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 November 2016
Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 22 November 2016,
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 22 May 2012, the Coach of Country B Coach A (hereinafter: “the Claimant”) and the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: “the Respondent”) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: “the contract”), valid for two years renewable for a third year.
2. In accordance with the first clause of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent the following amounts:
First year: Total value of USD 275,000 whereas USD 55,000 was payable as advance payment at the moment of the signature as well as the amount of USD 220,000 in eleven monthly salaries of USD 20,000 each, respectively;
Second year: Total value of USD 330,000 whereas USD 100,000 was payable as advance payment in two instalments amounting to USD 50,000 each, the first one at the beginning of the season and the second one after four months of the start of the season as well as the amount of USD 230,000 to be paid in eleven monthly salaries of USD 20,900 each.
3. According to the tenth clause of the contract, “in case the coach [i.e. the Claimant] wishes to terminate the contract, it is obliged to pay back the contract advance value and a two months’ salary. In case the club [i.e. the Respondent] wishes to terminate the contract, it is obliged to pay two month salary to the coach [i.e. the Claimant]”.
4. Eleventh clause of the contract stated: “According to the list of equivalents for the first team to win and a tie only Position reward: First: competition reward: first place: USD 100,000; second place: USD 70,000; third place: USD 60,000; fourth place: USD 50,000; fifth place: USD 40,000; sixth place: USD 30,000. Second: Cup E: first place: USD 100,000; second place: USD 80,000; third place: USD 50,000 and fourth place: USD 35,000. Third: Cup F reward: first position: USD 60,000 and second position: USD 40,000”.
5. On 8 December 2013, the Claimant signed a document entitled “Financial Settlement” by means of which he recognised having received from the Respondent the total amount of 302,665 divided as follows:
Salaries
26,137 (10 days of the month of June 2013)
78,410 (month of November 2013)
18,295 (7 days of December 2013)
Bonuses
7,000 (win against Club G)
7,000 (win against Club H)
500 ((draw against Club J)
1,500 (draw against Club K)
3,000 (win against Club L)
1,000 (draw against Club M)
3,000 (win against Club N)
Penalty clause: 156,820 equivalent to two monthly salaries (cf. tenth clause of the contract)
6. On 20 August 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent arguing that, on 7 December 2013, the Respondent breached the contract without just cause. In this respect, the Claimant explained that, in accordance with the tenth clause of the contract, he received the equivalent of two monthly salaries as compensation for the premature termination of the contract.
7. Notwithstanding the above, the Claimant claimed that the Respondent failed to pay several financial obligations which were left unsettled by the latter. The Claimant sent to the Respondent two default notice letters which were answered by the latter stating that all its financial obligations had been fulfilled.
8. Furthermore, the Claimant explained that the second instalment of the advance payment of the second season was due at the moment of contract termination, since the seasons allegedly lasted from 1 June 2013 until 30 April 2014. In particular, the Claimant stated that the season did not only begin with the first match of a competition.
9. In addition, the Claimant argued having been working from the beginning of June 2013. In this regard, the Claimant enclosed copy of skype messages related to the organization of a preparative camp for the next year of the competition. The Claimant even travelled in May (holiday´s month) to Country O to find a suitable location for the training camp. The Claimant stated that on 21 June 2013 he was finally back from holidays.
10. Moreover, the Claimant alleged that according to the eleventh clause of the contract he was entitled to receive bonuses in case of win or a tie in any competition game but that the contract did not specify the financial obligation for the relevant games, instead there was a reference to a “list of equivalents” for the first team. The Claimant pointed out that normal bonuses were paid as follows: Win: 3,000; Tie at home: 1,000 and Tie away: 1,500. The Claimant further argued that often the Respondent´s president offered higher bonuses in certain games, these announcements were made orally in front of all the players, technical and medical staff. Accordingly, the Claimant requested the following bonuses: 9,000 for the Cup F; 5,000 for the Cup P and 3,000 for local competition.
11. Consequently, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the payment of the outstanding amounts of USD 66,093.62, plus 17,235.21 as well as procedural costs. The claimed amounts are composed as follows:
(1) USD 50,000 as advance payment which was due after four months of the beginning of the second season, i.e. on October 2013 plus USD 1,664.38 as 5% annual interest as from 1 October 2013;
(2) USD 13,933 as outstanding part of salary related to June 2013 plus USD 496.24 as 5% annual interest. The coach stated that he received from the club a payment amounting to USD 6,967 (i.e. first 9 days of June);
(3) 17,000 as unpaid bonuses plus 235.21 as 5% annual interest.
12. In its reply, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim and stated that all its contractual obligations were fulfilled.
