F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee / Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori – coach disputes / controversie allenatori (2016-2017) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 22 May 2015

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 22 May 2015,

by

Geoff Thompson (England)

Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee,

on the claim presented by the coach

Coach A, country B

as “Claimant”

against the club

Club C, country D

as “Respondent”

regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties.

I. Facts of the case

1. On 1 January 2013, the coach from country B, Coach A (hereinafter: “the Claimant”), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: “the Respondent”), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: “the contract”) valid from 1 January 2013 until 30 November 2013.

2. Article 3.1 of the contract stated: “During the term of this Agreement [i.e. the contract], Party A [i.e. the Claimant] undertakes to provide the Party B [i.e. the Respondent] with the coaching services requested by Party B [i.e. the Respondent] according to the rules of FIFA and Football Association of country D”.

3. Article 4.1. (i) of the contract stated: “Party B [i.e. the Respondent] shall provide Party A [i.e. the Claimant] appropriate accommodation. Party A [i.e. the Claimant] shall pay water, electricity, gas, cable TV and other expense, which will be deducted from Party A´s salary if Party B [i.e. the Respondent] covers them”.

4. Article 5 of the contract stated: “5.1. Party B [i.e. the Respondent] undertakes to pay Party A [i.e. the Claimant], in consideration for the coaching service a fixed compensation and a performance-related premium. 5.2. The fixed compensation will be for an amount of US$ 1,800,000 (Net) paid in the following manner: -30% of the fixed compensation (US$ 540,000) shall be paid in five (5) working days from the effective date of the agreement. –The remaining of the fixed compensation (US$ 1,260,000) in 11 equal monthly instalments starting from January 1, 2013, each instalment shall be paid on the 30th day of each calendar month, on the account details as given by Party A [i.e. the Claimant]”.

5. Article 5.6 of the contract stated: “If management of the Team decides to keep the current goal keeper coach of the Team amount of US$ 150,000 shall be deducted from the whole compensation package”.

6. Article 6.1. of the contract established that: “This Agreement [i.e. the contract] shall be terminated in the following circumstances: -Upon expiry of the term of the Agreement [i.e. the contract] or by mutual agreement between the Parties; -Termination if either Party is in a material breach of its obligations under this Agreement [i.e. the contract]; -Pursuant to decision of a competent arbitration body of FIFA”.

7. Article 6.2. of the contract established that: “Parties mutually agree that this Agreement [i.e. the contract] may be terminated by Party B [i.e. the Respondent] upon giving at least thirty (30) days prior written notice to Party A [i.e. the Claimant] without assigning any reason thereof, provided that Party B [i.e. the Respondent] shall pay Party A [i.e. the Claimant] with the remaining amounts that not occurs and/or not yet due pursuant to provisions of this Agreement [i.e. the contract]”.

8. Article 6.3. of the contract established that: “If a Party is in a material breach of any of its obligations under the Agreement [i.e. the contract] (the “Defaulting Party”), the other Party shall have the right to terminate the Agreement subject to a 30-day period notice if the breach is capable of remedy. If the defaulting Party has not cured the default within the 30-day period or the fault may not be cured, the other Party will be entitled to terminate the Agreement [i.e. the contract] with immediate effect and to claim compensation for the damage suffered by such breach. And the non-defaulting Party shall be exempted from the payment that not occurs and/or not yet due”.

9. Article 8 of the contract established that: “This Agreement [i.e. the contract] shall be governed by the laws and regulations of country D. Parties mutually agree to consensually resolve all disputes arising from this Agreement [i.e. the contract], including disputes in respect to its validity and / or breach and / or termination, as well as legal consequences arising thereof. In case such amicable resolution is not possible, disputes shall be finally settled in proceedings in front of competent arbitration body of FIFA and TAS”.

10. On 29 May 2013, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded a document called “Supplement to Agreement on Coaching Services” (hereinafter: “the supplement”).

11. Article 1 of the supplement established: “1.1. Party B [i.e. the Respondent] shall make the payment of US$ 111,800 to Party A [i.e. the Claimant] before May 15, 2013; 1.2. Party B [i.e. the Respondent] shall make the payment of US$ 400,000 to Party A [i.e. the Claimant] before June 10, 2013. 1.3. If Party B [i.e. the Respondent] fails to make the payment to Party A [i.e. the Claimant] as mentioned above, a penalty of USD 80,000 shall be made to Party A [i.e. the Claimant] for the default payment”.

