Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 April 2014,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Ivan Gazidis (England), member
Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member
Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member
on the matter between the player,
Player S, from country M
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent
and the club,
Club V, from country U
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
and the club,
Club G, from country U
as Intervening Party
regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 20 February 2012, the player S, from country M (hereinafter: the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent or the player), and Club V, from country U
(hereinafter: the Respondent / Counter-Claimant or the club), concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from 20 February
2012 until 31 August 2014, as well as three annexes.
2.
According to Annexe No. 3 of the contract, the player was entitled to a
monthly remuneration as follows:
- USD 23,500 as from 29 February 2012 until 31 August 2012;
- USD 28,500 as from 1 September 2012 until 31 August 2014.
3.
Art. 1. par. 2 of the contract reads as follows: “The present Contract is a
fixed-date labour agreement and is concluded in accordance with Labour
Code of country U, the country U Law “On physical culture and sports”,
Order of the Cabinet of Ministers “On the order of the contract form of
labour agreement”, FIFA and UEFA legal documents, Regulations of the
country U football competitions among the professional teams, the Club
Statute and other applicable country U law.”
4.
Art. 2 par. 1 of the contract stipulates: Labour relationship and mutual
obligations between the parties should be regulated by the present
Contract, the current country U legislation, the Club Statute and Internal
Code of labour conduct, Collective Agreement and other Statutory
documents of the Club, by FIFA, UEFA, country U Football Federation, PLU
legal documents, and particularly, by the country U Football Federation -PLU
Regulations.”
5.
Art. 7 par. 4 of the contract states: “In the event of early termination of the
Contract initiated by player or by his guilty or negligent action to footballers
sanctioned by a fine in the amount of 5 million (five million U.S. Dollars),
and the Footballer should reimburse to the club of the amounts paid by it to
the Footballer, losses (Art. 22 of the Civil Code of country U), including those
that were carried by the Club for acquisition and payment for services if
other footballer, connected with non-fulfillment by the Footballer of his
obligations according to this Contract in result of his termination.”
6.
Art. 7 par. 6 of the contract stipulates: “The Parties undertake to settle by
negotiations and agreements any disputes and disagreements, that may
arise in the process of the present Contract obligations fulfilment. If they fail
to come to agreement between the Footballer and the Club, the final
Player S, from country M / Club V, from country U / Club G, from country U
Page 2 of 16
decision is taken by the Club Board and may be appealed against according
to the norms of country U Football Federation/PLU Regulations.”
7.
Art. 7 par. 7 of the contract stipulates: “The parties declare that they accept
the exclusive jurisdiction of country U Football Federation.”
8.
Art. 8 par. 4 of the contract reads as follows: “It is agreed upon that only the
country U legislation is applicable to the provisions of the present Contract.”
9.
Art. 9 of Annexe No. 2 and art. 8 of Annexe 3 state: “In all other cases that
not provided by this Annex, the Parties guide with Contract and its annexes,
legislation of the country U, regulations of country U Football Federation,
PL, UEFA and FIFA (as they defined in the Contract)”.
10.
On 12 June 2013, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA
explaining that the club had not paid him his salaries for the months of
January, February, March and April 2013. In this respect, the player outlined
the following timeline:
-
-
11.
8 May 2013; the player sent a letter to the club, via the country U
Football Federation, asking payment of the amount of USD 114,000
by no later than 15 May 2013;
16 May 2013; the club only paid the amount due for January 2013,
still leaving a balance of USD 85,500;
20 May 2013; the player sent a notice to the club by means of
which he terminated the contract invoking just cause.
As a consequence, the player is claiming the total amount of USD 541,500
from the club, calculated as follows:
- USD 101,608.70 as outstanding remuneration for the months of February
2013 to April 2013 as well as 19 days of May 2013;
- USD 439,891.30 as compensation for breach of contract.
12.
Equally, the player is claiming 5% interest as from each respective due date.
13.
In reply to the claim lodged against it, the club first contested FIFA’s
competence invoking art. 7 paras. 6 and 7 of the contract, asserting that the
parties had agreed upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Dispute
Resolution Chamber (NDRC) of the country U Football Federation. In this
respect, the club holds that the country U Football Federation NDRC
Player S, from country M / Club V, from country U / Club G, from country U
Page 3 of 16
guarantees fair proceedings and respects
representation between players and club.
