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 17 June 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member on the matter between the player, B, from S Represented by xxxxx as Claimant and the club, M, 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 17 June 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member on the matter between the player, B, from S Represented by xxxxx as Claimant and the club, M, from T as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 20 July 2014, the player from S, B (hereinafter: the Claimant), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) with the club from T, M (hereinafter: the Respondent), valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2016. 2. According to clause 3 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled, inter alia, to the amount of USD 245,000 for the 2014-2015 season, payable as follows: - USD 40,000, payable as “transfer advance payment” on the date of signature of the contract; - USD 15,000, payable as “transfer advance payment” on 31 August 2014; - USD 15,000, payable as “transfer advance payment” on 30 September 2014; - USD 175,000, payable in ten monthly instalments of USD 17,500 each, between 5 September 2014 and 5 June 2015. 3. In addition, clause 3.2 of the contract stipulated the following: “In the season 2015-2016, the [Claimant] will be entitled to get a %10 increase in terms of the total amount of payments compared to what he was entitled to receive in his first year”. 4. On 12 January 2016, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent before FIFA, and requested the payment of compensation for breach of contract without just cause in the amount of USD 267,500, corresponding to the residual value of the contract (i.e. USD 245,000+10%=USD 269,500, with a salary increase calculated following clause 3.2. of the contract), minus mitigation (i.e. USD 2,000), plus “minimum” 5% interest as from “the date of application”. 5. According to the Claimant, he requested to the Respondent the payment of outstanding amounts “on many occasions” and, on 17 June 2015, he sent a letter to the Respondent, where he granted the latter a deadline of 14 days in order to pay the outstanding amount of USD 115,000, and that he would deem the contract terminated in case of failure to do so. 6. Subsequently, the Claimant explained that he sent a letter to the Respondent on 2 July 2015, with copy to a notary in T, by means of which he terminated the contract. 7. In reference to the outstanding amount of USD 115,000, the Claimant explained that, on 13 July 2015, he requested its payment via the T authorities, and that his claim before FIFA is only related to the request for compensation for breach of contract without just cause. 8. In its reply, the Respondent explained that it faced financial difficulties due to its relegation into a lower division. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that it received the default notices sent by the Claimant, but that it did not proceed to the payment of the overdue amounts, since the amounts requested by the Claimant were “not really equivalent to what the overdue payment was in fact”. In this regard, the Respondent attached a series of payment slips in T language, for the alleged amount of USD 138.841.90, that were apparently paid to the Claimant in 25 uneven instalments between 21 July 2014 until 6 April 2015. 9. In view of the above, the Respondent considered that the overdue amount was in fact equivalent to “USD 106,158.1”, as a result of the difference between the total remuneration that the player was entitled to receive and the amounts actually paid by the club (i.e. USD 245,000-138.841.90=106,158.10). 10. Within this context, the Respondent stated that it sent several letters to the Claimant in order to inform him about his wrong calculation of the overdue amounts, but that it received no reply. 11. Consequently, the Respondent explained that it preferred to not proceed with the payment of the overdue amounts due to the “wrong and unfair calculation” made by the Claimant. 12. Therefore, the Respondent was of the opinion that the Claimant acted “in bad will” and breached the contract without just cause, because he was not eager to play in a lower division. Hence, the Respondent refused that the Claimant should be entitled to any type of compensation. 13. In his replica, the Claimant confirmed his previous views, and additionally underlined that the Respondent recognized in its reply that it had a debt in the amount of USD 106,158.10 with him at the date of termination of the contract. As a consequence, the Claimant considered that he terminated the contract with just cause. 14. In addition, the Claimant highlighted that his claim before FIFA is not referred to overdue salaries, but only to the consequences of the unilateral termination of contract (incl. compensation), meaning that the discussion about the outstanding amounts is not relevant in this procedure. 15. Despite being requested to do so, the Respondent failed to provide its final comments to the case. 16. Finally, the Claimant informed FIFA that he concluded an employment contract with the club from S, club B, valid as from 21 August 2015 until 1 July 2016, for a monthly salary in the amount of xxx 21,792, equivalent, according to him, to USD 195,59. The Claimant considered that the entire value of said contract corresponds to approximately USD 2,000. 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 January 2016. Consequently, the 2015 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 2015 edition of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 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 S and a club from T. 3. However, the Chamber deemed it, as to the competence, of utmost importance to consider the following chronological crucial facts which are at the basis of the specific litigation at hand. 4. In particular, the Chamber observed, as acknowledged by himself, that the Claimant lodged a claim before the T authorities on 13 July 2015, requesting the payment of outstanding salaries in connection with the contract (cf. point I.7 above) and that, on 2 July 2015, he terminated said contract on the grounds of outstanding salaries. 5. Moreover, the Chamber took note of the Claimant’s statement, according to which his claim before FIFA is not referred to overdue salaries, but only to the consequences of the unilateral termination of contract (incl. compensation), meaning that the discussion about the outstanding amounts is not relevant in this procedure. 6. However, in reference to said statement, the members of the Chamber wished to underline that, in any case, the claim lodged by the Claimant before FIFA derived from the alleged existence of outstanding salaries owed by the Respondent towards him. 7. Accordingly, the members of the Chamber unanimously considered that the possible use of the right to terminate the contract with just cause, as well as its potential consequences in the form of compensation, derives from a single cause, namely the existence of outstanding salaries. 8. In this respect, the members of the Chamber referred to the principle of procedural consistency, according to which a decision-making body is expected to decide on all controversial points established during the procedure. 9. Consequently, and considering that the Claimant decided by its own will to act before the T authorities for the payment of the outstanding salaries that the Respondent allegedly had towards him, the members of the Chamber were of the opinion that, under any circumstance, it shall be up to said authorities to decide on all the controversial points established in the present affair, including the consequences of the early termination of the contract. 10. In particular, the Chamber deemed it important to underline that the practice of the Claimant to have his case heard by another decision-making body with the aim to get the most favourable judgment, especially in relation to the issue of compensation for breach of contract without just cause, known as “forum shopping”, cannot be upheld by the Chamber. 11. Finally, the Chamber wished to point out that if a party chooses to pursue the defence of his rights on national level and in accordance with contractual provisions, he should proceed that way. 12. Taking into account all the foregoing considerations, the Chamber decided that it is not competent to deal with the claim lodged by the Claimant. Decision of the III. Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, is inadmissible. ***** 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 (CAS) Avenue de Beaumont 2 CH-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 Enclosed: CAS directives