Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 April 2017,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thom ps on (England), Chairman
Moham ed Mecherara (Algeria), member
Leonardo Gros s o (Italy ), member
on the matter between the player,
Play er A, Country B
as Claimant
and the club,
Club C, Country D
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
arisen between the parties
I. Facts of the case
1. On 30 May 2016, the Player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant),
concluded an “amateur contract” (hereinafter: the contract) with the Club of
Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), valid as from the date of
signature “until the end of the 2016/2017 season.” (i.e. until 30 June 2017).
2. According to the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a monthly remuneration
in the amount of EUR 1,000.
3. In addition, the Claimant was entitled to “housing, electricity, water and internet
connection + round trip airplane tickets”.
4. Moreover, article 23 of the contract stipulated the following:
« Le club se réserve le droit de rompre à tout moment la convention
unilatéralement »
"The [Respondent] reserves its rights to unilaterally terminate the contract at any
time" (note: free translation from French).
5. On 24 January 2017, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the
Respondent for breach of contract without just cause, and requested the payment
of a total amount of EUR 7,000 as compensation, corresponding to his
remuneration until May 2017, plus “respective interests”.
6. In particular, the Claimant explained that, even though the contract was formally
specified as having an amateur nature, it should be understood as a professional
contract. More specifically, and in reference to art. 2 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players, the Claimant argued that the contract stipulated a
fixed monthly remuneration and that, considering that the Respondent
committed to pay his housing costs and other fringe benefits, it can be established
that his remuneration was higher than the costs in which he incurred as a football
player.
7. As to the facts, the Claimant explained that, on 5 November 2016, the
Respondent’s sports director sent him an email, according to which he informed
him that the Respondent’s president and coach were not satisfied with his
performance and that, consequently, they decided to release him from his
obligations towards the Respondent. In this regard, the Claimant further
indicated that the Respondent attached to said email a “release letter”, allegedly
signed by its president.
8. In this regard, the Claimant argued that the Respondent had no just cause to
terminate the contract on the basis of his performance and that, within this
context, the contents of article 23 of the contract (cf. point I.4 above) must be
disregarded.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
2
9. In its reply, the Respondent considered that the Claimant failed to meet the
required sporting expectations and that, in view of the above, he was released
from all his obligations. Moreover, the Respondent explained that “in November
2016”, it reached an amicable settlement with the Claimant. Moreover, the
Respondent insisted that it had no outstanding payments towards the Claimant.
10. After being invited to provide his replica, the Claimant explained that he did not
want to provide any further comments.
11. Finally, and upon FIFA’s request, the Claimant informed that he remained
unemployed until January 2017, and that, on 5 January 2017, he concluded an
amateur contract with the Club of Country B, Club E, valid as from the date of
signature until 30 June 2017. According to the fourth clause of said contract, the
Claimant was entitled to a monthly refund in the amount of EUR 300 for his
activities as a football player, upon presentation of a receipt detailing the
incurred costs.
II. Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber)
analyzed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect,
he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 24 January 2017.
Consequently, the 2017 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 2017
edition of the Procedural Rules).
2. Subsequently, the DRC referred to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed
that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016) he is
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated disputes between a club and a player with an international dimension
between a Player of Country B and a Club of Country D.
3. The competence having been established, the Chamber decided thereafter to
analyze 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, 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
matter was submitted to FIFA on 24 January 2017, the 2016 edition of the
aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the
matter at hand as to the substance.
4. Having established the foregoing, and entering into the substance of the matter,
the DRC continued by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the
documentation contained in the file in relation to the substance of the matter.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
3
refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered
pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
5. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that, on 30 May 2016, the parties to
the dispute had signed an employment contract valid as from 30 May 2016 “until
the end of the 2016/2017 season.”
6. Subsequently, the Chamber noted that the Claimant lodged a claim against the
Respondent, maintaining that the latter had unilaterally terminated the
employment contract on 5 November 2016 by means of “release letter” attached
to an email, due to the Claimant’s alleged low performance. Consequently, the
Claimant asks to be awarded with compensation for breach of the employment
contract.
7. In this respect, the members of the Chamber took note of the Respondent’s
position, which confirmed that it terminated the contract for alleged low
performance.
8. Having established the foregoing, the Chamber turned its attention to the
question as to whether the contract had been terminated by the Respondent with
or without just cause.
9. In this context, the Chamber turned its attention to article 23 of the employment
contract, which apparently supported said form of termination.
10. As stated above, according to the aforementioned article, "The [Respondent]
reserves its rights to unilaterally terminate the contract at any time".
11. In this respect, the Chamber held that it could not accept said article as being
valid, as it provides for a unilateral termination right that is based on a purely
one-sided and subjective evaluation allegedly made by the Respondent.
12. In addition to the unilateral character of said clause, the Chamber pointed out
that, in accordance with its longstanding jurisprudence and as a general principle,
a player cannot be dismissed for alleged poor performance. Thus, the Chamber
emphasised that poor or unsatisfactory performance cannot be considered as a
just cause to terminate a contract. Hence, the Chamber considered that by
terminating the contract based on poor performance, the Respondent acted in an
abusive manner and without just cause.
13. In view of the aforementioned, the Chamber stated that the unilateral
termination of the employment contract on 5 November 2016 by the Respondent
constitutes a breach of contract without just cause.
14. Notwithstanding the above, the members of the Chamber observed that,
according to the Respondent, the parties reached an amicable settlement “in
November 2016” (cf. point I. 9 above).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
4
15. In this respect, the Chamber deemed relevant to refer 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.
16. Within this context, the members of the Chamber observed that the Respondent
failed to provide any evidence as to the existence of the aforementioned amicable
settlement. Consequently, the members of the Chamber unanimously agreed that
the allegation from the Respondent as to the aforementioned amicable
settlement had to be dismissed.
17. Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber went on to deal with
the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract without
just cause by the Respondent on 5 November 2016.
18. In this regard, the members of the Chamber noted that, according to the contract,
the Respondent committed to pay to the Claimant the total amount of EUR 1,000
per month.
19. Subsequently, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of the
breach of contract in question and, in this respect, it decided that, taking into
consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Claimant is entitled to receive
from the Respondent compensation for breach of contract on the basis of the
relevant employment contract.
20. In continuation, 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
Claimant 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.
21. 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 at the basis of the matter at stake.
22. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in
application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations.
The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive
enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the
amount of compensation payable. Therefore, other objective criteria may be
taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
5
23. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber
proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the
terms of the employment contract until 30 June 2017 (i.e. the original date of
expiration of the contract). In this regard, the members of the Chamber observed,
as detailed above, that under the contract, the Respondent agreed to pay to the
Claimant a monthly remuneration of EUR 1,000. Consequently, the members of
the DRC established that, accordingly, the Claimant would have earned the
amount of EUR 8,000, which serves as the basis for the calculation of the payable
compensation.
24. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by
means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income.
According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount
of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the Claimant’s general
obligation to mitigate his damages.
25. In this regard, the DRC remarked that, following the termination of the contract
by the Respondent, the Claimant had concluded a new employment with the Club
of Country B, Club E, valid from 5 February 2017 until 30 June 2017, by means of
which said club committed to refund certain monthly expenses to the Claimant for
a maximum amount of EUR 300 per month. Therefore, the members of the
Chamber understood that said amounts are only refunds for costs and not a fixed
salary, and consequently, determined that it cannot be established that the
Claimant could mitigate his damages.
26. Moreover, the DRC took note of the claim of the Claimant, who requested the
payment of the amount of EUR 7,000, as well as of the general principle of non
ultra petita, according to which it cannot grant more to a party than it requested.
27. In conclusion, for all the above reasons, the Chamber decided accept the
Claimant’s request and that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the amount
of EUR 7,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, which is
considered by the Chamber to be a reasonable and justified amount as
compensation.
28. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant
practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC decided that the Respondent
must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the compensation as of from the
date of the claim.
III. Decis ion of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is accepted.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
6
2.
The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, w ithin 30 day s as from the
date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the
amount of EUR 7,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 24 January 2017 until the date
of effective payment.
3.
In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the
stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA
Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
4.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of
the account number to which the remittance under point 2. is to be made and to
notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
*****
Note relating to the m otiv ated decis ion (legal remedy):
According to art. 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 (CAS)
Avenue de Beaumont 2
CH-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
Enclosed: CAS directives
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
7