Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 9 February 2017,
in the following composition:
Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman
Eirik Monsen (Norway), member
Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member
Taku Nomiya (Japan), member
Todd Durbin (USA), 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 4 November 2013, the Club of Country D Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent
or the Club) sent the Player of Country B Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant or
the player) a letter, by means of which, it invited him “to visit the Club from
December 1, 2013 until December 31, 2015”, also accepting “to cover all costs
with housing, food and any other it may be necessary during the Player’s stay in
Country D” (hereinafter: the invitation letter).
2. According to the Claimant, on 18 January 2014, he and the Respondent signed
an employment contract valid as from 1 February 2014 until 31 December 2015
(hereinafter: the contract), pursuant to which the club committed to pay the
player “an annual salary of 45,000,000 (3,750,000 per month)”.
3. In accordance with art. 11, par. 3 of the contract, “in the event this Contract is
terminated due to reasons attributable to the Club, the remainder of the Basic
Annual Compensation prescribed in this Contract shall be paid to the Player. In
the event the Contract is terminated due to the reasons attributable to the
Player, the Club shall pay the Basic Annual Compensation on the calculation
basis from the date of termination (hereinafter “Month”) the days the Month
plus the remaining number of days after the Basic Annual Compensation is paid
in the month immediately preceding to the Termination Month shall be
calculated basis”.
4. On 17 September 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim against the club for breach
contract.
5. In particular, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent, on 17 February 2014,
“informed the [player] that would terminate his employment contract with
immediately effect, i.e. without prior notice” and paid him “on the same day
[…] 1,875,000 (half salary)”.
6. Finally, the Claimant argued that the contract was terminated by the
Respondent without just cause and requested the payment of compensation in
accordance with art. 11 par. 3 of the contract, amounting to 45,000,000, plus
interest at 5% rate p.a.. In particular, the Claimant held that art. 11 par. 3 of the
contract “works as a truly penalty clause” and, as a consequence thereof, “the
Respondent had to pay the Player a Basic Annual Compensation of 45,000,000”.
7. In its reply, the Respondent admitted that, in “early 2014”, it “performed a test”
on the player “through Mr E”, but denied having signed the contract. Moreover,
the Respondent alleged that the documents submitted by the player were
“counterfeit or deliberately renewed”.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
2
8. In particular, with reference to the invitation letter, the Respondent stressed
that:
- it was signed by a person who was not the president of the club and “totally
unknown” to the Respondent;
- the club house address reported therein was not “the address of Club C’s club
house” and “totally unknown” to the Respondent;
- the seal on such letter did not belong to the Respondent.
9. Furthermore, with reference to the contract, the club added that:
- it also contained a seal different from the club’s original one;
- it was not signed by the Respondent;
- it did not contain the Claimant’s seal.
10. In addition, the club denied the payment of 1,875,000 to the Claimant, but “only
paid the player 6000 (85 USD) on February 12, 2014 for the living expenses
during his stay”. According to the Respondent, such payment was made since
the Respondent “did not sign a contract and left earlier than the player from the
training camp in Country F”.
11. In his replica, the Claimant affirmed that the Respondent presented him the
invitation letter “through its representative Mr E” and argued that the
Respondent, thus, admitted the invitation to the Claimant “to flew to another
country” and “sent him the flight tickets”. Moreover, the Claimant emphasized
that the Respondent did not present the payment receipt for the amount of USD
85 because the amount actually paid was 1,875,000.
12. Furthermore, the Claimant reiterated that the Respondent breached the
contract, adding that the same was “signed in locu by a club’s representative
who was the same person that signed the invitation letter”.
13. In its duplica, the Respondent repeated its previous arguments and stated that
the Claimant “was brought by Mr E to attend a tryout session in Country F”.
Along these lines, the club emphasized that Mr E was not a Respondent’s
representative, but just “one of many agents in the football industry”.
14. Moreover, the Respondent explained that the Claimant was paid the minimum
expenses (“6,000 (USD 85)”) at the end of the training period in Country F,
“required to get him back to his country as an act of good will”.
