Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 31 August 2017,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thom ps on (England), Chairman
Theo v an S eggelen (the Netherlands ), member
Wouter Lam brecht (Belgium ), member
Todd Durbin (US A), member
Takuy a Yam azaki (Japan), 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 July 2014, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant),
and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of
signature until 31 May 2015.
2. On the same date, 30 July 2014, the Claimant and the Respondent signed a
document called “Football Player’s Contract Schedule” (hereinafter: the
“schedule”). According to this document, the Claimant was to be remunerated
with a total amount of EUR 750,000 payable in ten installments.
3. In addition, clause “c” of the schedule, which regulated bonuses, established in its
first hyphen that “if the [Claimant] scored ten goals and making ten assist for
score goals he takes one hundred thousand Euro”. In addition, the second hyphen
of clause “c” of the schedule, established that “if the [Claimant] played 90% of
league matches takes reward hundred thousand Euro”.
4. On 4 January 2017, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the
Respondent and requested the following amounts:
- Outstanding amount of EUR 200,000 net, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June
2015, until the date of actual and complete payment, consisting of:
A EUR 100,000 bonus for having scored more than ten goals in the 20142015 season.
A EUR 100,000 bonus for having played in more than 90% of the league
matches in the 2014-2015 season.
5. Furthermore, the Claimant also requested that the Respondent reimburse the
legal costs and bear all procedural costs incurred by him.
6. In support of his claim, the Claimant indicated that he met the requirements of
the first hyphen of clause “c” of the schedule, as he scored eleven goals in the
2014-2015 season. Furthermore, the Claimant also argued that he played in all
league matches of the 2014-2015 season fulfilling the requirements of the second
hyphen of clause “c” of the schedule. In support of his allegations, the Claimant
added a chart with his statistics for the 2014-2015 season.
7. In this respect, the Claimant held that the Respondent did not pay the two bonus
payments of EUR 100,000 each. In this line, the Claimant explained that he tried
to notify the Respondent via fax on 5 March 2016 and requested the payment of
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
2
EUR 200,000, granting a deadline until 14 March 2016 for the payment of the
outstanding amount. Additionally, the Claimant informed that he requested the
Football Association of Country D to forward said letter to the Respondent as he
did not possess an accurate fax number.
8. Finally, the Claimant pointed out that he acted in good faith, respecting the terms
of the agreement with the Respondent and “conceding a reasonable time to
settle the entire debt which had been pending for over ten months by the date
the notifications were sent”.
9. In its reply to the claim lodged by the Claimant, the Respondent argued that FIFA’s
Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC) is not competent to deal with
the Claimant’s claim and consequently it should be considered inadmissible.
According to the Respondent, the claim is expressly and exclusively addressed
against Club C, which is not affiliated to the Football Association of Country D and
not a member of a league recognized by the Football Association of Country D
and certainly cannot be considered as a club in accordance with the relevant FIFA
regulations.
10. Moreover, the Respondent pointed out that the Club C Company, an affiliated
member of the Football Association of Country D, and Club C are two independent
entities. In this regard, the Respondent stressed that this aspect is confirmed by
the relevant “Commercial Registration Certificate” issued by the competent
authority of Country D, i.e. the Ministry of Business and Trade. According to the
Respondent, “said commercial registration certificate clearly reveals that (i) Club
C is the owner of the Club C Company which in said registration certificate is
identified as Club C Company, (ii) both aforesaid entities are separate legal
entities and that (iii) the activities of Club C Company, inter alia, are the
investment and participation in football conducted by the Football Association of
Country D, the continental football confederation and FIFA”.
11. Furthermore, the Respondent pointed out that after the end of the 2014/2015
season, the Claimant left Country D and joined the Club F from country E, as of
August 2015. In this context, the Respondent explained that the Claimant never
requested any alleged bonus from the Respondent before joining Club F. Rather,
“it was not until 5 March 2016 – i.e. 9 months following the end of the 2014-2015
sporting season – when the [Claimant] sent a letter to Club C requesting the bonus
payment amounting to EUR 200,000”. In this context, the Respondent stressed
“that the [Claimant] expressly and exclusively addressed to Club C, i.e. the party
to the Employment Contract” and that the “has never addressed Club C Company,
i.e. the Club, for any alleged bonuses…”.
