Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC)
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 January 2013,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Todd Durbin (USA), member
Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member
Jon Newman (USA), member
Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Player D, from country G
as Claimant
against the club,
Club A, from country S
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
Player D, from country G (hereinafter: player or Claimant), and Club A, from country S
(hereinafter: club or Respondent), signed an employment contract, valid during 30
months, as of 1 February 2009 until 1 August 2011 (hereinafter: contract).
2.
In accordance with the contract, the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, the
monthly salary of USD 7,333.
3.
On 10 May 2010, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA alleging
that out of the total amount of USD 219,990 he was entitled to, the club only paid the
sum of USD 36,000.
4.
The player explained that two months after the start of the contract, the club told him
that he was not allowed to play in country S due to a previous trip he had made to
country I for a trial. Hence, according to the player, the club decided to send him back
to country G, leaving country S on 19 April 2009.
5.
Moreover, according to the player, before he left country S on 19 April 2009 and so as
to be ‘’released’’ by the club, he was coerced into signing a document stating that he
had received from Club A all the remuneration he was entitled to.
6.
The player alleged that every time he had an opportunity to play for another club, Club
A requested a transfer compensation of USD 100,000. Furthermore, the player
sustained that he had an offer from Club Y, country M, which he could not honour due
to the way he was treated by the club.
7.
Therefore, the player asked that the club be declared in breach of contract and be
ordered to pay the total amount of USD 300,000, which was detailed as follows:
Remainder of the contract
Potential contract with Club Y
Denied bonuses and interests on borrowed funds
and unemployment hardships
USD 183,000
USD 42,000
USD 75,000
8.
Finally, the player alleged that, although after having had the opportunity to do so, he
did not enter into any new labour relationship with any club after leaving the country S
club due to Club A’s financial demands.
9.
In reply to the claim, the club submitted that the player’s statements regarding the
alleged coercion into signing the aforementioned document do not fit the status of the
club as being a professional club and asked that the file be closed.
Player D, from country G / Club A, from country S
2/4
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 case at hand. In this respect,
it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 10 May 2010.
Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee
and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are
applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 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 conjunction with art. 22
lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), 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
country G player and a country S club.
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 (editions 2012,
2010 and 2009), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 4 May 2010, the
2009 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. The members of
the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case, as well as the
documentation contained in the file. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the
parties had signed an employment contract valid as from 1 February 2009 until 1
August 2011, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive, inter alia,
the monthly salary of USD 7,333.
5.
Furthermore, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant signed a
document containing a declaration (hereinafter: waiver) in accordance with which the
player admitted having received all his dues and entitlements from the club (cf. point
I./5. above).
6.
In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Claimant alleged that the waiver was
signed by him, prior to his departure from country S on 19 April 2009, under pressure
from the club and in order to be ‘’released’’ by the latter. Whereas, on the other hand,
the Respondent is of the firm opinion that the waiver was signed by the player without
any type of coercion whatsoever and, consequently, rejects the claim lodged against it.
7.
In this regard, referring to 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 DRC took into account that the player failed to present documentary
Player D, from country G / Club A, from country S
3/4
evidence in support of his allegation that he had been coerced, by the Respondent, into
signing the above-mentioned waiver. Consequently, the DRC decided that the
Claimant’s allegations in this regard cannot be accepted.
8.
In the light of all of the above, and in particular bearing in mind the fact that the
Claimant signed the aforementioned waiver, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided
that it must reject the claim put forward by the Claimant.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
The claim of the Claimant, Player D, is rejected.
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 67 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: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Encl.: CAS directives
Player D, from country G / Club A, from country S
4/4