14.
the
principle
of
equal
In this context, the club provided a copy of the country U Football
Federation NDRC Regulations, which were approved by the Executive
Committee of the country U Football Federation on 3 September 2012 and
establish that:
- the country U Football Federation NDRC has exclusive jurisdiction to
resolve disputes between clubs and players relating to issues of
employment and contractual disputes arising from labour
relationships.
Composition
- Art. 3. par. 1: The DRC of the country U Football Federation consists
of individuals elected for a term of four years, as follows:
a) Chairman and Deputy Chairman – shall be elected from a list of
at least five persons proposed by the Executive Committee of the
country U Football Federation with the consent of the
representatives of the clubs/leagues and footballers;
b) From three to ten representatives of the footballers – shall be
elected or appointed by the Presidium of the All country U Trade
Union “Football of country U” and the Association of
Professional Footballers of country U;
c) From three to ten representatives of the clubs/leagues – shall be
elected or appointed on the proposal of the General Meeting of
members of the Premier League, the Association of Futsal Clubs
of country U and the Central Council of the Professional Football
League of country U from among the candidate proposed by the
clubs.
- Art. 3 par. 4: Among the proposed, in the manner provided for by
paragraph 1 of this article, candidates, create a list of members of
the DRC of the country U Football Federation, which shall be
approved by the Executive Committee of the country U Football
Federation, except for the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the
DRC of the country U Football Federation, who shall be elected at
the first session of the DRC of the country U Football Federation.
- Art. 32: Proceedings before the DRC of the country U Football
Federation are free of charge. They shall not incur any procedural
costs except where provided for under article 21 par. 7 of these
Regulations.
- Art. 34. As a last resort, DRC’s decisions may be the subject of an
appeal before the International Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Player S, from country M / Club V, from country U / Club G, from country U
Page 4 of 16
15.
Furthermore, the club provided a copy of “DECISION No. 8” of the Executive
Committee of the country U Football Federation, dated 3 September 2012,
which establishes the creation of the country U Football Federation NDRC
and stipulates the detailed composition of said body (i.e. the names of the
members of the NDRC country U Football Federation and their functions).
Moreover, in accordance with art. 3 par. 4 of said decision, the various
members of the NDRC are approved by the Executive Committee of the
country U Football Federation. Also, art. 3 par. 9 provides that “The DRC of
the country U Football Federation shall start its activities from September 4,
2012.”
16.
Alternatively, and as to the substance, the club denies that the player
terminated the contract in a proper manner. Since, according to the club,
the contract remains silent on this issue, it considers that country U labour
law should apply. In accordance with art. 38 of the Labour Code of country
U, an employee may terminate the contract with a two-week notice.
However, the player’s notice was sent on 20 May 2013 only and, at that time,
the player was already absent from the club’s training camp, thus, not
observing the prescribed procedure of termination. The club insists on the
application of country U law, referring to art. 25 par. 6 and art 17. par. 1 of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
17.
What is more, the club states that the player was absent as from 20 May
2013 until 24 May 2013, this being a major violation of the labour code,
which states that a 3-hour absence from work may already constitute
grounds for dismissal.
18.
Therefore, on 3 June 2013, the club issued an “order 22-OD on non-payment
to the player of his salary for the period of his absence from work” and
submitted a copy of said order by means of which the “Accounting
Department” of the club was ordered to “not charge salary for the absence
of the player from 20 to 24 May 2013” and to “not accrue salary for the
period of absence from work.” Equally, the club contacted the country U
Football Federation, the League as well as the Union to report the player’s
absence.
19.
Finally, and without prejudice, the club lodged a counter-claim against the
player requesting payment of the amount of USD 5,000,000 on the basis of
art. 7 par. 4 of the contract.
20.
In his replica, the player contests that there is a valid and exclusive
arbitration clause in favour of the country U Football Federation NDRC.
Equally, the player contests that there exists an independent NDRC in
Player S, from country M / Club V, from country U / Club G, from country U
Page 5 of 16
country U, stating that the relevant body does not comply with the principle
of equal representation. In particular, the player refers to art. 3 par. 4 of
“DECISION No.8” and stresses that “said Decision rules that all of the five
footballer’s representatives are chosen, approved and appointed by the
Executive Committee of the country U Football Federation”. The player adds
that also the club representatives are elected by the country U Football
Federation’s Executive Committee and that the country U Football
Federation NDRC cannot guarantee that “the interests of the player as
foreigner will be treated fair and impartial”. Finally, the player states that
there is no explicit establishment of the number of representatives of player
or clubs and the NDRC country U Football Federation is not a body of the
country U Football Federation, but rather an arbitration court established in
compliance with the civil legislation of country U.
21.
Furthermore, the player claimed that on 20 February 2012, i.e. when he
signed the contract, the country U Football Federation DRC did not yet exist.
22.
In the alternative, should the country U Football Federation NDRC be
recognised, the player stresses that the Statutes of the country U Football
Federation “does not regulate the existence of a national dispute resolution
chamber or its competence. It is only provided that the Control and
Disciplinary Committee and the Appeal Committee are entrusted with
applying football justice”. In sum, the player holds that there is no evidence
that the country U Football Federation NDRC is a legitimate body within the
framework of the country U Football Federation.
23.
As to the substance, the player rejects the application of country U labour
law as well as the application of the Regulations of the country U Football
Federation.
24.
Moreover, the player points out that:
a)
b)
c)
The club does not contest the debts towards him;
The termination of the contract was properly done. On 8 May 2013
the club was notified of its debt and on 20 May 2013 the contract
was terminated;
The documents related to his absence in May 2013 are false and
untrue and explicitly created for the purposes of the present
procedure. The player stresses that all evidence submitted by the
club pertains to dates after the date of the termination, i.e. after 20
May 2013. Also, all statements are made by people connected to the
club and are contradicting; the club holds that that the player was
absent as from different dates;
Player S, from country M / Club V, from country U / Club G, from country U
Page 6 of 16
d)
The club contacted the player in September 2013 to settle the matter
amicably. However, the club only sent a document which stated that
the contract was terminated and that the debts were settled,
without any stipulations regarding the payment of the outstanding
debts.
25.
As to the counterclaim, the player deems that it is groundless, unjustified
and unproven.
26.
In its duplica dated 2 December 2013, the club states that, in accordance
with art. 27 in conjunction with art. 48 of the country U Football Federation
Statutes, the player should have first lodged a claim in front of the
competent football authorities of the country U Football Federation.
27.
On 17 December 2013, the club sent an unsolicited correspondence outlining
why the NDRC of the country U Football Federation is competent and duly
constituted. Amongst others, the club states that:
a) The country U Football Federation NDRC was established according to
the decision of the country U Football Federation Executive Committee of
3 September 2012. “Taking into account that at the moment of country U
Football Federation DRC establishment, the Contract in which the Parties
recognized the exclusive jurisdiction of country U Football Federation,
remained valid, the parties de facto have agreed to respect country U
Football Federation DRC jurisdiction”.
b) The country U Football Federation NDRC is independent; country U
Football Federation NDRC members may not be a member of the country
U Football Federation Executive Committee or Presidium.
c) In accordance with art. 53 of the country U Football Federation
Disciplinary Rules, a decision of the country U Football Federation NDRC
can be appealed to CAS.
d) The NDRC country U Football Federation has equal representation
between players and clubs; 3 to 10 representatives are elected by the
Presidium of the All-country U Professional Association country U
Football and the country U Association of Professional Football Players,
and 3 to 10 representatives from clubs and leagues. The representatives
of the players and clubs shall appoint the Head and the Deputy Head of
country U Football Federation DRC.
28.
Also, the club once more challenged the termination of the contract by the
player, referring to country U labour law, in particular art. 44 of the Labour
Code of country U, according to which “lawful to apply the basic discharge
Player S, from country M / Club V, from country U / Club G, from country U
Page 7 of 16
allowance rate (…) the size of the compensation shall be fixed at the
amount of the Claimant’s three-month average salary.”
29.
Upon request of FIFA, the player indicated he was unemployed between
May and October 2013. He signed an employment contract with the Club G,
from country U on 10 September 2013, valid as from 10 September 2013
until 31 May 2014, in accordance with which the player was entitled to a
monthly salary of USD 15,000 and USD 500 per month for accommodation.
