F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2016-2017) – debiti scaduti – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2016-2017) – overdue payables – 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 Loenardo Grosso (Italy), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member on the claim presented by the player, A, country G, represented by Mr xxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country I as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties in connection with overdue payables I.

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2016-2017) – debiti scaduti – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2016-2017) – overdue payables – 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 Loenardo Grosso (Italy), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member on the claim presented by the player, A, country G, represented by Mr xxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country I as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties in connection with overdue payables I. Facts of the case 1. On 27 February 2016, the player from G, A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club from I, B (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract valid from 27 February 2016 until “the end of premier league and knock out championship of I 2015-2016”. 2. In accordance with the employment contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive a total of USD 97,000 as follows: a. USD 41,200 to be paid upon receipt of the International Transfer Certificate; b. USD 15,450 on 8 April 2016; c. USD 15,450 on 9 May 2016; and, d. USD 24,900 on 27 May 2016. 3. The contract further provides that if the Claimant participated in less than 50% of the official matches, the amount of USD 10,000 would be deducted from the total remuneration (cf. point I.2 above). 4. On 6 July 2016, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of the payment of USD 47,000 setting a time-limit expiring on 17 July 2016 in order for the Respondent to cure the default. 5. On 21 July 2016, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA requesting to be paid outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 47,000, no interest was requested. He also requests that the Respondent be ordered to pay for the procedural costs. 6. The Claimant explains that in spite of being owed a total of USD 87,000 (the Claimant acknowledges that he did not play in more than 50% of the official matches of the Respondent; cf. point I.3 above) he only received USD 40,000 until the time the contract came to an end. 7. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent only submitted its response to the claim after notification of the closure of the investigation, requesting a deadline extension to answer. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 21 July 2016. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, 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 conjunction with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016), it is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from G and a club from I. 3. Furthermore, the DRC 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 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016), and considering that the present claim was lodged 21 July 2016, the 2016 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC started by acknowledging all the aforementioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. The Chamber however 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. Having said this, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract valid from 27 February 2016 until “the end of premier league and knock out championship of I 2015-2016” in accordance with which the Claimant would, inter alia, be entitled to the total sum of USD 97,000. The members of the Chamber noted that should the Claimant participate in fewer than half of the official matches of the Respondent, the amount of USD 10,000 would be deducted from the aforementioned total amount. 6. The Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, maintaining that the Respondent has overdue payables towards him in relation to the employment contract in the amount of USD 47,000. The Claimant also asserted that the Respondent should be held liable to pay the procedural costs. 7. In this context, the DRC took particular note of the fact that on 6 July 2016 the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the aforementioned amounts, setting a time limit expiring on 17 July 2016 in order to cure the default. 8. Consequently, the DRC concluded that the Claimant had duly proceeded in accordance with art. 12bis par. 3 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the creditor (player or club) must have put the debtor club in default in writing and have granted a deadline of at least ten days for the debtor club to comply with its financial obligation(s). 9. Subsequently, the DRC took into account that the Respondent, for its part, had failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant within the given deadline, in spite of having been invited to do so. Consequently, the DRC considered that the Respondent renounced its right to defence and thus accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 10. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the Chamber concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules it shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 11. Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his petition, the DRC concluded that the Claimant had substantiated his claim pertaining to overdue payables with sufficient documentary evidence. 12. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC established that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s due payables in the total amount of USD 47,000 in relation to his remuneration as per the employment contract. 13. In addition, the Chamber established that the Respondent had delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without prima facie contractual basis. 14. Consequently, the DRC decided that in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant overdue payables in the total amount of USD 47,000. 15. Furthermore, with regard to the claimed procedural costs, the Chamber highlighted that according to art. 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, DRC proceedings relating to employment-related disputes between a club and a player of an international dimension are free of charge. 16. In continuation, taking into account the consideration under point II.14. above, the DRC referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations which stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations. 17. The DRC established that in virtue of the aforementioned article it has competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. In this context, the Chamber highlighted that on 1 October 2015 the Respondent had already been found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis and without having responded to the relevant claim, as a result of which a fine was imposed on the Respondent by the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, the DRC established that for the second time, the Respondent has delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis. 18. Moreover, the members of the Chamber wished to underline and took into account that the Respondent has been found by the DRC to be responsible for not complying with its financial obligations towards players on various occasions in the recent past. 19. Accordingly, the DRC referred to art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations, which establishes that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty. 20. Therefore, bearing in mind the considerations under points II.18. and II.19. above, the DRC decided that in the event that the Respondent does not pay the amount due (cf. point III.2 below) to the Claimant within the 30 days following the notification of the present decision, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the next entire registration period following the notification of the present decision shall become effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. d) of the Regulations. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, A, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, B, has to pay to the Claimant overdue payables in the amount of USD 47,000 within 30 days from the date of notification of this decision. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, interest at a rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of the expiry of the aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. 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 DRC of every payment received. 5. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the next entire registration period following the notification of the present decision. ***** 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