13. With regard to the Claimant’s claim of USD 50,000 as advance payment, the Respondent alleged that the relevant season started on 12 August 2013 (cf. confirmation issued by the Football Federation of Country D) and, thus, the relevant instalment was not due at the time of contract termination, i.e. on 7 December 2013.
14. Regarding the salary of June 2013, the Respondent stated that the Claimant only worked 9 days and that he did not request this amount before and continue working for almost six more months. The Respondent added that the Claimant received the same amount for the salary of June 2012. Moreover, the Respondent stated not having requested the Claimant the search of a camp location and that the Claimant did not submit any documentary evidence in this regard.
15. Finally, the Respondent claimed having paid all the bonuses to the Claimant as agreed in the contract.
16. The Claimant reacted to the Respondent´s position and stated that the terms of the financial settlement cannot be interpreted as all financial obligations of the Respondent were fulfilled and argued that it was only a confirmation of the amounts received at the time of the termination. Moreover, the Claimant added that on 8 December 2013 he sent a letter to the Respondent specifying that the requested outstanding remuneration was still due by the latter.
17. In its duplica, the Respondent alleged that the Claimant promised the Respondent to obtain leading position and he did not fulfilled this promise. The Respondent spent its budget according to the Claimant´s requests and the Respondent finished in the 11th position. In any case, the Respondent respected the contract paying to the Claimant the due amounts as stated in the financial settlement including the two-months penalty in accordance with the clause tenth of the contract.
18. On 3 May 2016, the Respondent lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant requesting the payment of USD 500,000 as damage compensation; the reimbursement of the two monthly salaries paid at the moment of the termination and the reimbursement of the bonuses received from the Respondent.
19. Nonetheless, on 13 August 2016, the club withdrew such counterclaim.
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 20 August 2014. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the 2014 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 4 as well as art. 22 c) of the 2016 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. As a consequence, the Single Judge confirmed that he was the competent body to decide on the present dispute involving a Coach of Country B and a club affiliated to the Football Federation of Country D regarding outstanding remuneration.
3. 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 respect, he confirmed that in accordance with the art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the edition 2016 of the Regulations and taking into account the fact that the present claim was lodged with FIFA on 20 August 2014, the 2014 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance.
4. 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.
5. In doing so and to begin with, the Single Judge acknowledged that, on 22 May 2012, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded the contract which was valid for two years with an option to renew it for a third year. Equally, the Single Judge took note that it remained uncontested that the contract was terminated on 7 December 2013 and, subsequently, the parties concluded the financial settlement, the terms of which inter alia included the payment of two monthly salaries in accordance with clause ten of the contract.
6. At this stage, the Single Judge pointed out that on the one hand, the Claimant argued that the Respondent did not fulfil all its contractual obligations and that the financial settlement was only a confirmation of receipt of the respective amounts. Besides, the Single Judge remarked that the Claimant further argued that on the same date of the conclusion of the financial settlement, i.e. 8 December 2013, he sent a default notice letter to the Respondent requesting the payment of allegedly outstanding remuneration.
7. On the other hand, the Single Judge remarked that the Respondent for its part argued having fulfilled all of its contractual obligations as stated in the financial settlement.
8. In addition, the Single Judge remarked that by means of the financial settlement the Claimant confirmed having received from the Respondent a total amount of 302,665 as salaries, bonuses and a penalty equivalent to two-month salaries (cf. tenth clause of the contract).
9. For the sake of good order, the Single Judge highlighted that the fact that the Claimant sent a default notice letter to the Respondent on the same day of signing the financial settlement it did not constitute conclusive evidence to prove that the relevant document was not final.
10. Even more, the Single Judge underlined that the conclusion of the financial settlement must be interpreted as a clear indication that the parties involved arranged all the economic aspects derived from their employment relationship, in particular, including the penalty contractually agreed in case of termination. The Single Judge concluded that the financial settlement had to be interpreted as a final and binding agreement.
11. Consequently, the Single Judge decided to reject the Claimant´s demands since there were no further amounts due by the Respondent.
12. 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, including the Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. The relevant provision further states that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings.
13. Furthermore and 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 up to CHF 100,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000.
14. Considering that, in the case in hand, the claim was rejected and taking into account the particular circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings in the amount of CHF 7,000 and held that such costs have to be borne by the Claimant.
III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee
1. The claim of the Claimant, Coach A, is rejected.
2. The final costs of the proceedings amounting to CHF 7,000 are to be paid by the Claimant, Coach A, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision. Taking into account that the latter has already paid the amount of CHF 2,000 as advance of costs at the beginning of the present procedure, the Claimant, Coach A, has to pay the outstanding amount of CHF 5,000 to FIFA to the following bank account:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
*****
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
For the Single Judge of the
Players’ Status Committee
Marco Villiger
Deputy Secretary General
Encl. CAS Directives