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 8 September 2016, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), 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.

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 8 September 2016, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), 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 17 August “2012”, 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 17 August 2013 until 30 June 2017. 2. Pursuant to art. 4 lit. a) of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to the following monthly salary payable at the end of the month: 2013-14 season: USD 5,250; 2014-15 season: USD 5,500; 2015-16 season: USD 6,000; 2016-17 season: USD 6,500. 3. In addition, art. 4 lit. b) of the contract provides for the following bonuses: 2013-14 season: USD 87,000 payable in four equal instalments on 30 September 2013, 31 December 2013, 31 March 2014 and 30 June 2014; 2014-15 season: USD 114,000 payable in four equal instalments on 30 September 2014, 31 December 2014, 31 March 2015 and 30 June 2015; 2015-16 season: USD 128,000 payable in four equal instalments on 30 September 2015, 31 December 2015, 31 March 2016 and 30 June 2016; 2016-17 season: USD 222,000 payable in four equal instalments on 30 September 2016, 31 December 2016, 31 March 2017 and 30 June 2017. 4. On 8 February 2016, the Claimant’s representative sent a correspondence to the Respondent, requesting the latter to pay him outstanding salaries for the period from October 2015 until January 2016 and bonuses for part of the 2014-15 season and part of the 2015-16 season, in the total amount of USD 178,000, within five days of receipt of the letter. 5. On 11 February 2016, the Claimant’s representative sent an e-mail to Mr E, the Respondent’s CEO, requesting to pay him the above-referred amount by 15 February 2016. 6. On 12 February 2016, Mr E replied to the Claimant’s representative stating that “[the Respondent’s] general secretary (…) will answer you about the status of the contract as well as alleged unpaid to [the Claimant]”. 7. On 15 February 2016, the Claimant’s representative gave the Respondent a last deadline until 16 February 2016 to proceed to the payment of the outstanding amounts. 8. On 16 February 2016, the Claimant’s representative sent an e-mail to Mr E, terminating the contract. 9. On 7 March 2016, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract, requesting the following: USD 181,310, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 17 February 2016, as outstanding remuneration, broken down as follows: - USD 27,310 corresponding to his salaries from October 2015 until 16 February 2016; - USD 90,000 corresponding to part of the bonus due for the 2014-15 season; - USD 64,000 corresponding to half of the bonus due for the 2015-16 season; USD 390,690, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 17 February 2016, as compensation corresponding to the residual value of the contract; USD 150,000 as specificity of sport; to impose sporting sanctions on the Respondent; to order the Respondent to bear the procedural costs. 10. In his claim, the Claimant explains that at the end of 2015, the Respondent stopped fielding him and invited him on 31 December 2015 to sign an amendment to the contract, suspending the latter. In addition, the Claimant asserts that on the same date, the Respondent handed over two cheques to him in order to pay his salaries for October, November and December 2015. However, the Claimant states that he was unable to cash them due to the absence of money on the bank account. 11. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not reply to the Claimant’s claim. 12. On 28 August 2016, the Claimant and the club from country F, Club G, concluded an employment contract, valid as of the date of signature until 31 May 2017 and according to which, the player is entitled to a total remuneration of EUR 70,000 (approx. USD 78,000). 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 7 March 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) 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 2016), 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 2016), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 7 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. 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 17 August 2013 until 30 June 2017 and that the Claimant had unilaterally terminated said contract with the Respondent on 16 February 2016, i.e. before the ordinary expiry of the employment contract, after having put the latter in default on several occasions. 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 his salaries as from October 2015 as well as part of his bonuses for the 2014-15 and 2015-16 seasons. 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 16 February 2016 with or without just cause. 10. On account of the aforementioned, and, in particular, taking into account that the Respondent did not reply and thus, did not contest that the claimed salaries and bonuses had remained unpaid, the DRC established that the Respondent, without any valid reason, failed to remit to the Claimant, until 16 February 2016, the salaries for October 2015 until January 2016, as well as part of his bonuses for the 2014-15 and 2015-16 seasons. 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 16 February 2016 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. 11. 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. 12. At this stage, the DRC made reference to its previous considerations and recalled that at the time of the termination, i.e. on 16 February 2016, the salaries for October 2015 until January 2016 were outstanding. Furthermore, the Chamber outlined that it is also uncontested that the amounts of USD 90,000 and of USD 64,000, corresponding to part of the bonuses for the seasons 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively, remained outstanding. 13. Consequently, in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 178,000 as outstanding remuneration. 14. In addition, and taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim, the DRC decided that the Respondent had to pay default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. on said amount as from 17 February 2016. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 June 2017, taking into account that the Claimant’s remuneration until January 2016 is included in the calculation of the outstanding remuneration. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 394,000, i.e. remuneration as from February 2016 until June 2017, serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 19. In continuation, the Chamber 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 DRC, 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. 20. The Chamber noted that according to the documentation in its possession, the Claimant concluded a new employment contract valid until 31 May 2017, according to which he is entitled to receive a total remuneration equivalent to USD 78,000. 21. In view of all of the above, and taking into consideration the respective duration of the original and of the new contract, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of USD 316,000 to the Claimant, which is considered by the DRC to be a reasonable and justified amount as compensation for breach of contract. 22. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as its longstanding and well-established jurisprudence, the Chamber 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. 7 March 2016, until the date of effective payment. 23. Moreover, the Chamber rejected any claim for procedural compensation in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence in this regard. 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 178,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 17 February 2016 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 316,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 7 March 2016 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