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 26 May 2016, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Wouter Lambrecht (Belgium), member Zola Percival Majavu (South Africa), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), 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 26 May 2016, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Wouter Lambrecht (Belgium), member Zola Percival Majavu (South Africa), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), 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 13 May 2014, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as of the date of signature until 30 May 2015. 2. Pursuant to art. 4 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a total net salary of USD 180,000, payable as follows: - USD 72,000 “one week before starting the first game”; - USD 54,000 “in half season time”; - USD 18,000 “7 weeks after half season”; - USD 36,000 “before last game of season”. 3. On 11 February 2015, the Respondent remitted to the Claimant a document informing him that “[he was] suspended for what happened between [him] and the head coach” and that “[he was] not allowed to attend training session on 11/2/2015 till the disciplinary committee be held to decide on this issues”. 4. On 14 February 2015, the Claimant addressed a correspondence to the Respondent, urging the latter to reinstate him in training and providing him with medical support. In addition, the Claimant asked the Respondent to inform him about the alleged incident with the coach referred to in the document dated 10 February 2015 and about the date on which the disciplinary committee hearing would take place. The Claimant gave a 24-hours deadline to the Respondent to comply with his requests. 5. On 16 February 2015, the Claimant addressed a final warning to the Respondent, giving it a deadline of 48 hours to comply with its obligations. In particular, the Claimant stressed that the Respondent still owed him USD 102,460, i.e. more than half of the value of the contract, whereas there were only three months left until the expiry of the contract. 6. On 26 February 2015, the Respondent sent a correspondence to the Claimant, requesting him “to be present here in city E so that [he] can attend the training session once the disciplinary committee has reached its decision”. In said correspondence, the Respondent further stated that “[his] salary will be paid while [he] is present in city E from the club” and that “for [him] ha[s] left the [Respondent] and country D without getting permission, [it] would like for [him] to return to country D as soon as possible to get the permission from [its] coach to attend the training session”. 7. On 1 March 2015, the Claimant informed the Respondent that he left the country on 24 February 2015 and “[he] will not return to country D and will seek relief in the competent FIFA tribunals with immediate effect”. 8. On 12 March 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract, requesting the amount of USD 102,460 plus ”10% penalty fee on all values owed and an additional 10% annual interest on the amount from the date in which the breach occurred”. 9. In his claim, the Claimant explains that he only received the following payments from the Respondent: USD 20,000 at the beginning of the season, USD 35,000 on 3 August 2014, USD 5,000 on 9 September 2014 and USD 17,540 on 2 October 2014. In this respect, the Claimant asserts that the Respondent did not make any payment after October 2014 and that, therefore, owed him more than three monthly salaries. In addition, the Claimant alleges that as of the beginning of February 2015, the Respondent prevented him from training and refused to provide him with medical support. 10. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not reply to the claim. 11. Upon request, the Claimant informed FIFA that he did not enter into any new employment contract between March and 31 May 2015. 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 case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 12 March 2015. Consequently, the 2015 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 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 an 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 12 March 2015, the 2015 edition of said 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, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case, as well as the documentation contained in the file. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to 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 of 13 May 2014 until 30 May 2015 and that on 24 February 2015, the Claimant left definitively country D, thereby expressing unambiguously his intention to terminate the contractual relationship. 6. In continuation, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent maintaining that he had terminated the employment contract with just cause. In particular, the Claimant alleges that the Respondent failed to pay him an amount corresponding to more than three monthly salaries as well as prevented him from training and refused to provide him with medical support. 7. Subsequently, the DRC observed that the Respondent, for its part, failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so. Consequently, the Chamber deemed that the Respondent had renounced to its right of defence and, thus, had accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 8. As a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC held that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, a decision shall be taken upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 9. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute was to determine whether the contract had been terminated by the Claimant on 24 February 2015 with or without just cause. 10. At this stage, the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that until the date of termination, i.e. 24 February 2015, an amount of USD 144,000, corresponding to the first three instalments due as per the contract, had fallen due. Having this in mind, the DRC pointed out that it remained uncontested that until the aforesaid date, the Respondent only paid to the Claimant an amount of USD 77,540, leaving an outstanding amount of USD 66,460, which corresponds to approximately half of the remuneration due to the Claimant for the relevant period. 11. On account of the aforementioned, and, in particular, taking into account that the Respondent did not reply to the claim and thus, did not contest the Claimant’s allegations, the DRC established that the Respondent, without any valid reason, prevented the Claimant from training, refused to provide him with medical support and failed to remit him, until 24 February 2015, a significant part of his remuneration. Consequently, and considering that the Respondent had repeatedly and for a significant period of time been in breach of its contractual obligations towards the Claimant, the Chamber decided that the Claimant had just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract on 24 February 2015 and that, as a result, the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact with just cause by the Claimant. 12. Having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant employment contract. 13. At this stage, the DRC made reference to its previous considerations and recalled that at the time of the termination, i.e. on 24 February 2015, an amount of USD 66,460 was outstanding. 14. Consequently, in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the DRC decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the Claimant the amount of USD 66,460 as outstanding remuneration. 15. In addition, after outlining the absence of contractual basis of the Claimant’s claim for “10% penalty fee” and “additional 10 % annual interest”, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to 5% interest p.a. on the above-mentioned amount as of 24 February 2015 until the date of effective payment, in accordance with its longstanding and well-established jurisprudence. 16. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation payable to the Claimant by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period. 17. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake. 18. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable. 19. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the employment contract until 30 May 2015, taking into account that the Claimant’s remuneration until February 2015 is included in the calculation of the outstanding remuneration. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 36,000 serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 20. In continuation, the DRC verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages. 21. The Chamber noted that it appears from the documentation on file that the Claimant did not sign any contract with a new club within the relevant period. Thus, the Claimant had apparently not been able to mitigate damages. In this context, the DRC declared that there is no remuneration to be taken into account in order to mitigate the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 22. In this respect and bearing in mind all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of USD 36,000 to the Claimant, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter. 23. Subsequently, and after reiterating its previous considerations regarding the absence of contractual basis of the Claimant’s claim for “10% penalty fee” and “additional 10 % annual interest”, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e. 12 March 2015, until the date of effective payment. 24. The Dispute Resolution 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. 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 66,460 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 24 February 2015 until the date of effective payment. 3. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract amounting to USD 36,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 12 March 2015 until the date of effective payment. 4. In the event that the amounts plus interest due to the Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned points 2 and 3 are not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are 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