On 10 December 2013, the club and player agreed upon the termination of
the contract. On 3 March 2014, the player signed a new contract with the
Club K valid until 30 November 2014, where he was entitled to a monthly
salary of currency of country Y 2,750,000.
30.
In view of the club’s counter-claim and considering art. 17 par. 2 and 4 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, Club G was invited to
provide its comments in relation to the present matter; however it failed to
do so.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or
Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In
this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to
FIFA on 12 June 2013. Consequently, the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is 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 2012) the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on
employment-related disputes between a club and a player that have an
international dimension.
3.
As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be
competent to decide on the present litigation which involves a player from the
country M and a country U club regarding an employment-related dispute.
4.
However, the Chamber acknowledged that the club contested the competence of
FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of art. 7 paras. 6 and 7 of the contract,
Player S, from country M / Club V, from country U / Club G, from country U
Page 8 of 16
asserting that the parties had agreed upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the NDRC
of the country U Football Federation.
5.
On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the player insisted on the
competence of the FIFA DRC to adjudicate on the claim lodged by him against the
club.
6.
Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance
with art. 22 lit. b) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players it is competent to deal with a matter such as the one at hand,
unless an independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing fair proceedings and
respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs, has been
established at national level within the framework of the association and/or a
collective bargaining agreement. With regard to the standards to be imposed on
an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings, the Chamber
referred to the FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. Equally, the
members of the Chamber referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National
Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which were issued on
1 January 2008.
7.
In relation to the above, the Chamber also deemed it vital to outline that one of
the basic conditions that needs to be met in order to establish that another organ
than the DRC is competent to settle an employment-related dispute between a
club and a player of an international dimension, is that the jurisdiction of the
relevant national arbitration tribunal or national court derives from a clear
reference in the employment contract.
8.
Therefore, while analysing whether it was competent to hear the present matter,
the Dispute Resolution Chamber considered that it should, first and foremost,
analyse whether the employment contract at the basis of the present dispute
contained a clear jurisdiction clause.
9.
In this respect, the Chamber recalled that art. 7 par. 6 of the contract stipulates:
“The Parties undertake to settle by negotiations and agreements any disputes and
disagreements, that may arise in the process of the present Contract obligations
fulfilment. If they fail to come to agreement between the Footballer and the
Club, the final decision is taken by the Club Board and may be appealed against
according to the norms of country U Football Federation/PLU Regulations.”
10.
Equally, the Chamber recalled that art. 7 par. 7 of the contract stipulates: “The
parties declare that they accept the exclusive jurisdiction of country U Football
Federation.”
Player S, from country M / Club V, from country U / Club G, from country U
Page 9 of 16
11.
Having examined the relevant provisions, the Chamber came to the unanimous
conclusion that the aforementioned two provisions do not constitute a clear
jurisdiction clause in favour of one specific court or arbitration tribunal in country
U Football Federation, since they only refer to the “norms” and “jurisdiction” of
the country U Football Federation.
12.
Furthermore, the Chamber wished to emphasise that the country U Football
Federation Regulations provided by the club came into force in September 2012
only, whereas the contract at the centre of the present dispute was already signed
on 20 February 2012. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that, on 20 February
2012, the parties to the contract could simply not have agreed to submit their
potential disputes to the arbitration body of the country U Football Federation
which only started its activity in September 2012.
13.
On account of all the above, the Chamber established that the club’s objection
towards the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be
rejected and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of
art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider
the present matter as to the substance.
14.
In continuation, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the
matter. In this respect, the Chamber referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012) and,
on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged on 12 June 2013.
Therefore, the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that the 2012 edition of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the
Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
15.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber
continued by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the
documentation contained in the file.
16.
First of all, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that, on 20 February
2012, the player and the club had concluded an employment contract valid as
from 20 February 2012 until 31 August 2014 in accordance with which the player
was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 23,500 as from 29 February 2012 until 31
August 2012 and a monthly salary of USD 28,500 as from 1 September 2012 until
31 August 2014.
17.
The Chamber further observed that the player unilaterally terminated the
contract in writing on 20 May 2013 invoking just cause, and that he subsequently
Player S, from country M / Club V, from country U / Club G, from country U
Page 10 of 16
lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the club seeking payment of the amount
of USD 541,500.
18.