12. Article 3 of the supplement established: “This Supplement is an integral part of the Agreement [i.e. the contract] signed between the Parties. In case of any conflict between the Agreement [i.e. the contract] and this Supplement, the Supplement shall prevail”.

13. On 4 November 2013, the Claimant lodged a complaint with FIFA against the Respondent alleging that the latter had breached its contractual obligations established in the contract and in the supplement, and requested from it the total amount of USD 1,636,400, plus a 5% annual interest “from the date of the contractual breach”, amount that is composed as follows:

(1) USD 1,556,400, which represents the total value of the contract, i.e. USD 1,800,000 (cf. article 5 of the contract) less USD 243,600, i.e. two payments allegedly done by the Respondent [USD 111,800 + USD 131,800]. The Claimant stated that this amount included outstanding salaries until 10 July 2013 and compensation equivalent to the residual value of the contract (from 10 July 2013 until 30 November 2013) without breakdown of the relevant amounts plus

(2) USD 80,000 as penalty (cf. article 1.3. of the supplement).

14. In particular, the Claimant confirmed having only received from the Respondent the following amounts: -USD 111,800 in January 2013 and -USD 131,800 in February 2013.

15. The Claimant alleged that due to the breach of the contractual obligations by the Respondent, the parties concerned decided, on 9 May 2013, to conclude the supplement. However, the Respondent continued not honouring its obligations towards him, whereas the Claimant continued rendering his services to the Respondent in good faith.

16. On 10 July 2013, the Claimant sent a written notification to the Respondent requesting the payment, within five days, of USD 806,400 as salaries (cf. the contract), plus USD 130,000 as penalty (cf. the supplement and previous letters) and warned the Respondent that, in case of non-payment within the given deadline, all amounts agreed in the contract (including but not limited to article 6.3.) would be claimed.

17. The Claimant further explained that in accordance with article 6.1. of the contract he was authorised to terminate it since the Respondent blatantly breached its contractual obligations and in accordance with article 6.3. of the contract, he provided the Respondent with a written 30 days’ notice on 9 May 2013 by signing the supplement.

18. The Claimant alleged that by concluding the supplement, the Respondent recognised expressly to owe him salaries as it was reflected in its article 1. Moreover, the Claimant stated that the 30 days’ notice (cf. article 6.3. of the contract) expired without the Respondent fulfilling its obligations and therefore he was authorised to rescind the contract immediately and to claim the relevant compensation. The Claimant added that he stayed at the club rendering his services until mid-July 2013, i.e. almost 2 months after signature of the supplement.

19. In its reply to the claim lodged by the Claimant, the Respondent first alleged that FIFA is not competent to deal with this matter pursuant to art. 22 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and its Commentary which states that “Since the legislation of many countries provided for the compulsory jurisdiction of ordinary courts for employment-related disputes […] Parties can therefore decide to bring a labour dispute in front of a competent ordinary court”. The club alleged that under country D’s law, this dispute should be compulsory dealt by “country D’s Labor-related Arbitration Commission”. The Respondent cited and enclosed parts of country D’s law, i.e. articles 3 and 26 of the “Regulations on the management of employment of Foreigners in country D” and articles 5 and 21 of the country D’s labor law.

20. Alternatively, the Respondent presented its position as to the substance of the claim and stated that due to health issues, the Claimant expressed orally his desire to terminate the contract on 13 May 2013 and the Respondent accepted such request.

21. The Respondent alleged that the parties mutually agreed to terminate their contractual relationship in accordance with the article 13 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.

22. The Respondent added that the delay in paying remuneration is not a justified reason for the Claimant to terminate the contract since at the moment of its negotiation the Respondent informed him that they were facing some financial difficulties.

23. The Respondent further alleged that it decided to keep the original goalkeeper coach and thus, in accordance with article 5.6 of the contract, it owed the Claimant an amount of USD 1,650,000 (instead of USD 1,800,000) as the sum of USD 150,000 had to be deducted from the Claimant’s salary in accordance with the contract.

24. In particular, the Respondent stated that, taking into account the Claimant´s health situation, both parties concluded on 29 May 2013 the supplement in which the Claimant confirmed that the Respondent owed him an amount of USD 511,800. The Respondent stated that on 21 May 2013 it paid the amount of USD 111,800 to the Claimant. Therefore, the Respondent concluded to have an outstanding amount in favour of the Claimant of USD 400,000.

