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 28 February 2017
Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 February 2017,
by
Mr 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 an employment-related contractual dispute
arisen between the parties.
I. Facts of the case
1. On an unknown date, 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 as from 22 May 2012, “until the end of the League of Country D Season 2014”, i.e. on 2 November 2014, and by means of which the Claimant was appointed as a head coach of the Respondent.
2. The contract provided the following annual salaries to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant “by month at the end of the month. The first paying is upon the end of June 2012”:
Season 2012: USD 175,000;
Season 2013: USD 350,000;
Season 2014: USD 400,000.
3. Additionally, the contract established the following bonuses in favour of the Claimant and payable by the Respondent “in accordance with the team final rank at the end of the season”:
a) For Season 2012: “the basic target of the team is to avoid the relegation”. Bonuses:
10th position: USD 100,000
9th position: USD 150,000
8th position: USD 200,000
7th position: USD 250,000
6th position: USD 300,000
Qualification for the Continental League: USD 400,000
1st position: USD 800,000
b) For Season 2013: “the basic target of the team is to accomplish among top 10 positions in the league”. Bonuses:
8th position: USD 200,000
7th position: USD 250,000
6th position: USD 300,000
Qualification for Continental League: USD 400,000
1st position: USD 800,000
c) Season 2014: “the basic target of the team is to accomplish among top 8 positions in the league”. Bonuses:
6th position: USD 300,000
Qualification for Continental League: USD 400,000
1st position: USD 800,000
4. Furthermore, the Claimant was entitled to receive the following bonuses and benefits from the Respondent:
- “match bonus of the team in accordance with the Party A´s [i.e. the Respondent] relevant rules bonus of match and receive a match bonus in accordance with Party A´s relevant procedures of bonus payment (bonus for win and bonus for draw)”;
- Apartment, telephone and car;
- 4 round-trip business class air tickets between Country D and Country B and 2 round-trip economic class air tickets between Country D and Country E;
- Accident insurance.
5. Moreover, according to the contract, the Claimant had inter alia, the following obligations towards the Respondent:
a) “Party B [i.e. the Claimant] must maintain good professional virtue, be involved in all the training and games with full exertion;
b) Party B must obey the regulation of Football Association of Country D and the rules of the club. Party B must obey the relevant management regulations of Party A [i.e. the Respondent] on labour, personnel, administration and finance as well;
c) Party B has the obligation to attend all the matches, trainings, conferences, and other collective activities (…).
d) Party B must be authorised by Party A for any commercial activities or media interviews in any time and place and should not do anything that may damage the image and reputation of Party A and Football in Country D”
6. Additionally, the contract established that the Respondent would be entitled to terminate the contract without any financial compensation in the following cases:
a) “Infringing Law of Country D and punished by the judicial administration;
b) Neglecting his duty, does not fulfil his duty;
c) Due to his health condition, he [i.e. the Claimant] can’t perform the duty mentioned in the contract;
d) Disobeying the obligations of Party B [i.e. the Claimant] agreement in the contract; violate the regulations made by Party A [i.e. the Respondent] or match rules;
e) Violating the professional virtue of sportsmanship spirit, damaging the benefit or the reputation of Party A seriously punished by the Football Association of Country D or FIFA;
f) The team fails to get the qualification to compete in the Football League of Country D season 2013;
g) After first 15 matches of season 2013 or 2014, or at the end of season 2013 or 2014, the team ranks among last position in the league;
h) The team gets 0 point in 4 consecutive league matches”;
7. Finally, according to the contract, “if any of the two parties breach this contract, the other party will get 50% salary of the period of execution of this contract as compensation”.
8. On 19 February 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent arguing that the latter had breached the contract without just cause. In this respect, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the total amount of USD 525,800 “as overdues amounts and compensation for the termination, plus 5% per year since 16 August 2013”.
