F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee / Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori – coach disputes / controversie allenatori (2019-2020) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 25 May 2020
Decision of the
Single Judge of the Players' Status Committee
passed via videoconference, on 25 May 2020,
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the coach Martin BLANCO ESTEVEZ
BY:
Roy Vermeer (the Netherlands), Single Judge of the PSC
CLAIMANT:
MARTIN BLANCO ESTEVEZ, Spain
Represented by Mr. Ludovic Deléchat
RESPONDENT:
AL QADSIA, Kuwait
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1. On 3 June 2019, the Spanish coach, Martin Blanco Estevez (hereinafter: the Claimant or the coach) and the Kuwaiti club, Al Qadsia (hereinafter: the Respondent or the club) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract).
2. The contract, as per its clause 1, was valid as from the date of signature until 30 April 2020, or the end of season 2019/2020, “whichever is earlier”.
3. According to article 2 of the contract, the coach was entitled inter alia to a monthly salary of USD 3,000.
4. Article 16 of the contract reads as follows (quoted verbatim): “If the [coach] terminates the contract before the expiry period specified, the [coach] is obliged to pay the [club] a compensation of ($ 15000) Fifteen thousand US Dollars onley and shall return the amounts he recived as an End of Service Indemnity, airline tickets and the Cash Allowance of Leave Balance. The [coach] shall notify the [club] by an official letter 15 days before leaving the work at the club”.
5. Article 17 of the contract reads as follows (quoted verbatim): “If the [club] decide to terminate the contract before the period specified for termination, he shall be obliged to pay a compensation to the [coach] equals three-month salary, provided that he informs [coach] by an official letter 15 days prior to the expiry of the contract”.
6. On 22 September 2019, the club sent a letter to the coach and unilaterally terminated the contract. In accordance with such letter, the coach was informed that he was immediately suspended from his work “starting from the date of this notification”.
7. The coach remained unemployed between September 2019 and April 2020.
II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
8. The coach filed a claim against the club before FIFA. A brief summary of the parties’ positions is detailed in continuation.
9. The coach claimed that, even though he had complied with the contract, the club had always paid him his salaries late since the beginning of the contract.
10. In addition, the coach submitted that the club terminated the contract without any previous warning and thus without just cause. Therefore, the coach is of the position that the club should be held liable to pay him an amount of compensation corresponding to the residual amount of the contract, as clauses 16 and 17 are to be deemed unbalanced and thus inapplicable.
11. Finally, the coach claimed that out of his total remuneration of USD 33,000, he had received USD 21,000. Therefore, the coach claimed the balance, corresponding to the unpaid portion of the contract, arriving in the amount of USD 12,000.
12. The club, for its part, rejected the coach’s claim.
13. In particular, the club argued that it timely paid the coach’s salaries, and that clauses 16 and 17 of the contract are balanced and proportional, and should therefore be enforced.
14. Consequently, the club argued that no amounts are due to the coach, and requested that the claim be dismissed.
III. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE PLAYERS' STATUS COMMITTEE
A. Competence and applicable legal framework
15. 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 present matter was submitted to FIFA on 6 December 2019. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 2019 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
16. 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 March 2020 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 an Spanish coach and a Kuwaiti club.
17. 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 March 2020 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and considering that the present claim was lodged with FIFA on 6 December 2019, the October 2019 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the present matter as to the substance.
B. Burden of proof
18. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, he stressed the wording of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may consider evidence not filed by the parties.
19. In this respect, the Single Judge also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
C. Merits of the dispute
I. Main legal discussion and considerations
20. 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, he 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.
21. By doing so, the Single Judge recalled the parties’ respective positions, and observed, on one hand, that the Claimant deems that the contract was terminated without just cause by the Respondent, and that clauses 16 and 17 of the contract are unbalanced and disproportionate, therefore cannot be applied.
22. On the other hand, the Single Judge observed that the club claimed that the contract was freely entered into by and between the parties, and that it paid the coach all his dues pursuant to clauses 16 and 17 of the contract, which it deems valid and enforceable.
23. Accordingly, the Single Judge determined that the main issue in the case at hand, as disputed by the parties, was to determine whether clauses 16 and 17 of the contract were valid or not, and the consequences thereof. In this respect, the Single Judge emphasized that it remained undisputed that the club had terminated the contract without just cause.
24. The Single Judge, in continuation, referred to the longstanding jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee, and recalled that, in order for a clause to be considered valid and enforceable, it has to be reasonable and proportionate.
25. Subsequently, the Single Judge proceeded to examine the contents of clauses 16 and 17 of the contract. In this respect, he noted that under such clauses the club enjoys more benefits than the coach, something which is reflected in the amount of compensation payable in case of breach of contract by the coach vis-à-vis the amount payable in case of breach of contract by the club. Consequently, the Single Judge found that the aforementioned clauses cannot be considered proportional, since they are neither balanced nor reciprocal.
26. What is more, and albeit being confident in the exhaustiveness of the foregoing reasoning, the Single Judge wished to emphasize for the sake of completeness that even if the cited clauses were to be considered proportional, the club did not respect the 15-day deadline envisioned by clause 17 of the contract as evidenced by the termination letter sent by the club on 22 September 2020, which states that the coach was “suspended immediately starting from the date of this notification”.
27. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the argumentation put forward by the club could not be upheld, and clauses 16 and 17 of the contract were not to be taken into consideration.
28. Therefore, the Single Judge recalled that it remained undisputed that the club terminated the contract without just cause, and decided that the compensation payable to the coach would have to be assessed based on the residual value of the contract, in line with the jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee.
29. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Single Judge proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the contract as from the date of termination without just cause by the Respondent until its natural expiration. Bearing this in mind, the Single Judge observed that according to the information available in the Transfer Matching System, the season 2019/2020 in Kuwait ran from 1 August 2019 and until 31 May 2020.
30. Given the contents of articles 1 and 2 of the contract, the Single Judge deemed that the coach would have received USD 12,000 as remuneration for the period as from 22 September 2019, i.e. the date of termination of the contract, until 30 April 2020. This amount corresponds to the unpaid portion of the contract.
31. Subsequently, the Single Judge recalled that the coach remained unemployed between September 2019 and April 2020.
32. In view of the above, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of USD 12,000 is to be paid by the club to the coach as compensation for breach of contract.
33. Equally and with regard to the coach’s request for interest, the Single Judge, in accordance with the well-established jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee, decided that the club has to pay to the coach 5% interest p.a. on the said amount of as from 6 December 2019, i.e. the date of claim, until the date of effective payment.
D. Costs
34. 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.
35. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is accepted and that the Respondent is the party at fault. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to bear the entire costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA.
36. 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 up to CHF 25,000, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000.
37. In conclusion, and considering that the case at hand did not pose any particular factual or legal difficulties, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 4,000. Moreover, in line with his aforementioned considerations, the Single Judge decided that the amount of CHF 4,000 has to be paid by the Respondent.
IV. DECISION OF THE PLAYERS' STATUS COMMITTEE
1. The claim of the Claimant, MARTIN BLANCO ESTEVEZ, is accepted.
2. The Respondent, AL QADSIA, has to pay to the Claimant compensation for breach of contract without just cause in the amount of USD 12,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 December 2019 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision.
3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned number 2 plus interest is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
4. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are to be made and to notify the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received.
5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 4,000 are to be paid by the Respondent in the following manner (cf. note relating to the payment of the procedural costs below):
- CHF 1,000 directly to the Claimant;
- CHF 3,000 to FIFA.
For the Players' Status Committee:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 20 of the Procedural Rules).
NOTE RELATING TO THE PAYMENT OF THE PROCEDURAL COSTS:
If applicable, payments to FIFA should be made by wire transfer in Swiss francs (CHF) to the following bank account:
366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) UBS Zurich,
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A, Clearing number 230, IBAN: CH 27 0023 0230 3666,
Please mention the applicable reference number
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777