The Chamber acknowledged that the player held that his salaries had not been
paid as from January 2013 until April 2013 and that, as a result, he had put the
club in default in writing on 8 May 2013. Following said default letter, the club
only proceeded with the payment of the player’s salary for January 2013.
Therefore, the player argued that he had terminated the contract with just cause
on 20 May 2013.
19.
Furthermore, the Chamber observed that the club, for its part, was of the opinion
that the player did not terminate the contract in accordance with country U law,
which it considers to be the governing law of the contract. More particularly, the
club held that, in accordance with art. 38 of the Labour Code of country U, an
employee may only terminate the contract with a two-week notice. However,
since the player’s notice was sent on 20 May 2013 only and since he was, at the
time, already absent from the club, the player did not observe the prescribed
procedure of termination.
20.
The Chamber equally noted that the club stated that the player was absent as
from 20 May 2013 until 24 May 2013, this being a major violation of the labour
code, which states that a 3-hour absence from work may already constitute
grounds for dismissal. As a consequence, the club lodged a counter-claim against
the player in the amount of USD 5,000,000 as per art. 7 par. 4 of the contract.
21.
Having duly considered the submissions of both parties, the Chamber started with
addressing the club’s argument that the termination of the contract by the player
had not been done in accordance with country U law. In this context, the DRC
wished to point out that when deciding on a dispute before the DRC, FIFA’s
regulations prevail over any national law chosen by the parties. In this regard, the
Chamber emphasized that the main objective of the FIFA regulations is to create a
standard set of rules to which all the actors within the football community are
subject to and can rely on. This objective would not be achievable if the DRC
would have to apply the national law of a specific party on every dispute brought
to it. This should apply, in particular, also to the termination of a contract. In this
respect, the DRC wished to point out that it is in the interest of football that the
termination of contract is based on uniform criteria rather than on provisions of
national law that may vary considerable from country to country. Therefore, the
Chamber deems that it is not appropriate to apply the principles of a particular
national law to the termination of the contract but rather the Regulations,
general principles of law and, where existing, the Chamber’s well-established
jurisprudence. The Chamber also wished to stress that both art. 1 par. 2 and art. 2
par. 1 of the contract refer to the rules and regulations of FIFA. Therefore, the
Player S, from country M / Club V, from country U / Club G, from country U
Page 11 of 16
Chamber decided that the aforementioned argument of the club has to be
rejected.
22.
Having established the above, the Chamber stressed that the club did not contest
that, at the time of the termination of the contract, i) the salaries for February to
April 2013 had not been paid, and ii) that it had received the player’s default
notice letter. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber established that on 20 May
2013, the following payments were outstanding: i) USD 28,500 for the salary of
February 2013, ii) USD 28,500 for the salary of March 2013, and iii) USD 28,500 for
the salary of April 2013. Furthermore, the Chamber determined that the club, on
8 May 2013, was put in default by the player for the aforementioned salaries.
23.
In this context, the Chamber deemed it essential to point out that all the events
that occurred after 20 May 2013 and that were brought up by the club in its
defense are irrelevant for the question whether the player had terminated the
contract with or without just cause, since on 20 May 2013, the player had already
informed the club of his decision to terminate the contract. Hence, the Chamber,
when examining whether the player had a just cause to terminate the contract,
decided to take into account only those facts that occurred prior to 20 May 2013.
24.
Having taken into consideration the previous considerations, the Chamber
considered that the club had seriously neglected its contractual obligations
towards the player in a continuous and constant manner, i.e. the club had failed
to remunerate the player for a substantial period of time. Therefore, the Chamber
considered that the club was found to be in breach of the employment contract
and that the breach was of such seriousness that, in line with the Chamber’s longstanding and well-established jurisprudence, the player had a just cause to
unilaterally terminate the contractual relationship with the club on 20 May 2013,
having previously put the club in default of the outstanding amounts.
25.
On account of all the above, the Chamber established that the player had
terminated the employment contract with just cause on 20 May 2013 and that,
consequently, the club is to be held liable for the early termination of the
employment contact with just cause by the player.
26.
Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber went on to deal with
the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract with just
cause by the player.
27.
First of all, the members of the Chamber decided to reject the counter-claim
lodged by the club against the player.
28.
