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 21 February 2020

Decision of the Single Judge

of the Players’ Status Committee

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 21 February 2020,

by

Roy Vermeer (the Netherlands)

Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee,

on the claim presented by the coach

Mr. Juan Angel Iribarren Morras, Spain

represented by Mr. Daniel Munoz Sirera

as “Claimant”

against the club

Al Wahda Club, United Arab Emirates

as “Respondent”

regarding an employment related dispute between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 1 March 2016, the Spanish coach, Mr Juan Angel Iribarren Morras (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the Emirati club, Al Wahda Club, concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid from 1 June 2016 until 30 June 2017 and by means of which the Claimant was hired as assistant coach. According to the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive EUR 10,000 as monthly salary.

2. The “Club’s Regulations” also provided the following bonus scheme:

3. By means of letters dated 27 November 2017, 16 December 2017, 21 December 2017 and 3 January 2018, the Claimant put the Respondent in default, requesting payment of AED (United Arab Emirates Dirham) 250,000, allegedly corresponding to the “bonus for Championship of the UEA President’s Cup”.

4. On 31 January 2019, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent regarding outstanding remuneration allegedly due to him.

5. The Claimant requested the payment of AED 250,000 “as bonus for the Championship of the UAE President’s Cup”, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 19 May 2017. Furthermore, the Claimant requested FIFA to order the Respondent to “pay all legal and procedural costs derived from this dispute.”

6. In support of his claim, the Claimant referred to article 11 of the employment contract in connection with the bonus rules included in the “Club’s Regulations” and in particular to article 5 of said regulations, and alleged that “the amount of AED 500,000 (...)” had been established by the General Manager of the Respondent “as Remuneration (Bonus)” in case the team would win the 2016/2017 UAE President’s Cup.

7. The Claimant thus deemed being entitled to receive, in accordance with the “Bonus Policy”, 50% of AED 500,000, i.e. the sum of AED 250,000. In support of his allegations, the Claimant inter alia argued that the head coach of the team had received AED 500,000 as a bonus for winning the UAE 2016/2017 Cup, i.e. “100% of the remuneration” pursuant to the club’s regulations. As a consequence, the Claimant argued that he is entitled to “50% of the remuneration”.

8. The Respondent partially rejected the Claimant’s claim arguing that the latter was only entitled to receive AED 30,000 as bonus. In this respect, the Respondent alleged the following:

“As provided for in item 5 of the regulation that the championship remuneration shall be disbursed after it will be decided by the Board of Directors and approved by the Club's Chairman later, the Board of Directors passed the decision 15/2018 on 15 March 2018 on disbursement of the remuneration for winning the final match of UAE President Cup played on 19 May 2017, for the below officials in the value of AED 30.000 (thirty thousand UAE Dirham) for each person:

1- Mr. Juan Angel Iribarren Morras - Assistant Coach (the Claimant).

2- Mr.Levente Molnar - Goalkeepers Coach.

3- Mr. Rafael Ma laves - Fitness Coach.

4- Mr. Jaime Bartres -Physical Trainer.

5- Mr. Javier Gurri -Scout.

6- Mr. Younis Al Marabet-Translator”

9. Equally, the Respondent clarified that the bonus payable to the head coach of the team had been established in his employment contract and, therefore, was not relevant to this dispute.

10. In conclusion, the Respondent requested FIFA to establish that the Claimant was only entitled to receive the sum of AED 30,000 as bonus.

11. In his replica, the Claimant reiterated the content of his first submission and rejected the allegations of the Respondent. The Claimant insisted on being entitled to receive from the Respondent the sum of AED 250,000.

12. In addition, the Claimant accused the Respondent of having “fabricated the alleged Board Meeting to (…) pay less than what the Claimant is entitled to receive as bonus” and clarified that he had not seen the alleged decision before the Respondent provided it to FIFA. The Claimant recalled in this context that the Respondent, before being informed of his claim, had always refused to pay him the relevant bonus arguing that his contract “did not provide for any bonus”.

13. The Claimant further accused the Respondent of acting “contrary to Article 5.2. of the Procedural Rules, which provides that “All persons involved in legal application and adjudication process shall act in good faith”. Hence, the Claimant asked FIFA not to take into account the “Decision No. (15/2018)” provided by the Respondent in its reply to the claim.

