F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2018-2019) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 1 February 2019

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 1 February 2019,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Roy Vermeer (Netherlands), member

Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member

Stefano La Porta (Italy), member

Pavel Pivovarov (Russia), 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

between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On an unspecified date, the Player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: the player or Claimant) and the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the club or Respondent), concluded an employment contract, valid for the ‘2016-2017 football season’ (hereinafter: the contract).

2. According to article 3 of the contract, the player was entitled to receive a monthly salary of EUR 3,000. Furthermore, the player was entitled to ‘an instalment of 3 (three) monthly salaries’, after the signing of the contract.

3. On 4 July 2017, the player and the club signed a document referred to as ‘Proof of last contract termination’, in which inter alia the following is agreed upon: ‘[…] The parties hereto confirm: The Professional Contract between the Player and the club has terminated. By signing this document the parties declare that they do not have any further obligations towards each other and the player is free to sign with other parties […]’.

4. On 12 July 2018, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the club, claiming outstanding remuneration to be paid by the club, broken down as follows:

Outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 18,000, specified as follows:

 EUR 18,000 as 6 outstanding salaries, related to the months of January, February, March, April, May and June 2017 in the amount of EUR 3,000 each;

 ‘Interest’ as from 1 July 2017 on the abovementioned amount until ‘the complete pay-out’.

In addition, the player requested that the club be ordered to pay procedural costs.

5. In his claim, the player explains that the contract between him and the club ‘contractually terminated on 4 July 2017’.

6. Furthermore, the player explains that the club failed to pay him six monthly salaries in connection with the period between January and June 2017.

7. In its reply to the player’s claim, the club argues that by signing the document dated 4 July 2017, the player waived his rights to claim any potential outstanding amounts as per the contract. As a result, the club requests for the rejection of the player’s claim.

8. In his replica, the player argues that the club did not submit evidence that it paid him the salaries related to the period between January and June 2017. Further, the player states that the document dated 4 July 2017 ‘only declares the termination of the contract and that the parties confirm that they have no future obligations […]’, however that such information ‘does not mean that the Claimant disclaims his monthly instalments, because he had no reason to do so, as the contract had already expired’. In conclusion, the player states that said document ‘does not free the Respondent from his due financial obligations towards the Claimant’.

9. In its duplica, the club reiterated its previous argumentation.

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 12 July 2018. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2018; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 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 June 2018), 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. Furthermore, 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 June 2018), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 12 July 2018, the June 2018 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. The members of the Chamber acknowledged that the player and the club signed an employment contract, valid for the 2016/2017 season, which according to the information contained in the TMS started on 21 August 2016 and ended on 31 May 2017 and that, on 4 July 2017, the parties signed a document by means of which the parties confirmed that the employment contract had terminated and that they had no further obligations towards each other.

6. The Chamber then reviewed the claim of the player, who maintains that the club failed to pay him to pay him his monthly remuneration for the period between January and June 2017, in the total amount of EUR 18,000, and by means of the document signed by him on 4 July 2017, he did not waive his right to claim these outstanding salaries, as the document only meant to cover “future obligations”.

7. In continuation, the members of the Chamber noted that the club, for its part, rejected the claim of the player. In this regard, the club argues that by signing the document dated 4 July 2017, the parties had explicitly waived their rights to lodge a claim regarding issues arising from the contract and that the player, by signing said document, had acknowledged that the club had fulfilled all of its obligations towards him.

8. At this point, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with the document dated 4 July 2017, the parties agreed upon the following: ‘[…] The parties hereto confirm: The Professional Contract between the Player and the club has terminated. By signing this document the parties declare that they do not have any further obligations towards each other and the player is free to sign with other parties […]’.

9. Having said that, first and foremost, the Chamber wished to stress that it has remained undisputed by the parties that they had duly signed the document dated 4 July 2017. It appeared however that the parties have opposite positions as to the answer on the question whether or not the player had waived his right to claim the apparently outstanding salaries for the period between January and June 2017. Therefore, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute was to determine whether with signing the document dated 4 July 2017, the player had waived his right to claim any potential outstanding amounts as per the contract.

10. Entering into the substance of the matter, the members of the Chamber started by analysing the wording of the document dated 4 July 2017, signed by both the player and the club (cf. point II./8. above). In this respect, the members of the Chamber agreed that such wording unambiguously stipulates that the parties had no further obligations towards each other. In addition, taking into account that the pertinent document was signed on 4 July 2017, whereas the season in Country D had already ended on 31 May 2017, the members of the Chamber could not follow the player’s reasoning that the document dated 4 July 2017, only covered future obligations, as on 4 July 2017, the parties had not future contractual obligations towards each other anymore.

11. What is more, the members of the Chamber were eager to emphasise that a party signing a document of legal importance without knowledge of its precise contents, as a general rule, does so on its own responsibility.

12. In this respect, the Chamber deemed that if the player would not have been aware of the legal consequences of signing the document dated 4 July 2017, he would have also had the option to either not sign the document or to have the allegedly outstanding payments explicitly excluded from the legal effects of the document. As a result, the Chamber established that by signing said document dated 4 July 2017, the player should have understood that by signing the document, he and the club settled all (potential) issues arising from their employment relationship.

13. Furthermore, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof, the Chamber deemed that the player had not presented any documentation, which would demonstrate that the parties had agreed to exclude the apparently outstanding salaries for the period between January and June 2017 from the contents of the document dated 4 July 2017.

14. Based on the aforementioned considerations, as well as the wording in the document dated 4 July 2017, the Chamber concluded that it could not uphold the player’s argumentation that he was entitled to receive the outstanding salaries for the period between January and June 2017.

15. On account of the above, the Chamber decided to reject the claim of the player in its entirety.

*****

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:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal Officer

Encl. CAS directives