9. According to the Claimant, during the 2012 season, he managed to avoid relegation. Moreover, the Claimant deemed to have had a good 2013 season with the Respondent. However, the Claimant explained that after a match on 6 August 2013 the Respondent’s General Manager had allegedly read a letter entitled “Explanation on Coach A´s job performance and circumstances” in front of the team, explaining that after an investigation, “the Club considered that Coach A has broken the rules and thus violated the contract. At the same time, he has insulted the Club and listing ten violations allegedly committed by him. Furthermore, the said letter mentioned that the Claimant was being temporarily suspended as head coach of the team. The letter contained, inter alia, the following alleged breaches by the Claimant:
a) “During the regular season, Coach A [i.e. the Claimant] went back to Country B without reporting to Club, thus neglecting the team and its training sessions;
b) Serious problems in our club´s physical stamina and training sessions. Also Coach A is inattentive in the teams management, which has led to the teams recent no wins streaks in the last 8 matches;
c) During the process of recruiting foreign players, Coach A violated the rules and also committed fraud. Furthermore, he took his son with him to Country F without authorisation. This has violated professional ethics and spirit of sportsmanship, giving club a big harm in its profits and reputation;
d) Distribution of bonus was unfair, providing more amounts to himself and his close people without authorization;
e) While using the car that club has provided, he has violated traffic laws many times but refused to admit and pay the fine. It gave bad recognition to club´s reputation;
f) There were big problems in technical and strategic arrangement and substitution timings during matches.
g) He was inattentive in management of the players. Managing foreign players was bad.
h) He did not obey club´s regulations by repeatedly saying something that is unfavourable to club in public.
i) He repeatedly violated club´s regulations by not reporting match summing-up’s and training plans to club. Technical department required the related documents many time, but refused to provide them.
j) His attitude when talking with club´s technical department and his superiors was unacceptable, using abusive and insulting words. He did not respect and obey club´s personnel, administration, finance and other management areas”.
10. Furthermore and according to the Claimant, on 10 August 2013, the Respondent announced to the players that the coach of the youth team of the club had been appointed as the head coach of the first team.
11. In continuation, the Claimant explained that on 11 August 2013, the Respondent sent a correspondence to the Claimant requesting him to “submit a paper explanation based on the problems listed in the Notice before a 3 days deadline. At the same time, [the Claimant] must also submit a paper solution projects and methods. The club will deal with the problem based on the paper feedbacks, the Professional Coach Employment Contract and the Professional Management Regulations of [the Respondent]. If [the Claimant] could not submit the necessary documents before the deadline, [the Respondent] would punish him or terminate the contract according to the Professional Coach Employment Contract and the Professional Coach Management Regulations of [the Respondent]”.
12. In his reply dated 13 August 2013, the Claimant answered to the request of the Respondent, informing the latter of the following:
a) “During the period of working as professional head coach, there was no incident where there was violation of the Employment Contract [i.e. the contract] (…). The arguments are not true and do not have evidence to support the arguments (…). Club rather one-sidedly decided to temporarily cease my work, where this action violates the employment contract;
b) Before receiving the notification on 11 August 2013, I have not received and I am not aware of the Rules for Club C professional Team Coaching Staff and also have not agreed on this regulation manual;
c) Because Club one-sidedly terminated the Employment Contract, Club shall pay 50% of the remaining salary based on Employment Contract as compensation. I request the club to pay compensation immediately and then process the termination of the contract”.
13. The Claimant further explained that the Respondent sent a letter on 16 August 2013 to the Claimant entitled “Termination of the Professional Team Head Coach´s Employment Contract”, informing him about the immediate termination without right to any compensation and alleging that: “Coach A [i.e. the Claimant] breached professional ethics and agreements signed in the employment contract seriously, and he also violated the rules and regulations of the club. His behaviours bring huge negative influences to the club and professional team”. The Claimant alleged that, subsequently, the Respondent requested him to leave the apartment offered by the Respondent within the next three days following the date of termination of the contract and officially announced the termination of the employment relationship through a press conference on 20 August 2013. After some negotiations and attempts to try to solve the matter amicably, the Claimant allegedly returned to Country B on 13 September 2013.
