F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2016-2017) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2016-2017) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com –Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 July 2016, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Theo Van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Mohamed Al Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), 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 (2016-2017) - controversie di lavoro – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2016-2017) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 July 2016, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Theo Van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Mohamed Al Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), 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. In 2014, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from 15 December 2014 until 15 December 2016, i.e. for 2 years. 2. On 11 January 2016, the Claimant and the Respondent signed a termination agreement, according to which the Claimant was entitled to receive USD 450,000 from the Respondent. Said agreement did not specify the date of payment. 3. On an unspecified date, the Claimant also signed a “cash payment order” according to which he stated: “it is paid to Player A holder of id card n°xxxxxxxxxx an amount of USD 450,000 say only, against terminate the contract.” 4. On 25 January 2016, the Claimant sent a reminder to the club, requesting the fulfilment of the termination agreement and the payment of USD 450,000 within five days. 5. On 15 February 2016, the Claimant put the Respondent in default, requesting the payment within ten days of the alleged outstanding aforementioned amount, otherwise, he would refer the case to FIFA. 6. On 22 February 2016, the Respondent replied to the Claimant, stating that the Claimant allegedly received “all his due (…) according to the contract termination agreement”, enclosing the termination agreement and the “cash payment order”. 7. On 18 March 2016, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the club, asking to be awarded the amount of USD 562,500 as follows: - USD 450,000, corresponding to the value pertaining to the termination of the contract; - USD 112,500 corresponding to the “legal costs in the tune of 25% of the total amount”, according to the law of country B, - 5 % of interest per annum, as “from 11 January 2016, being the date of signature”; - sporting sanctions on the club, by suspending it from registering players for two consecutive registration periods. 8. In his claim, the Claimant argued that the Respondent asked him to sign the document called “cash payment order” in order to allegedly enable the Respondent to process the payment, but never transferred to him the amount due. 9. In its reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent pointed out that it paid USD 450,000 to the Claimant on 11 January 2016 and that the document entitled “cash payment order” allegedly proved that the Claimant received the entire amount due, on the basis of the termination agreement. 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 18 March 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 par. 1 and par. 2 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 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 (2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 18 March 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. The DRC acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract valid from 15 December 2014 until 15 December 2016 and that, on 11 January 2016, the parties signed a termination agreement (hereinafter: the agreement), by means of which the employment contract was terminated by mutual consent and according to which the Claimant was entitled to receive USD 450,000 from the Respondent. 6. The members of the Chamber also took note that on an unspecified date, the Claimant signed a “cash payment order” according to which he stated that “it is paid to Player A holder of id card n°xxxxxxxxxx an amount of USD 450,000 say only, against terminate the contract.” 7. The Chamber then reviewed the claim of the Claimant, who claimed that the Respondent never paid the amount of USD 450,000 due on the basis of the agreement signed on 11 January 2016, in spite of the reminder and the default notice respectively sent by the Claimant to the Respondent on 25 January and 15 February 2016. The Chamber also took note that the Claimant argued that he allegedly agreed to sign the “cash payment order” because the Respondent argued that this document would enable it to process the payment. Therefore, the Claimant asked that the Respondent be ordered to pay the amount of USD 450,000 as well as USD 112,500 corresponding to the “legal costs in the tune of 25% of the total amount” on the basis of the law of country B, plus interests. 8. At this point, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to remind the parties of the legal principle of burden of proof and the wording of art. 13 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. 9. Having said that the Chamber pointed out that in the present case, the Claimant bore the burden of proving that he had not received from the Respondent the amount of USD 450,000 in spite of having admitted signing a document in which he stated that such amount had been paid to him as a result of the mutual termination. 10. Consequently, the members of the Chamber agreed that the aforementioned “cash payment order” signed by the Claimant unambiguously stipulated that the Claimant had received the amount of USD 450,000. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber highlighted that the Claimant signed the “cash payment order”, stating that he received the amount of USD 450,000 from the Respondent, while being fully aware of the contents of said document. In this respect, the Chamber emphasised that a party signing a document of legal nature must bear the consequences of it. 11. On account of the aforementioned contents of the “cash payment order”, the Chamber could not uphold the Claimant’s arguments. 12. On account 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 article 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