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

I. Facts of the case

1. On 7 October 2013, Trainer A (hereinafter: “the Claimant”) and the Football Federation of Country B (hereinafter: “the Respondent”) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: “the contract”), valid until 30 September 2015.

2. Point 1 of the contract stated that the Claimant “commits himself to render his services as a selection Football physical trainer of Country B, as physical trainer”.

3. Point 8 a) of the contract stated that the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a total net salary of EUR 330,000 divided in EUR 165,000 per season.

4. Point 8 b) of the contract stated that the Claimant would be entitled to receive a series of bonus payments related to “The Cup C, Country D 2014 and the Cup C, Country E 2015”.

5. Point 9 of the contract provided that: “All the payments contained in the present contract will be carried out directly by the first party [i.e. the Respondent] within the thirty days following the end of the event”.

6. On 3 November 2014, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent requesting the payment of EUR 240,264 as outstanding remuneration, i.e. salaries and bonuses.

7. On 25 November 2014, the Claimant sent a reminder of the previous letter to the Respondent providing it with a final deadline to remedy the default.

8. On 5 December 2014, the Claimant sent a final letter to the Respondent informing the latter that a claim would be lodged before the FIFA deciding bodies and that should the situation persist, he may be left with no other choice than to terminate the contract.

9. On 15 December 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent requesting a total amount of EUR 254,014 as outstanding remuneration.

10. In this respect, the Claimant explained that did his best for the Respondent. However, the Respondent did not fulfil its contractual obligations despite having sent several reminders.

11. On 21 April 2015, the FIFA administration sent a letter to the Claimant informing that FIFA does not appear to be competent to deal with claims lodged by physical trainers.

12. The Claimant answered stating that he was hired as a member of the coaching staff of the Football Federation of Country B, led by the main coach. “The facts that his [i.e. the Claimant’s] duties within the coaching staff were to take charge of the physical training does not preclude that he [i.e. the Claimant] was hired as a football coach by the Football Federation of Country B”.

13. The Claimant explained that he was hired as a football coach by the Respondent in charge of physical training and requested that his claim would be reconsidered and submitted to the Players´ Status Committee for decision.

14. On 11 January 2016, the Claimant amended his claim requesting the total amount of EUR 322,764 broken down as follows:

 EUR 134,412 as outstanding salaries corresponding to the 1st season plus a 5% annual interest from 30 October 2013;

 EUR 23,352 as bonus for the performance in the Cup F 2014 plus a 5% annual interest from 3 March 2014;

 EUR 82,500 as advance payment due at the beginning of the 2nd season (i.e. 8 October 2014) plus a 5% annual interest from 8 October 2014;

 EUR 82,500 as outstanding salaries corresponding to the 2nd season plus a 5% annual interest from 30 October 2014.

15. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not respond to the claim lodged against it.

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 15 December 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 3 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. In this regard, the Single Judge was eager to underline that the question of his competence to hear the present case must be tackled in view of the fact that the contract at the basis of the dispute was concluded between, on the one hand, the Claimant, who was hired to perform duties as “physical trainer” under the contract, and, on the other hand, the Football Federation of Country B, i.e. the Respondent.

3. With the foregoing in mind, the Single Judge also recalled the provisions of art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, which establishes that “[P]arties are members of FIFA, clubs, players, coaches or licensed match and players’ agents”. Thus, in neither art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules nor art. 22 c) of the Regulations or any other provision in any of FIFA’s regulations is there a basis to establish FIFA’s competence to hear disputes involving physical trainers.

4. At this stage, the Single Judge paid close attention to the argumentation of the Claimant, who had alleged that in spite of the terms of the contract which provided that he was employed “to render his services as a selection Football physical trainer of Country B,” he was hired in his capacity as a football coach.

5. In this regard, the Single Judge determined that in accordance with the rule of burden of proof mentioned under art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which provides that “any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”, it undoubtedly fell upon the Claimant to prove that he was in fact exercising duties of a coach and that he could thus be considered as a party in front of FIFA in the sense of art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules. However, after a thorough analysis of the arguments as well as the documentation submitted by the Claimant, the Single Judge found that the Claimant had not provided any conclusive evidence proving that he was working as a coach for the Respondent.

6. Therefore, the Single Judge had no other alternative than to rely on the content of the contract, which clearly stated that the Claimant was hired by the Respondent to perform duties as physical trainer.

7. In this respect, the Single Judge observed that, according to the contract, the duties of the Claimant are, inter alia, described as follows:

 taking care of the physical condition of the players according to the guidelines set by the coach on whom the Claimant depended;

 watching over and looking after the players;

 being responsible for the preparation and rehabilitation of the National A team.

6. In this regard, the Single Judge was eager to note that the duty as described above is clearly not the one of a coach in the sense of art. 6 of the Procedural Rules and rather refer to the position of fitness trainer with solely physical tasks to enhance the players’ physical condition.

7. In light of the above, the Single Judge had no doubt that the contract at the basis of the present dispute was concluded in order to acquire the services of the Claimant as a physical trainer and not as a coach.

8. In view of all of the above, the Single Judge, referring once again to art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules in combination with art. 22 c) of the Regulations, decided that the claim of the Claimant is not admissible in view of the fact that the latter, being a physical trainer, cannot be viewed as a party who is entitled to seek redress in front of the decision-making bodies of FIFA, in accordance with art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules. In any case, the dispute is based on an employment contract signed by and between a physical trainer and the Football Federation of Country B and also therefore does not fall within the competence of the decision-making bodies of FIFA.

9. In view of the above, the Single Judge concluded that the claim of the Claimant is not admissible in view of the fact that the latter was not a party admitted in front of FIFA decision-making bodies at the time he lodged his claim, i.e. on 15 December 2014.

10. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant is not entitled to seek redress in front of the decision-making bodies of FIFA in accordance with art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules.

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

1. The claim of the Claimant, Trainer A, is inadmissible.

*****

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