Secondly, the Chamber concurred that the club must fulfill its obligations as per
employment contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta
Player S, from country M / Club V, from country U / Club G, from country U
Page 12 of 16
sunt servanda”. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay
to the player the remuneration that was outstanding at the time of the
termination i.e. the amount of USD 85,500, consisting of the monthly salaries of
February, March and April 2013.
29.
Furthermore, and considering the player’s claim for interest, the Chamber
determined that the club must pay 5% interest on the amount of USD 85,500 as
from the respective due dates.
30.
In continuation, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par.
1 of the Regulations, the player is entitled to receive from the club compensation
for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding remuneration on the basis
of the relevant employment contract.
31.
In this context, the Chamber outlined that, in accordance with said provision, the
amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise
provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for
the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective
criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the
player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on
the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether
the contractual breach falls within the protected period.
32.
In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to
clarify whether the pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by
means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon a compensation payable
by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the
Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the
employment contract which would be applicable in the situation where the player
had a just cause to terminate the contract.
33.
Having recalled the aforementioned, and in order to evaluate the compensation
to be paid by the club, the members of the Chamber took into account the
remuneration due to the player in accordance with the employment contract as
well as the time remaining on the same contract, along with the professional
situation of the player after the early termination occurred. In this respect, the
Chamber pointed out that at the time of the termination of the employment
contract, the contract would run for another 16 months. Consequently, the
Chamber concluded that the remaining value of the contract as from its early
termination by the player until the regular expiry of the contract amounts to USD
456,000 and that such amount shall serve as the basis for the final determination
of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
Player S, from country M / Club V, from country U / Club G, from country U
Page 13 of 16
34.
In continuation, the Chamber remarked that the player had found new
employment with Club G, valid as from 10 September 2013 until 31 May 2014, in
accordance with which the player was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 15,000
and USD 500 per month for accommodation. Since the contract with Club G was
terminated before its original expiry, on 3 March 2014, the player signed a new
contract with the Club K valid until 30 November 2014, where he was entitled to a
monthly salary of currency of country K 2,750,000 which corresponds to
approximately USD 15,000. In its calculation, the Chamber decided to also take
into account the period between 10 December 2013 and 3 March 2014 in which
the player could have been able to mitigate his damages would he not have
agreed upon the mutual termination of the contract with Club G. Therefore, the
Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 183,000 should be considered as the
total value of his new employment contracts.
35.
Consequently, in accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution
Chamber and the general obligation of the player to mitigate his damages, such
remuneration under the new employment contract shall be taken into account in
the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
36.
In view of all of the above, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the
amount of USD 273,000 to the player, which is considered by the Chamber to be a
reasonable and justified amount as compensation for breach of contract.
37.
In addition, taking into account the player’s request, the Chamber decided that
the club must pay to the player interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of
compensation as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e. 12 June 2013,
until the date of effective payment.
38.
As a consequence, the DRC concluded that the club is liable to pay the total
amount of USD 358,500 to the player, consisting of the amount of USD 85,500
corresponding to the player’s outstanding remuneration and the amount of USD
273,000 corresponding to compensation for breach of contract.
39.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter
by establishing that any further claim lodged by the player is rejected.
*****
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Player S, is admissible.
Player S, from country M / Club V, from country U / Club G, from country U
Page 14 of 16
2.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club V, has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision,
outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 85,500, plus 5% interest until
the date of effective payment as follows:
a. 5% p.a. as of 1 March 2013 on the amount of USD 28,500;
b. 5% p.a. as of 1 April 2013 on the amount of USD 28,500;
c. 5% p.a. as of 1 May 2013 on the amount of USD 28,500.
4.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision,
compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 273,000 plus 5%
interest p.a. on said amount as from 12 June 2013 until the date of effective
payment.
5.
In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in
accordance with the above-mentioned numbers 3. and 4. are not paid by the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant within the stated time limits, the present matter
shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for
consideration and a formal decision.
6.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected.
7.
The counter-claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
8.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant immediately and directly of the account number to which the
remittances are to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of
every payment received.
*****
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
Player S, from country M / Club V, from country U / Club G, from country U
Page 15 of 16
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 S, from country M / Club V, from country U / Club G, from country U
Page 16 of 16