25. The Respondent remarked that article 3 of the supplement clearly established that in case of conflict between the contract and the supplement the terms of the supplement shall prevail, thus the relevant amounts and payment plan agreed in the latter are applicable.

26. The Respondent added that on 3 July 2013 via the Claimant’s agent, it got to know about the Claimant´s resignation and as from that date, the Claimant no longer appeared at the Respondent or performed his duty. On 4 July 2013, the Respondent accepted the Claimant´s resignation in writing. Therefore, the Respondent alleged that on that date the contract was terminated by mutual agreement.

27. The Respondent further alleged that on 5 July 2013 the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent, by means of which he confirmed the termination and requested the payment of USD 806,400 as unpaid salary plus a 5% daily penalty.

28. The Respondent added that on 9 July 2013, it answered in writing the Claimant contesting his calculation of the remuneration and the daily penalty as groundless and informed that they will make the relevant calculation. On 12 July 2013, the Claimant sent another letter to the Respondent requesting USD 806,400 plus a penalty of USD 130,000. On 14 July 2013, the Respondent answered the Claimant rejecting his calculation.

29. The Respondent reiterated that the contract was mutually terminated on 3 July 2013 and concluded that it owed the Claimant a total amount of USD 534,683 composed as follows:

(1) USD 400,000 until 29 May 2013 (cf. the supplement) plus

(2) USD 150,000 salary of June 2013 minus

(3) USD 15,317 (allegedly equivalent to 93,000) as rental fee penalty for breach of the rental contract plus water and electricity.

30. The Claimant rejected the Respondent ´s position in its entirety and stated that FIFA is competent to decide the present dispute in accordance with the art. 22 c) of the Regulations and based on the articles 3.1, 6.1 and 8 of the contract according to which the parties clearly chose FIFA´s jurisdiction. The Claimant stated that the country D’s law is irrelevant to this matter.

31. Moreover, the Claimant alleged that it was not true that the contract was terminated by mutual agreement. The Claimant never had the intention to terminate prematurely the contract and never signed any mutual termination with the Respondent. In fact, the Claimant stated that the contract was terminated by the coach with just cause due to the blatant breach of the Respondent´s obligations derived from the contract and the supplement. The Claimant underlined that the supplement was a renegotiation of the Respondent´s debts since the Respondent as from January 2013 (i.e. first month of the contract) did not pay the amounts agreed in article 5.2. of the contract.

32. In particular, the Claimant rejected the Respondent´s allegation that the supplement was an early mutual termination and explained that after the signature of the supplement, he continued rendering services to the Respondent for almost two months, i.e. until mid-July 2013.

33. Furthermore, the Claimant rejected the interpretation of the Respondent in relation to the letter dated 5 July 2013 and stated that this letter was sent to the Respondent within the frame of negotiations to settle this matter in an amicably way.

34. The Claimant rejected the calculation made by the Respondent providing an outstanding amount of USD 534,683 and reiterated his original claim. With regard to the penalty, the Claimant insisted that it was contractually agreed and due (cf. article 1.3. of the supplement).

35. The Claimant rejected the Respondent´s position that, by signing the supplement, the Claimant renounced to the payments agreed in the contract. The supplement was a renegotiation of the debts and since the Respondent did not fulfil again his obligations, the terms of the contract remained valid.

36. The Respondent presented its final position and insisted that the FIFA deciding bodies are not competent to decide the present dispute and reiterated all of its previous allegations.

37. Moreover, the Respondent added that, before 4 July 2013, when both parties agreed to an early termination of the contract, the Claimant had never made any complaints towards the Respondent regarding any arrear payments whatsoever or any warnings regarding a possible early termination of the contractual relationship. In this respect, the Respondent referred to CAS award 2006/A/1180, which refers to Swiss law, which stated two conditions prior to an early termination of the contractual relationship: 1) the unpaid amount by the employer should be substantial and 2) the employee should have been given a warning to the employer before termination.

38. Finally, the Respondent reiterated that the supplement was binding upon between the parties and that its article 3 is clear. The Respondent further stated that there was no clause whatsoever in the supplement suggesting that the contract clauses resumed their applicability.

