F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2017-2018) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 21 September 2017

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 21 September 2017,

in the following composition:

Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman

John Bramhall (England), member

Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member

Pavel Pivovarov (Russia), member

Mohamed Al Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member

on the claim presented by the player,

Player A, Country B

as Claimant

against the club,

Club C, Country D

as Respondent

regarding an employment-related dispute

arisen between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On “15 August 2016”, the Player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant or the player), and the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent or the club), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 8 July 2016 until 8 June 2017.

2. According to art. 2 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 750 payable for the period between the “first day in which the player starts training with the club in a particular season and last day […] in which the club plays the last competitive match of the Football Season in Country D”.

3. On 25 October 2016, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent, by means of which it asked the latter if it wanted to unilaterally terminate the contract. Moreover, with the same letter, the Claimant stated that he wanted “to continue with its employment relationship”, that the Respondent should immediately stop to “coercing him to sign a termination contract against his will” and requested an official response within 29 October 2016. Furthermore, the Claimant also affirmed that, “should the club coerce him again to rescind his employment contract against his will”, he would terminate the contract “due to serious contractual violations”.

4. On 27 October 2016, the Claimant and the Respondent signed the “Form JF” issued by the Football Association of Country D (hereinafter: the Form). Pursuant to such Form, the Respondent released the Claimant “unconditionally […] from any obligation […] and grant him permission to register and play with any other club” and the Claimant consented to such release and declared that “the Club had no further obligations towards [him]”.

5. On 30 October 2016, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent by means of which he terminated the contract “due to the non-fulfillment of its financial obligations and other violations”.

6. On 23 November 2016, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract, requesting the amount of EUR 11,250, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due dates, broken-down as follows:

- EUR 3,000 for outstanding salaries, corresponding to “4 months”;

- EUR 8,250 for compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to “11 months”.

7. In his claim, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent, “in mid-October 2016”, informed him that it was not interested in his services anymore and that its representatives tried “to coerce him to rescind the contract”. Moreover, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent, despite his first letter, persisted in neglecting its contractual obligations and “continued to coerce him even more”.

8. Furthermore, the Claimant maintained that the Respondent terminated the contract without just cause.

9. In its reply, the Respondent rejected the player’s claim. In particular, the Respondent affirmed that it tried to reach an amicable settlement with him and that, by executing the Form, the Claimant and the Respondent mutually terminated the contract.

10. In his replica, the Claimant insisted on his previous arguments and maintained that he did not recognise any agreement for the settlement of the dispute and that “no settlement agreement was signed or even discussed”.

11. The Respondent replied to the player’s replica affirming that it made no coercion on the Claimant and that, according to the content of the Form, it was unequivocal that the parties consented to the termination of the contract.

12. Upon request of the FIFA Administration, the Claimant informed that it did not conclude any employment contract with other club after the termination of the contract. Nonetheless, according to the information contained in the TMS, on 6 January 2017, the player signed a new employment contract with the Club of Country B, Club E, valid as from the date of signature until 11 April 2017, providing a monthly salary of 937.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 23 November 2016. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21, par. 2 of the Procedural Rules).

2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Player of Country B and a Club of Country D.

3. In continuation, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 23 November 2016, the 2016 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all 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. First, the Chamber noted that the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an employment contract valid as from 8 July 2016 until 8 June 2017.

6. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber took note that the Claimant alleged that the Respondent, during October 2016, tried to coerce him to terminate the contract and held that it terminated it without just cause. On account of the above, the Claimant requested the payment of outstanding salaries and compensation for breach of contract. What is more, the Claimant affirmed that it did not sign any agreement for the settlement of the dispute.

7. The Dispute Resolution Chamber equally took due note of the fact that the Respondent, on its part, affirmed that the dispute was settled by means of execution of the Form dated 27 October 2016 and alleged that the parties thereby amicably terminated the contract.

8. In view of the aforementioned dissent positions of the parties in respect of the basic question as to whether or not an agreement on the termination of the contract had been concluded between them, the members of the Chamber firstly referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof.

9. In this context, the members of the Chamber emphasised that it was not contested by the parties that, on 27 October 2016, the Form, submitted by the Respondent, was signed by the Claimant and the Respondent. In particular, the DRC pointed out that the aforementioned document indeed provided that, on the one hand, the Respondent released the player and, on the other hand, the Claimant declared that the club had no further obligations towards him. Consequently, the members of the Chamber came to the unanimous conclusion that the Form constituted a valid and binding agreement on the termination of the contract.

10. Along those lines, the member of the Chamber deemed important to point out that, in line with the long-standing jurisprudence of the Chamber, any party signing a document of legal importance without knowledge of its precise content does so on its own responsibility.

11. Equally, in application of the aforementioned principle of the burden of the proof, the members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that it was up to the Claimant to prove the existence of the coercion allegedly made by the Respondent.

However, the members of the Chamber noted that no evidence was submitted by the Claimant in this regard.

12. Consequently, on account of the aforementioned considerations, the members of the DRC had no other option than to conclude that the Claimant and the Respondent, by means of the Form, amicably terminated the contract on 27 October 2016. Thus, the Chamber decided to reject the claim of the Claimant.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is rejected.

*****

Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):

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, 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Omar Ongaro

Football Regulatory Director

Encl: CAS directives