14. The Claimant maintained that the Respondent had breached the contract and had failed to provide evidence on the alleged breaches committed by him. Therefore, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the total amount of USD 525,800 as well as 5% interest per year on said amount since the date of the termination, i.e. on 16 August 2013, broken down as follows:
USD 29,166 corresponding to the monthly salary of August 2013;
USD 36,454 as match bonuses. According to the Claimant, the match bonuses amounted to 20,000 in the currency of Country D per match and he participated in 11 matches;
USD 258,332 as compensation for the breach of contract based on the contract (cf. point I.7), i.e. 50% of the remaining salaries since the date of the alleged unilateral premature termination by the Respondent until the end of the contract;
USD 200,000 as bonuses for being ranked in the 8th position at the time of the dismissal;
USD 1,848 corresponding to flight tickets since according to the Claimant, the Respondent only paid 2 round trip business class air tickets between Country D and Country B but failed to pay 2 other round trip business class tickets between Country D and Country B (USD 808) and 2 economic class tickets between Country D and Country E (USD 1,040).
15. Finally, the Claimant also requested to impose on the Respondent a ban for registering new players for two registration periods in accordance with art. 17 of the “FIFA Regulations” as well as “an indemnity by way of moral damages, which amount will be set by FIFA”.
16. In reply to the claim lodged against it, the Respondent first indicated that, in accordance with the contract, the Claimant was obliged to respect the relevant management regulations on labour, personnel, administration and finance in accordance with the contractual stipulations mentioned under point I.5 b). In this regard, the Respondent maintained that this responsibility and rules of conduct were expressly defined in the “Regulations for coach management of Club C” (hereinafter: the Coaching Regulations). Additionally, the Respondent enclosed a letter dated 14 August 2013 allegedly signed by the entire coaching staff stating that “all professional team coaches have studied the regulations of Club C and understand clearly about Professional Coach Management Regulations of Club C. The head coach manages the professional team based on the regulations all the time”. Furthermore, the Respondent enclosed a picture of an alleged bulletin board where these Coaching Regulations were published.
17. In accordance with Part 6 of such Coaching Regulations, “the club will rescind the employment contract [i.e. the contract], and the club will claim compensation to the coach for breach of contract, based on the regulations and rules as follows:
a) Failure to achieve the short-term seasonal objectives of the board of directors and the club;
b) Severe violation of the managerial regulations of the club;
c) Participating in activities that undermine the interest and reputation of the club, such as soccer scam, gambling, and negative performance in the match;
d) Lack of control of the team; the team becoming disorganized and divided; the competitive strength of the team suffering severe decline;
e) Careless working, low training level, cheating and deception; inability in leading the players effectively and convincingly;
f) Defying the management of the board of directors and the club, severely violating the resolutions of the board of directors and failing to implement the rules and regulations of the club;
g) Cheating in the transfer progress and seeking for private income”.
18. In this regard, the Respondent held that the Claimant had violated the contract as well as the Coaching Regulations on several occasions. Therefore, the Respondent maintained that after a report from the players, players’ family, club´s technical department, the termination occurred due the following breaches of the contract and Coaching Regulations by the Claimant:
a) “Unauthorized departure to Country B and neglecting duties which caused grave adverse impact on club”. The Respondent enclosed a “decision on penalty” dated 24 June 2013 imposing a fine on the Claimant due to his unauthorised absence from 16 June to 22 June 2013, as well as another “decision on penalty” imposed on 30 May 2013 on the Claimant due to his absence from duty on 8, 14 and 22 May 2013;
b) “Serious problems in the team in the terms of physical training and other aspects. The team is lack of cohesion and has been defeated in 8 consecutive matches”;
c) “Participating in corrupt practices during the transfer window and traveling with his son to Country F violating the sportsmanship and professionalism and gravely damaging the reputation of the club”;
d) “Violating the traffic safety law of Country D while driving the car provided by the club and refusal to accept administrative punishment which gravely harmed the club´s reputation”;
e) “Refusal of summarizing and analysing after the matches;
f) “Mismanagement of the team especially among foreign players, indulging some foreign player’s disciplinary offence and physical altercation”. According to the Respondent, after a game on 4 May 2013, the Claimant had a fight with a player in the dressing room, which led to the imposition of a fine on the Claimant on 6 May 2013;
g) “Making damaging statements against the club frequently and ruining the reputation of the club”;
h) “Refusal to submit training program match summary regardless the urging of the club´s technical department”;
i) “Disobeying the relevant managerial regulations of the club in terms of personnel, administration and finance”;
j) “Violating contract spirit by taking part in the side-line in other institution without the authorization of the club which therefore caused adverse impact on the operations of the team;
k) “Treating the players by different standards which lowered the cohesion and competitiveness of the team”. In this regard, the Respondent maintained that during a training camp in Country B, one of the players stayed out all night without the authorisation of the Respondent and the Claimant did not impose any penalty on him. As a result, the Respondent imposed a fine on 22 February 2013 on the player and on 22 March on the Claimant.