II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee

1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter also referred to as: “the Single Judge”) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 4 November 2013. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution (hereinafter: “the Procedural Rules”) is applicable to the matter in hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).

2. Furthermore, the Single Judge confirmed that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 as well as art. 22 c) of the 2015 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he shall adjudicate on an employment-related dispute between a club or an association and a coach that have an international dimension.

3. As a consequence, the Single Judge would, in principle, be the competent body to decide on the present litigation involving a coach from country B and a club affiliated to the Football Association of country D regarding outstanding salaries and compensation based on an employment contract.

4. However, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Respondent had contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies arguing that pursuant to article 8 of the contract as well as to articles 3 and 26 of the “Regulations on the management of employment of Foreigners in country D” and to articles 5 and 21 of the country D’s labor law, employment-related disputes fall within the compulsory jurisdiction of the “Labor related Arbitration Commission”.

5. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that an arbitrational clause was indeed included in article 8 of the contract which states inter alia that, “This Agreement [i.e. the contract] shall be governed by the laws and regulations of country D [country D] … In case such amicable resolution is not possible, disputes shall be finally settled in proceedings in front of competent arbitration body of FIFA and TAS”. However, the Single Judge pointed out that article 8 of the contract was clearly a non-exclusive clause which gives also the competence of FIFA to deal with disputes arising from the contract in case the parties would not reach an amicable settlement.

6. As a result of the aforementioned, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent’s objection towards the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected, and that the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee is competent, on the basis of art. 23 par. 1 and 3 in combination with art. 22 lit. c) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance.

7. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this regard, he recalled that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 4 November 2013. Therefore, the Single Judge held that the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance (art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations).

8. The competence of the Single Judge and the applicable regulations having been established and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

9. In doing so and to start with, the Single Judge took note that on 1 January 2013 the Claimant and the Respondent concluded the contract valid until 30 November 2013.

10. Equally, the Single Judge noted that on 29 May 2013, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded another agreement named “Supplement to Agreement on Coaching Services” (hereinafter: “the supplement”) which stated inter alia that the Respondent should paid to the Claimant two amounts, i.e. USD 111,800 before 15 May 2013 and USD 400,000 before 10 June 2013. Furthermore, the supplement stated that if the Respondent would fail to make the said payments to the Claimant a penalty of USD 80,000 should be applicable.

11. In continuation, the Single Judge remarked that, on the one hand, the Claimant had alleged that the contract as well as the supplement were documents binding upon the Claimant and the Respondent which both regulated the employment relationship between them and that the supplement was only a renegotiation of the outstanding amounts owed by the Respondent, whereas, on the other hand, the Respondent had argued that the supplement was the only valid agreement between the parties at the dispute pursuant to article 3 of said document.

12. At this stage, the Single Judge then turned his attention to the issue as to which was the contract at the basis of the dispute.

13. In doing so, the Single Judge thoroughly analyzed the contents of both agreements, i.e. the contract and the supplement. In this respect, the Single Judge acknowledged that the supplement, in particular its article 3, confirmed that such document was an integral part of the contract and that, in case of conflict between both documents, the supplement would prevail.

14. In light of the above, the Single Judge deemed that from the content of the supplement, particularly its article 3, it can be understood that the supplement complemented the contract and that, in case of discrepancies between both documents, the terms contained in the supplement would prevail.

15. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that both documents, i.e. the contract and the supplement, were valid and binding upon the Claimant and the Respondent.

16. With the aforementioned considerations in mind, the Single Judge turned his attention to the premature termination of the employment relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent.

17. In this respect, the Single Judge took note that, on the one hand, the Claimant had maintained having terminated the contractual relationship with just cause as the Respondent allegedly breached its contractual obligations, in particular, articles 6.1 and 6.3 of the contract, whereas, on the other hand, the Respondent had argued having found a mutual agreement with the Claimant to end the contractual relationship alleging Claimant’s health issues.

18. At this stage, the Single Judge reminded that, in accordance with article 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof.

19. In this context, considering that the Claimant had contested having terminated the contractual relationship with the Respondent by mutual agreement, as well as taking into account that the Respondent had not provided evidence which would have indicated that the parties at the dispute would have terminated the contractual relationship by mutual agreement, the Single Judge held that the contractual relationship was terminated without mutual agreement.