14. In continuation, the Claimant explained that the fact that the head coach had received AED 500,000 as bonus clearly indicated that he was entitled to receive AED 250,000. From the Claimant’s point of view “any interpretation of the provision [i.e. “paragraph 5 of the Bonus Policy”] in the contrary should be disregarded by FIFA pursuant to the principle of in dubio interpretation in contra proferentem.”

15. Finally and notwithstanding the aforementioned, the Claimant added that should FIFA “not agree with [his] position”, he “must receive at least” the sum of AED 30,000 which the Respondent had acknowledged owing him, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 19 May 2017.

16. In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated the content of its previous submissions to FIFA.

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 31 January 2019. Consequently, the 2018 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 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 a Spanish coach and an Emirati club.

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 2020 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and considering that the present claim was lodged with FIFA on 31 January 2019, the June 2018 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 Chamber 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 started by acknowledging that the main issue which he has to address in the present matter relates to the Claimant’s entitlement to a bonus in the amount of AED 250,000. In this respect, the Claimant purported being entitled to such bonus for winning the 2016/2017 Championship of the UAE President’s Cup. The Claimant bases his claim on article 11 of the employment contract and article 5 of the “Club’s Regulations”. Furthermore, the Claimant alleged that the head coach had received a bonus in the amount of AED 500,000 and that according to club policy, he should receive 50% of that amount, i.e. AED 250,000.

6. The Respondent, for its part, denied owing the player the amount of AED 250,000 and asserted that its board of directors had passed a decision on 15 March 2018, thereby granting several individuals of the coaching staff, including the Claimant, the amount of AED 30,000 as bonus for winning the Championship of the UAE President’s Cup.

7. The Claimant, in his replica, had held that the decision dated 15 March 2018 was created for the purposes of the dispute and reiterated his claim.

8. Having duly analysed the parties’ respective positions, the Single Judge was eager to recall the principle of burden of proof enshrined in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which the party alleging a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. In this regard, the Single Judge first underlined that article 5 of the “Club’s Regulations” upon which the Claimant bases his claim does not refer to a specific amount due as bonus for winning the Championship of the UAE President’s Cup but rather states that the amount due will be decided upon by the board of directors. Furthermore, the Single Judge duly noted that the Respondent had provided evidence of a decision of its board of directors, by means of which the Claimant, amongst others, had been awarded a bonus of AED 30,000 for winning the relevant competition. Finally, the Single Judge emphasised that the Claimant had not corroborated his claim that he was entitled to 50% of AED 500,000 (amount which the Respondent had allegedly paid to the head coach) with any documentary evidence, simply referring to club policy.

9. In view of the above, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Claimant could not prove that he was entitled to AED 250,000 as bonus for winning the 2016/2017 Championship of the UAE President’s Cup. Notwithstanding, the Single Judge established that the Respondent had admitted that the Claimant was, instead, entitled to receive the amount of AED 30,000, and that the Respondent had recognised its debt towards the Claimant in this regard.

10. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of AED 30,000 corresponding to the bonus for winning the 2016/2017 Championship of the UAE President’s Cup, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 20 May 2017 until the date of effective payment.

11. Finally, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s claim pertaining to legal costs in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence in this regard.

12. In addition, the Single Judge established that any other request of the coach had to be rejected.

13. 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.

14. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the Claimant’s claim is partially accepted, whereas the Respondent is still at fault. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that both parties shall bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA, in equal parts.

15. 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 amount at dispute in the present matter, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000.

16. In conclusion and in view of the low level of complexity of the present matter from a legal and factual point of view, as well as the fact that it was decided by a single judge, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 4,000.

17. Consequently, the Single Judge determined that the Claimant and the Respondent shall each pay the amount of CHF 2,000 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, Juan Angel Iribarren Morras, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, Al Wahda Club, has to pay to the Claimant within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of AED 30,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 20 May 2017 until the date of effective payment.

3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant, is rejected.

5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 4,000 are to be paid as follows:

5.1 The amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid by the Respondent to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. 19-00274/sil-akl:

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

5.2 The amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid by the Claimant directly to FIFA. Considering that the latter already paid an advance of costs in the amount of CHF 2,000 at the start of the proceedings, the Claimant is exempted from paying the aforementioned costs.

6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under point 2. above are to be made and to notify the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received.

Note related to the publication:

The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, 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 Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).

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). 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. 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:

___________________

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer