well as USD 50,000 as a down payment, the club remains indebted towards him in the amount of USD 70,000. 16. In addition to the aforementioned, the player challenged the authenticity of all the payment receipts bearing his signature, which were submitted by the club. 17. In this respect, the player referred to a report issued by a graphology expert whose first findings are that out of a group of 24 samples of the player’s signatures appearing on documents related to payments having allegedly taken place between January 2011 and December 2012, one original signature of the player was copied onto 23 other documents. Additionally, and out of a second group of 2 samples of signatures of the player that appear on two documents related to the months of October 2013 and November 2013, the signature appearing on one document was duplicated onto the second document. 18. Therefore, the player inter alia rejected the club’s argumentation that his monthly salaries were paid and stressed that if the club could not submit any other documents that would corroborate the payment of his salaries, it is because the club never proceeded to such payments. 19. Consequently, the player maintained his claim as stated under the abovementioned number I./18. in combination with number I./11. 20. In its final comments, the club reiterated that the player received all his remuneration. 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 17 April 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 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 17 April 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 1 December 2010, the parties signed an employment contract that entered into force on its signature date and expired on 30 November 2013. 6. In addition, the Chamber observed that, on 31 March 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of allegedly outstanding remuneration on the basis of the contract. The members of the Chamber, in particular, noted that in his default notice the Claimant confirmed having received from the Respondent the down payment of USD 50,000 as well as all of his monthly salaries. 7. The Chamber further took note that, on 17 April 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in relation to allegedly outstanding contractual payments asserting that, as the club only paid him USD 50,000 as well as his monthly salaries in the amount of USD 180,000, i.e. a total of USD 230,000, the Respondent still owes him the amount of USD 250,000 corresponding to the balance between USD 50,000 and USD 300,000. 8. Equally, the Chamber noted that, subsequently, the Claimant modified his position and declared that he neither had received the aforementioned amount of USD 250,000 nor USD 180,000 corresponding to his monthly salaries. In other words, the Claimant asserted that during contractual period of time, the Respondent actually only paid him USD 50,000. 9. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Respondent, for its part, held that it fully complied with its financial obligations pertaining to the contract and that in fine, the Claimant’s claim was unjustified. In particular, the Respondent asserted that the Claimant’s claim results from his misinterpretation of the contractual terms and that the relevant contractual financial provisions provide for a total remuneration of USD 300,000, which it considered already having paid in full. Consequently, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant in full. 10. Bearing in mind the parties’ diverging position with respect to the Claimant’s contractual receivables, the Chamber deemed that before establishing whether the Respondent had fulfilled all of its financial contractual obligations towards the Claimant, as submitted by the Respondent, it first had to analyse the financial contractual terms so as to ascertain the remuneration the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent. 11. At the outset, the members of the Chamber wished to point out that both the financial contractual terms and the parties’ argumentation before this deciding body are ambiguous. 12. Against such background, the Chamber reverted to the parties’ analysis of the financial terms of the contract and noted that according to the Respondent, the player’s entire contractual remuneration amounted to USD 300,000. On this basis and taking into account the Respondent’s representation of the financial terms (cf. point I./12. above), the Chamber deduced that the Respondent acknowledged that an extra amount of USD 70,000 was part of the Claimant’s remuneration. Indeed, according to the Respondent, USD 300,000 were due to the Claimant for the entire contractual period of time including a monthly salary of USD 5,000 and a lump sum of USD 50,000, which, however, totals USD 230,000. 13. Turning its attention to the Claimant’s position, the Chamber noted that in his submissions, the Claimant presented different hypotheses relating to the amount of remuneration he was contractually entitled to receive (cf. points I./8., I./14. and I./15. above), but that his main argumentation and interpretation are based on the allegation that he was entitled to receive a total remuneration of USD 480,000 for the contractual period of time. 14. Subsequently, the Chamber turned its attention to articles 1, 3.1 and 3.2 of the contract and, after careful analysis of said terms, reached the first conclusion that the parties had undoubtedly agreed on a monthly remuneration payable to the player in the amount of USD 5,000. In view of the contractual provision that the contract at stake was of a duration of 36 months, the Chamber concluded that in terms of monthly salaries, the player was entitled to receive a total amount of USD 180,000. 15. In continuation, the members of the Chamber agreed that in spite of the confusion and omissions existing in the pertinent contractual clauses, the wording of the contract was sufficiently clear to reasonably consider that an amount of USD 50,000 was payable to the Claimant as a down payment. 16. Having so found, the Chamber was eager to stress that, apart from the above salaries and down payment and with the exception of the amount of USD 300,000 stipulated in art. 1 of the contract as “… this contract with sum of USD 300,000”, the contract does not include any other quantified amounts with respect to the player’s financial entitlements. 17. In this regard, the Chamber disagreed with the Claimant’s main interpretation as it unanimously considered that it could neither be read nor reasonably be interpreted as the common intention of the parties that the player’s remuneration would be composed of the amount of USD 300,000 plus USD 180,000, i.e. a total amount of USD 480,000. 18. Rather, the Chamber was satisfied that on the basis of the wording of the contractual clauses, the parties agreed that the Claimant was entitled to receive a total remuneration of USD 300,000 during the contractual period of time. 19. In this regard, the Chamber highlighted that a total contractual remuneration of USD 300,000 was presented by the Claimant as one of his hypotheses as well as acknowledged by the Respondent as such. 20. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber admitted that if one follows the reasoning as set forth in the aforementioned numbers II./15. to II./19., an amount of USD 70,000 remains unaccounted for, since the sum of the clearly identified amounts of USD 50,000 and USD 180,000 is USD 230,000. 21. In this respect, in light of the fact that the contract specified the player’s monthly salary and a down payment of USD 50,000, the Chamber agreed that the unstipulated amount of USD 70,000, which yet admittedly was part of the player’s total remuneration of USD 300,000, did not correspond to salaries or a signing-on fee for the first season. A contrario, the members of the Chamber reasoned that said amount was to be considered as a sum composed of two equal instalments of USD 35,000 to be paid to the Claimant for the second and for the third season of the contract, respectively. Given that the amount of USD 70,000 or its composition remained unspecified in the contract as well as the circumstance that there was no contractual due date for the down payment of USD 50,000, the members of the Chamber concurred that each of said instalments of USD 35,000 were payable to the Claimant at the end of the relevant season at the latest. 22. Having established that the Claimant’s total contractual receivables amount to USD 300,000, the Chamber turned its attention to the Claimant’s claim that the Respondent has a debt towards him on the basis of the contract, which claim was rejected by the Respondent, since it allegedly paid the full amount of USD 300,000 to the Claimant. 23. The Chamber noted that the Respondent submitted copies of payment documents reportedly signed by the Claimant in support of its argument that it paid the total amount of USD 300,000 to the Claimant. The Claimant, however, challenged the authenticity of the signatures appearing on said documents. In support of his position, the Claimant presented a report issued by a graphology expert, who inter alia found that that two samples of the player’s signature were duplicated on all the documents at stake. 24. The Chamber further took into account that the Respondent had not submitted the originals of the contested payment documents, in spite of FIFA’s request to the Respondent to do so in accordance with its standard practice in such context. 25. On account of the above, the Chamber agreed that it could not take into consideration the financial documents presented by the Respondent along with its response to the claim in its appreciation of the present matter. 26. On the other hand, the Chamber wished to recall that the Claimant, for his part, substantively changed his version of the facts related to his claim that the Respondent has an outstanding debt with respect to his contractual remuneration towards him. Indeed, whereas the Claimant had admitted in his default notice as well as in his initial claim in front of FIFA that the Respondent had inter alia paid him all salaries amounting to USD 180,000, the player modified said line of argument and claimed that he only ever received USD 50,000 from the Respondent, in particular after having received the Respondent’s reply to his claim. 27. Against such background, considering the legitimate doubts such major change of position could give birth to, the Chamber deemed relevant to highlight that the Claimant had not taken the initiative to corroborate the reality of his new stance with documentary evidence. 28. On account of the above, the members of the Chamber agreed to disregard the Claimant’s aforementioned change of position and decided that, as admitted twice by the Claimant himself, it was to be considered that the Claimant had indeed received the amount of USD 180,000 from the Respondent. 29. Having so found, and bearing in mind that the Claimant also admitted having received USD 50,000 as down payment from the Respondent, the Chamber focussed its attention on the remaining amount of USD 70,000 it previously considered as being part of the Claimant’s remuneration under the contract. In this respect, and as stated above, the Chamber considered that said amount should have been paid to the Claimant for the first and the second sporting season via two instalments of USD 35,000 each, payable at the latest at the end of the relevant season, i.e. on 30 November 2012 and 30 November 2013, respectively. Indeed, and according to the information contained in the TMS, the Chamber could verify that during the relevant period of time, the relevant sporting seasons in country D lasted as from 21 December until 30 November of the following year. 30. Having said that, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations, in accordance with which the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall not hear any case subject to said regulations if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that according to said article, the application of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in each individual case. 31. In view of the above, and considering that the Claimant’s claim for outstanding remuneration was lodged on 17 April 2015, the Chamber decided that the first instalment of USD 35,000 is barred by the statute of limitations, as opposed to the second instalment of USD 35,000 which fell due at the end of the 2013 sporting season, i.e. 30 November 2013, which coincides with the end date of the contract. 32. On account of all of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 35,000. 33. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 35,000 as of 30 November 2013 until the date of effective payment. 34. Subsequently, the DRC analysed the request of the Claimant corresponding to compensation for moral damages in the amount of USD 40,000. In this regard, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to point out that the request for said compensation presented by the Claimant had no legal or regulatory basis and pointed out that no corroborating evidence had been submitted that demonstrated or quantified the damage allegedly suffered. 35. The DRC further decided that the Claimant’s claim for legal costs is rejected, in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the respective longstanding jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. 36. Finally, the Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter 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, Player A, is partially accepted, insofar it is admissible. 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 USD 35,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 November 2013 until the date of effective payment. 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 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