20. In view of the above and, in particular, taking into account that the Respondent had confirmed owing outstanding remuneration to the Claimant, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant had thus terminated the contractual relationship with just cause.

21. Having said this, the Single Judge analysed which was the exact date of termination of the employment relationship by the Claimant with just cause.

22. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that on 10 July 2013, the Claimant put in default the Respondent requesting the latter the payment of outstanding remuneration, a penalty and warning the Respondent that in case of lack of payment of the requested amounts within the next five days, all amounts agreed in the contract would be duly requested.

23. In light of the above, the Single Judge concluded that on 15 July 2013 the Claimant terminated the employment relationship with the Respondent with just cause.

24. Having established the above-mentioned, the Single Judge went on to assess the potential financial consequences of the premature termination of the contractual relationship.

25. In this respect and to begin with, the Single Judge analysed the first part of the Claimant’s claim, i.e. his request for payment of outstanding remuneration from January 2013 until the date of termination, i.e. 15 July 2013 based on the terms agreed in the contract.

26. The Single Judge remarked that by signing the supplement on 29 May 2013 the parties settled all outstanding amounts until that date.

27. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that since the contract was terminated on 15 July 2013, the salary of June 2013 remained outstanding.

28. Then, the Single Judge referred to the article 5 of the contract which stated that the Claimant was entitled to a total wage of USD 1,260,000 payable in 11 equal instalments, i.e. USD 114,545.45 per month.

29. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of USD 114,545.45 was still outstanding as salary of the month of June 2013.

30. However, the Single Judge took note that the Respondent alleged being entitled to a reimbursement from the Claimant for an amount of 93,000 equivalent to USD 15,317 as apartment rent (30,000), rental fee penalty (60,000) and expenses for water and electricity (3,000).

31. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that article 4.1 of the contract stipulated that the Respondent shall provide the Claimant with appropriate accommodation and that the Claimant was obliged to pay the relevant expenses (water, electricity, gas, cable TV, and others) which would be deducted from his salary if the Respondent would cover them.

32. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant should reimburse to the Respondent the amount of 3,000, i.e. equivalent to USD 484 as expenses in accordance with article 4.1 of the contract.

33. In view of the aforementioned, the Single Judge decided that the amount of USD 484 should be deducted from the outstanding monthly salary of June 2013 (USD 114,545.45) and hence the Respondent should pay to the Claimant the outstanding amount of USD 114,061.45.

34. In addition, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant had requested a 5% annual interest “from the date of the contractual breach” over the outstanding amounts. In this regard, the Single Judge deemed appropriate to grant interest at a rate of 5% per annum over the remaining salary of June 2013, i.e. USD 114,061.45, from 15 July 2013 until the effective date of payment.

35. With regard to the other outstanding amounts claimed by the Claimant, the Single Judge pointed out that the latter based those demands only on the contract and not on the supplement. The Single Judge reiterated that the supplement was a renegotiation of debts between the Claimant and the Respondent and its article 3 established that the financial terms agreed by the parties in said document shall prevail over the contract.

36. The Single Judge then recalled that article 1 of the supplement established a payment of the total amount of USD 511,800 in favour of the Claimant in two instalments as follows: -USD 111,800 before 15 May 2013 and -USD 400,000 before 10 June 2013.

37. In this respect, the Single Judge acknowledged that during the investigation phase of the matter at stake the Respondent alleged having paid the sum of USD 111,800 on 21 May 2013 in accordance with the article 1 of the supplement and enclosed a copy of the relevant receipt.

38. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent still owed to the Claimant an outstanding amount of USD 400,000 in accordance with the article 1 of the supplement.

39. In addition, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant had also requested a 5% annual interest “from the date of the contractual breach” over the outstanding amounts. In this regard, the Single Judge deemed appropriate to grant interest at a rate of 5% per annum over the amount of USD 400,000 from 15 July 2013 until the effective date of payment.

40. In light of all the above, the Single Judge emphasised that, in accordance with the general principle of pacta sunt servanda which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Respondent must fulfil the obligation it voluntarily entered into with the Claimant and therefore, the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the outstanding part of the salary of June 2013 (USD 114,061.45) in accordance with the article 5 of the contract and the outstanding amount of USD 400,000 in accordance with article 1 of the supplement plus the respective interests.

41. The Single Judge started analysing the second part of the Claimant´s requests regarding a penalty amounting to USD 80,000 (cf. article 1.3 of the supplement).