15. Finally, the Respondent stressed that it did not write the invitation letter and
repeated that it neither signed such letter nor the alleged contract.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
3
16. Upon request of the FIFA Administration, the Claimant informed that he
remained unemployed from March 2015 until 31 December 2015.
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 17 September 2015. 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 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 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 17
September 2015, the 2015 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, according to the Claimant, on 4 November 2013,
the Respondent sent him an invitation letter and, on 18 January 2014, the
parties concluded an employment contract valid as from 1 February 2014 until 31
December 2015.
6. Furthermore, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent terminated the contract
on 17 February 2014 and paid him half monthly salary only. Therefore, the
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
4
Claimant, based on the compensation clause contained in the alleged contract,
asked to be awarded compensation for breach of contract.
7. The Dispute Resolution Chamber equally took due note of the fact that the
Respondent, on its part, had categorically denied having sent the invitation
letter submitted by the Claimant, as well as the conclusion of an employment
contract with the Claimant. Nonetheless, the Respondent admitted that the
Claimant performed a test with the Claimant “in early 2014”, but however
argued that the only payment made to the Claimant was of USD 85 for living
expenses on 12 February 2014. Moreover, the Respondent concluded that the
claim should be rejected since the Respondent never entered into any
employment contract with the Claimant.
8. In view of the aforementioned dissent positions of the parties in respect of the
basic question as to whether or not an employment 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. The
application of the said principle in the present matter led the members of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber to conclude that it was up to the Claimant to prove
the existence of the conclusion of an employment contract with the Respondent.
9. Having stated the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber recalled that the
Respondent affirmed that it never signed a written employment contract with
the Claimant and maintained that the copy of the contract remitted by the
Claimant was forged. What is more, the Claimant expressly admitted being
unable to provide the relevant employment contract in its original form signed
by hand.
10. At this stage, the Dispute Resolution Chamber considered appropriate to remark
that, as a general rule, FIFA’s deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon
matters of criminal law, such as the ones of alleged falsified signature or
document, and that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the competent
national criminal authority.
11. On account of these considerations, the Chamber held that, in accordance with
its long-standing jurisprudence, the fact the Claimant had only submitted a copy
of the disputed contract was insufficient to establish the existence of the alleged
contractual relationship.
12. Moreover, the members of the Chamber noted than Claimant did not submit
other documents in support of its claim, but only some alleged flight tickets.
13. In view of the above, the members of the Chamber held that, in order for the
Chamber to be able to assume that the Respondent and the Claimant had
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
5
indeed been bound through a contractual relationship with the terms as
described by the Claimant, it had to be established, by documentary evidence,
that the said parties had indeed entered into a respective labour agreement and,
if so, under which terms. In general, the members of the Chamber held that they
could not assume that an employment contract had been concluded by and
between parties simply based on circumstances which, in general, may be likely
but do not imply with certainty the signing of a contract. In addition, the
members of the Chamber agreed that the Dispute Resolution Chamber must be
very careful with accepting documents, other than the employment contract, as
evidence for the conclusion of a contract.
14. Consequently, the members of the Chamber concluded that the Claimant did not
prove to Chamber’s satisfaction that the Respondent and the Claimant had
validly entered into an employment contract, regardless of the fact that the
Respondent performed a test with the Claimant for a certain period of time. In
fact, the members of the Chamber found, considering the particularities of the
present matter, quite plausible that the scenario presented by the Respondent
actually happened.
15. On account of all the aforementioned considerations, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber decided that, since the Claimant had not been able to prove that an
employment contract had validly been concluded between himself and the
Respondent, there was no possibility for the Chamber to enter into the question
whether or not such alleged employment contract had been breached.
16. All the above led the Dispute Resolution Chamber to conclude that the claim of
the player has to be rejected.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is rejected.
*****
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
6
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: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Omar Ongaro
Football Regulatory Director
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
7