19. Following the afore-cited breaches, the Respondent decided to suspend the Claimant on 6 August 2013 and urged him to take corrective actions as soon as possible in order for him to return to his position. On 8 August 2013 the Respondent sent a notification urging the Claimant to resume his duties and submit the match summary; however the Claimant allegedly refused such invitation. Moreover, following another correspondence sent by the Respondent on 11 August 2013 and the Claimant’s reply on 13 August 2013, the Respondent replied once again on 14 August 2013 requesting the Claimant to fulfil his duties.
20. Thus, after considering all the factors and considering all the breaches and violations of the contract and Coaching Regulations, the Respondent decided to terminate the contract as the Claimant was no longer suitable for the position.
21. With regard to the Claimant’s request for bonuses, the Respondent maintained that at the end of the season 2013, the team finished 15th in the League of Country D and was thus relegated to a lower division. Therefore, the request for the bonuses should be rejected.
22. Furthermore and as a consequence of the Claimant’s alleged behaviour, the Respondent lodged a counterclaim against him, claiming the total amount of USD 1,000,000 “as compensation to the Club for the mismanagement which caused the Club´ s relegation from the league and tremendous mental and material loss that came up to the club”.
23. In his reply to the counter-claim lodged against him, the Claimant rejected it in its entirety and firstly indicated that the Coaching Regulations could not be taken into account as the contract did not make any reference to such regulations. Therefore, the Claimant deemed that the contract could not be terminated based on these internal regulations, which were not part of the contract.
24. Moreover, the Claimant deemed to have behaved with the utmost diligence and good faith while performing his activities, and pointed out that he had never been warned or sanctioned in any away in connection with the breaches he supposedly committed, either in person or in writing. With respect to the alleged breaches, the Claimant held the following counter-arguments:
a) He never treated the players with different standards and was never fined with a “Decision of penalty” allegedly imposed by the Respondent. According to the Claimant, the document produced by the Respondent in this regard is unilateral and does not contain his signature nor an acknowledgment of receipt. Additionally the Claimant enclosed a witness statement from the player, Player G confirming that he never received a fine or written “decision on penalty” and that he actually left the training camp to discuss some salary issues with the Respondent;
b) Regarding the physical altercations, the Claimant maintained that the player was unhappy about being substituted, but there was no fight between them and the press release is only the result of rumours. Again, according to the Claimant, no penalty was neither imposed on him nor on the player, Player H;
c) Regarding the fine imposed for the absence for “turn of duty in the club building”, the Claimant alleged that he was not aware of such regulations and that he had never been informed of a fine in this regard;
d) Regarding the alleged travel to Country B from 16 to 22 June 2013, the Claimant denied having travelled on those dates and provided a Certificate of Entry and Exit issued by the customs authority of Country B showing that he did not travel to Country B on these dates;
e) Regarding the alleged corrupt practices, the Claimant explained that none of the documents enclosed by the Respondent address financial issues concerning players´ transfers. As to the presence of the Claimant’s son, this was allowed and suggested by the Respondent´s Chairman and the Respondent never objected to this until now;
f) Regarding the traffic report and violations, the Claimant admitted having received 2 or 3 fines, however the report enclosed by the Respondent contained also traffic violations committed by a driver of the Respondent and some of them are even dated before the contractual relationship started so they could absolutely not have been committed by the Claimant. In any case the Claimant was ready to pay them and asked the Respondent but never received any reply on this subject;
g) Regarding the refusal to submit training programs and a match summary, the Claimant pointed out that the contract did not mention such obligation, however he enclosed the training programs of the Respondent from January to August 2013. The Claimant also alleged that he never received any request from the Respondent requesting such documents;
h) Regarding the side line job, the Claimant alleged that he started collaborating with the Football Association of Country D prior to signing with the Respondent and was not paid for this task, but only acted as a volunteer or honorary consultant and therefore does not violate the contract; Additionally, this reason was not listed in the termination letter dated 16 August 2013.