42. In this regard, the Single Judge thoroughly analysed the content of article 1.3 of the supplement and concluded that such article was applicable.

43. In this context, the Single Judge reiterated that, in accordance with the general principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the penalty agreed upon in the said document, i.e. USD 80,000.

44. After having established the aforementioned, the Single Judge went on to deal with the third part of the Claimant´s claim, i.e. his request for compensation for breach of contract corresponding to his monthly salary until the end of his contractual relationship with the Respondent, i.e. until 30 November 2013.

45. In this respect, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant was claiming a total amount of USD 1,556,400 including outstanding remuneration as well as compensation equivalent to the residual value of the contract without providing a clear breakdown of the said amount.

46. In this context, and taking into account the legal principle of contractual freedom, the Single Judge held that, as a general rule, if an employment contract contains a specific provision establishing an amount of compensation to be paid in case of early termination, such provision should prevail over any other way to determine compensation for a unilateral early termination.

47. Therefore, the Single Judge focussed its attention on the content of the article 6.3 of the contract stipulated that if one of the parties is in material breach of any of the obligations assumed in the contract, the affected party would have the right to terminate the contract with immediate effect and to claim compensation for the damage suffered.

48. The Single Judge was keen to underline that the Claimant was entitled to receive a compensation for the early termination of the contract with just cause due to the breach of the contractual obligations by the Respondent. In this respect, the Single Judge deemed appropriate to reiterate that the Claimant and the Respondent concluded first the contract and then the supplement with the aim at renegotiating the outstanding amounts agreed in the contract owed by the Respondent to the Claimant and that the Respondent failed to fulfil both contractual obligations.

49. In view of the aforementioned, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant is entitled to a compensation equivalent to the residual value of the contract, i.e. from 1 July 2013 month of termination of the contract until 30 November 2013, i.e. five months.

50. In this context, the Single Judge underlined that the Claimant informed FIFA that he did not sign any other employment contact after the date of the termination of the employment relationship with the Respondent, i.e. 15 July 2013 and until the end of its validity, i.e. 30 November 2013.

51. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant should be entitled to receive from the Respondent the amount of USD 572,727.15 as compensation.

52. In addition, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant had requested a 5% annual interest “from the date of the contractual breach” over the damage compensation. In this regard, the Single Judge deemed appropriate to grant interest at a rate of 5% per annum over the amount of USD 572,727.15 as from 4 November 2013 (i.e. date of the claim) until the effective date of payment.

53. In view of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 514,061.45 as outstanding salaries, plus an interest of 5% p.a. as from 15 July 2013 until the date of effective payment, as well as the amount of USD 80,000 as penalty plus an amount of USD 572,727.15 as compensation for the termination of the contract, plus an interest of 5% p.a. as from 4 November 2013 until the date of effective payment.

54. Finally, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which in the proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and are normally to be paid by the unsuccessful party.

55. In respect of the above, the Single Judge reiterated that the Claimant’s claim is partially accepted but that the Respondent is the party at fault. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA.

56. According to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is of USD 1,636,400. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000.

57. In view of the specific circumstances of the case, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 20,000.

58. Consequently, and in line with the aforementioned, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of CHF 20,000 in order to cover the costs of the present proceedings.

III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee

1. The claim of the Claimant, Coach A, is admissible.

2. The claim of the Claimant, Coach A, is partially accepted.

3. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, Coach A, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the following amounts:

 USD 114,061.45 as outstanding salary as well as 5% interest per year from 15 July 2013 until the date of effective payment;

 USD 400,000 as outstanding remuneration as well as 5% interest per year from 15 July 2013 until the date of effective payment;

 USD 572,727.15 as compensation for breach of contract as well as 5% interest per year from 4 November 2013 until the date of effective payment;

 USD 80,000 as penalty.

4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Coach A, are rejected.

5. If the aforementioned sums, plus interest as provided above, are not paid within the aforementioned deadline the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 20,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club C, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, as follows:

6.1 The amount of CHF 15,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XXXX:

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

6.2 The amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant, Coach A.

7. The Claimant, Coach A, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club C, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 6.2 above are to be made and to notify the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received.

*****

Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):

According to art. 67 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

For the Single Judge of the

Players’ Status Committee

Markus Kattner

Acting Secretary General

Encl. CAS directives