Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 1 February 2019,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thom ps on (England), Chairman
Roy Verm eer (Netherlands ), member
Johan v an Gaalen (S outh Africa), member
S tefano La Porta (Italy ), member
Pav el Piv ov arov (Rus s ia), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Play er 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 cas e
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.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 2 of 6
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.
Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
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.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 3 of 6
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,
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 4 of 6
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.
*****
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 5 of 6
III.
Decis ion of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is rejected.
*****
Note relating to the m otiv ated decis ion (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:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal Officer
Encl. CAS directives
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 6 of 6