25. According to the Claimant, even if he would have committed one of the previous alleged violations, none of them could ever lead to the unilateral termination of the contract. The Claimant further added that he was never informed about any of the alleged violations until the letter dated 6 August 2013. He also maintained that he never received the letter dated 8 August 2013 from the Respondent.
26. Finally, the Claimant altogether rejected the counterclaim, which according to him is completely unfounded and reiterated his initial request.
27. In its final comments, the Respondent reiterated its previous allegations and enclosed some alleged witness statements from players informing inter alia about the fines imposed on the Claimant; however such statements do not name the players.
28. Upon FIFA’s request, the Claimant specified that he worked as a commentator for the Company L from March to August 2014 but did not receive any remuneration during this time. Starting as of 1 October 2014 until 31 December 2015, he was employed by the Football Association of Country B as Board Member and received a remuneration of 5,000,000 in the currency of Country B (pretax) per month, operating expenses in the amount of 1,000,000 in the currency of Country B per month as well as communication expenses in the amount of 100,000 in the currency of Country B per month.
II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee
1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter: the Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the present matter. In this respect, he took note that the matter was submitted to FIFA on 19 February 2014. Consequently, the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter in hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules).
2. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 in combination with art. 22 lit. c) of the 2016 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he is competent to deal with the matter at sake which concerns an employment-related dispute of an international dimension between a coach of Country B and a club of Country D.
3. Furthermore, 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 to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the 2016 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and considering that the present claim was lodged with FIFA on 19 February 2014, the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the present matter as to the substance.
4. His competence 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 arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Single Judge 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. The Single Judge firstly recalled that the parties entered into an employment contract valid as from 22 May 2012 until 2 November 2014. At the beginning of August 2013, and following an exchange of correspondence whereby the Respondent was complaining about several alleged contractual breaches on the Claimant’s part, the latter was temporarily suspended as head coach and ultimately dismissed by means of a termination letter dated 16 August 2013.
6. The Claimant, on the one hand, deems that the Respondent terminated the contract binding them without just cause and that the latter had failed to provide evidence of the alleged breaches he would have committed. The Claimant claims the amount of USD 525,800 as well as 5% interest per year on the said amount as from the date of termination, this amount being composed of alleged outstanding remuneration (one monthly salary, bonuses and flight tickets) and compensation for breach of contract.
7. The Respondent, on the other hand, deems that it had a just cause to terminate the contract and lodged a counter-claim against the Claimant. In this regard, the Respondent listed a series of alleged infringements which the Claimant would have committed and referred in this context to the “Regulations for coach management of Club C”. The Respondent claimed the amount of USD 1,000,000 “as compensation to the Club for the mismanagement which caused the Club´ s relegation from the league and tremendous mental and material loss that came up to the club”.
8. In summary, the Respondent invoked the following reasons for the Claimant’s dismissal:
unauthorized departure to Country B and neglecting duties due to his unauthorised absence from 16 June to 22 June 2013 and on 8, 14 and 22 May 2013;
serious problems in the team in terms of physical training and other aspects; lack of team cohesion, team defeated in 8 consecutive matches;
participating in corrupt practices during the transfer window and traveling with his son to Country F; lack of sportsmanship and professionalism;
violating the traffic safety law of Country D while driving the car provided by the club and refusal to accept administrative punishment for such violations;
failure to proceed to a summary and analysis post-match;
mismanagement of the team especially among foreign players, indulging some foreign player’s disciplinary offence and physical altercation; fight with a player in the dressing room;
making damaging statements against the Respondent frequently and ruining the reputation of the Respondent;
refusal to submit training program match summary regardless of the club´s technical department to do so;
disobeying the relevant managerial regulations of the Respondent in terms of personnel, administration and finance;
violating contractual spirit by taking part in the side-line in other institution without the authorization of the Respondent which therefore caused adverse impact on the operations of the team;
treating the players by different standards, especially on the occasion of a training camp in Country B.
9. The Respondent underlined that, for several of these alleged contractual violations, the Claimant had been imposed a fine.
10. In light of the aforementioned, the Single Judge acknowledged that he first had to examine whether the reasons put forward by the Respondent could justify the termination of the contract in the present matter.
11. In this respect, the Single Judge was eager to emphasise that only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract. In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect a continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in order for an employer to ensure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can only ever be an ultima ratio measure.
12. Entering into the analysis of the reasons invoked by the Respondent to terminate the contract, the Single Judge underlined that most of the reasons, such as lack of sportsmanship and professionalism, lack of team cohesion, mismanagement of the team or making damaging statements against the Respondent, were of a highly subjective nature and could thus not be seen as valid grounds to terminate the contract.
13. Furthermore, the Players’ Status Committee was eager to recall its well-established jurisprudence according to which the absence of sporting results cannot, as a general rule, constitute per se a reason to terminate a contractual relationship with just cause.
14. Equally, and referring to the principle of burden of proof mentioned in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Single Judge pointed out that the Respondent had not been able to duly demonstrate that it had properly warned the Claimant of his alleged misbehaviour, nor that he was made aware of fines imposed on him, let alone having had the chance to present his arguments in connection with such fines.
15. With regard to the fact that, allegedly, the Claimant had left the country without authorisation from 16 June to 22 June 2013, the Respondent failed to prove beyond doubt that indeed the Claimant had left the country.
16. In continuation, the Single Judge did acknowledge that the Claimant had been temporarily suspended on 6 August 2013; however the Respondent could not prove that prior to this suspension the Claimant had been made aware of some alleged contractual violations. Only ten days later and although the Claimant denied the accusations against him, the Respondent decided to put an end to the contract.
17. In view of the above, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that none of the reasons put forward by the Respondent as to why it prematurely terminated the contract could justify such termination. In other words, the Respondent did not have just cause to prematurely terminate the employment contract with the Claimant, since such breach could not legitimately be considered as being severe enough to justify the termination of the contract.
18. On account of the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent did not have a just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship between the parties on 16 August 2013 and, therefore, the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact without just cause.
19. The Single Judge continued his deliberations by examining the consequences of such unilateral termination without just cause by the Respondent.
20. In this respect, the Single Judge first of all remarked that, according to the Claimant, the Respondent had failed to pay him the salary of August 2013, i.e. the amount of USD 29,166, as well as bonus payments in the amount of USD 36,454 for coaching a total of 11 matches, respectively USD 200,000 for allegedly finishing 8th in the championship. Furthermore, the Claimant claimed the amount of USD 1,848 corresponding to flight tickets since according to the Claimant, the Respondent only paid 2 round trip business class air tickets between Country D and Country B but failed to pay 2 other round trip business class tickets between Country D and Country B (USD 808) and 2 economic class tickets between Country D and Country E (USD 1,040).
21. With regard to the salary for August 2013, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent had not denied that such salary was due to the Claimant. Therefore, in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Single Judge decided to grant the Claimant the amount of UDS 29,166 plus 5% as of 1 September 2013, i.e. as of the day following the due date, until the date of effective payment.
22. As to the claimed bonuses, the Single Judge referred to the principle of burden of proof and held that the Claimant had not proven that these amounts were due to him. Indeed, with regard to the alleged bonuses in the amount of 36,454 for coaching a total of 11 matches, there is no indication in the contract of any specific amounts being due as match bonuses (cf. point I.4. above, first bullet point). Thus, the Claimant could not prove that this specific amount was due to him, and therefore the Single Judge had to reject this claim. Equally, with regard to the amount of USD 200,000 for finishing 8th in the championship, the Single Judge underlined that the Claimant had not provided evidence that the team indeed reached this result; it was even contested by the Respondent, who maintained that at the end of the season 2013, the team finished 15th in the League of Country D and was thus relegated to a lower division. Therefore, this claim was also rejected for lack of evidence.
23. With regard to the compensation payable for the unilateral termination of the contract without just cause, the Single Judge focussed his attention to the content of the compensation clause in the contract as quoted under point I.7. above, according to which the party victim of the breach of contract would be entitled to 50% of the remaining salaries since the date of the unilateral premature termination until the end of the contract.
24. The Single Judge found that the said compensation clause is reciprocal and proportionate and thus must be applied, in accordance with his well-established jurisprudence.
25. In view of the above, the Single Judge established that the remaining time under the contract as of the date of the termination until the end of the contract were the months of September to December 2013 as well as the entire season 2014. The monthly salary for the season 2013 equalled USD 29,166 (USD 350,000 / 12 months; cf. point I.2. above). Thus, a total of USD 116,664 would have been due between September and December 2013. For the season 2014, the contract provides that the Claimant would have been entitled to USD 400,000. In conclusion, the Claimant would have received a total of USD 516,664 from the moment the contract was terminated and had it been carried out until its contractual end date.
26. Therefore, the Single Judge calculated that 50% of the aforesaid amount corresponds to USD 258,332, which corresponds to the amount the Claimant claims as compensation for breach of contract.
27. In view of all of the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the Claimant the amount of USD 258,332 plus 5% interest as of 19 February 2014, i.e. the date of the claim, until the date of effective payment, as compensation for breach of contract.
28. Finally, and in accordance with its respective well-established jurisprudence and the evidence on file, the Single Judge granted the Claimant the amount of USD 404 as reimbursement of one flight ticket to go back to his home country, plus 5% interest on the said amount as of 19 February 2014, i.e. the date of the claim, until the date of effective payment.
29. Lastly, 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 and the Single Judge, 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.
30. In respect of the above, the Single Judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Respondent is the party at fault. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the costs need to be shared between the Claimant and the Respondent.
31. 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. Consequently and taking into account that the total amount at dispute in the present matter is more than CHF 200,000, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000.
32. In conclusion and in view of the circumstances of the present matter as well as its legal and factual complexity, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the total amount of CHF 20,000, to be paid as follows: CHF 13,000 by the Respondent and CHF 7,000 by the Claimant.
III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee
1. The claim of the Claimant, Coach A, is partially accepted.
2. 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 total amount of USD 29,166 as outstanding remuneration as well as 5% interest per year on the said amount from 1 September 2013 until the date of effective payment.
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 amount of USD 258,332 as compensation for breach of contract and USD 404 as reimbursement for the return flight tickets, as well as 5% interest per year on the said amounts from 19 February 2014 until the date of effective payment.
4. If the aforementioned amounts plus interests are not paid within the aforementioned deadlines, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
5. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Coach A, are rejected.
6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 20,000 are to be paid by both parties to FIFA, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows:
6.1. The amount of CHF 7,000 has to be paid by the Claimant, Coach A. Given that the latter has already paid the amount of CHF 5,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant, Coach A, has to paid the amount of CHF 2,000.
6.2. The amount of CHF 13,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, Club C.
6.3. The abovementioned amounts in points 6.1 and 6.2 have to be paid to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XXX:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
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 3. 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. 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
Chief Legal & Integrity Officer
Encl. CAS directives