12. In the alternative, in case the DRC deems it is competent to hear the Claimant’s
claim, the Respondent argued that the Claimant received all his financial
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
3
entitlements and is not entitled to receive the bonuses that he demands in his
claim.
13. In this regard, and taking into consideration a chart added by the Claimant in his
claim, the Respondent stated that the Claimant played 1,960.1 minutes during the
2014/2015 season corresponding to 77,7% of the minutes to be played. In addition
to that, in his match participation the Claimant scored 11 goals and made 5 assists.
In light of this, the Respondent held that the Claimant did not fulfil the
requirements established in the first two hyphens of clause “c” of the schedule.
14. In particular, the Respondent argued that the Claimant did not fulfil the two
cumulative conditions of the first hyphen of clause “c” of the schedule. According
to the Respondent, the mentioned wording clearly requires that the Claimant
scores at least 10 goals and makes 10 assists in the same season. Should the
Claimant have been entitled to a bonus, by either scoring 10 goals or making 10
assists, the parties would have chosen another wording than included in the
schedule. In this regard, the Respondent emphasized that the Claimant scored 11
goals and made 5 assists according to the information provided by the Claimant
himself in his statement of claim.
15. In addition, the Respondent stated that the Claimant did not fulfil the
requirement established in the second hyphen of clause “c” of the schedule. The
Respondent emphasized, that this criteria should not merely be related to the
number of matches in which the Claimant participates but rather to the minutes
of his participation during the 2014/2015 season. In light of this, the EUR 100,000
reward should only be provided if the Claimant would have participated in 90%
of the minutes of the Country D Super League matches played by the Respondent
in the 2014/2015 season. According to the Respondent, referring to the
documentation provided by the Claimant in his claim, he participated in 1960.1
minutes out of a total of 2340 minutes of the 2014/2015 season. Therefore, the
Claimant’s match participation corresponds to 77,7% of the available minutes to
be played.
16. Finally, the Respondent stressed that the Claimant’s request for reimbursement of
legal expenses should be rejected. Consequently, he is to bear all costs related to
the proceedings in this matter.
17. In his replica, the Claimant explained that the DRC has competence to deal with
the dispute, taking into account that “this dispute is between a registered player
and affiliated club, and has international dimension”. In this regard, the Claimant
stated that the parties of the contract are Player A and Club C “which is defined
as the club in the contract and also mentioned as affiliated to the Football
Association of Country D according to the first page of the contract”. According
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
4
to the Claimant, the “Ex Injuria Sua Hemo habere Debt” rule is applicable in this
situation, meaning “no person ought to take advantage from his own wrong”.
18. In continuation, the Claimant held that, regarding the two cumulative conditions
of the first hyphen of the clause “c” of the schedule, it is necessary to consider
that the Claimant scored 11 goals and made 5 assists, meaning that 16 out of 43
total goals were contributed by the Claimant, having the biggest goal
contribution in the club. Along with the foregoing, the Claimant also considered
that scoring 10 goals and making 10 assists was an unrealistic target. Therefore,
the targets of the first hyphen of clause “c” of the schedule should be considered
separately.
19. Regarding the second hyphen of paragraph “c” of the schedule, the Claimant
repeated that he played in all 26 games of the Country D Super League in the
2014/15 season.
20. The Respondent submitted its duplica, reiterating its arguments and confirming
its position with regards to the claim. In addition, the Respondent argued that
the Claimant did not amend his claim in his final submission and “expressly
decided to not direct it against the Club C Company”. Moreover, the Respondent
pointed out that in his replica the Claimant failed to provide any evidence that
the Respondent is affiliated to the Football Association of Country D, also
objecting that the Claimant would have been ensured that Club C was a member
of the Football Association of Country D at the time of the employment contract’s
conclusion.
II. Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC
or Chamber) analyzed 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 4
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 editions of the Procedural Rules).
2. Subsequently, the DRC noted that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in
combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players (edition 2016), the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in
principle, be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player
from country B and a club from country D.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
5
3. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent contested the
competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies. In particular, the Chamber turned its
attention to the argument brought up by the Respondent, according to which the
Claimant’s claim should be deemed as inadmissible, since it was directed against
Club C but that only the Club C Company is an affiliated member of the Football
Association of Country D.
4. In this regard, the Chamber examined the documentation provided by the parties.
In particular, the members of the DRC examined the copy of the relevant
employment contract concluded between the parties, and noticed that said
documentation in its first paragraph clearly stipulates that Club C is defined as the
club and is also mentioned as being affiliated to the Football Association of
Country D.
5. In addition, according to the information contained in Transfer Matching System
(hereinafter; TMS), Club C is duly affiliated to the Football Association of Country
D. In this respect, the DRC recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe
3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to
the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or
contained in the TMS.
6. Consequently, the members of the Chamber unanimously agreed that both legal
entities, Club C and Club C Company, are only different legal forms of the same
football club. Therefore, the DRC unanimously agreed to reject the Respondent’s
argument in relation to the competence, and confirmed that FIFA has jurisdiction
over the club and that the claim is admissible.
7. The competence having been established, the Chamber decided thereafter to
analyse 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 matter was submitted to FIFA on 4 January 2017, the 2016 edition
of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to
the matter at hand as to the substance.
8. 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 emphasized 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
6
9. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that, on 30 July 2014, the parties concluded
an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2015.
10. Furthermore, the DRC took note that on the same date, 30 July 2014, the Claimant
and the Respondent signed a document called “Football Player’s Contract
Schedule” (hereinafter: the schedule). Clause “c” of the schedule, which regulated
bonuses, established in its first hyphen that “if the [Claimant] scored ten goals and
making ten assist for score goals he takes one hundred thousand Euro”. In
addition, the second hyphen of the schedule’s clause “c”, established that “if the
[Claimant] played 90% of league matches takes reward hundred thousand Euro”.
11. In continuation, the Chamber noted that, on 4 January 2017, the Claimant lodged
a claim against the Respondent requesting an outstanding amount of EUR 200,000
plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2015 until the effective date of payment.
12. In support of his claim, the Chamber observed that the Claimant indicated that he
met the requirements of the first and second hyphen of clause “c” of the schedule
and, consequently, that he would be entitled to receive two bonus payments of
EUR 100,000 each. In particular, the Claimant held that he scored more than ten
goals in the 2014-2015 season and that he also played more than 90% of the
league matches in the 2014-2015 season.
13. In continuation, the members of the Chamber took note that the Respondent on
its part argued that the Claimant received all his financial entitlements and is not
entitled to receive the bonuses that he demands in his claim. In particular, the
Respondent stated that the Claimant did not fulfil the cumulative conditions
established in the first hyphen of the schedule’s clause “c” relating to goals and
assists as he scored eleven goals but only made five assists for goals. In addition,
the Chamber noted that the Respondent held that the Claimant did not meet the
requirements established in the second hyphen of clause “c” of the schedule
related to matches to be played, as the Claimant’s participation in the 2014-2015
season corresponds to 77,7% of the available minutes to be played.
14. In this context, and after having carefully examined the parties’ positions, the
Chamber noted that first it had to examine whether the Claimant is entitled to
receive or not the EUR 100,000 established in the first hyphen of clause “c” of the
schedule. In this respect, and according to the documentation submitted to the
file, the Chamber observed that the Claimant scored 11 goals but only made 5
assist during the 2014-2015 season. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the
Claimant did not fulfil the cumulative conditions established in the first hyphen
of clause “c” of the schedule and therefore is not entitled to receive the first bonus
of EUR 100,000. In this respect, the members of the Chamber pointed out that the
wording of the clause is clear and requires that the Claimant scored ten goals and
made ten assists.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
7
15. Furthermore, and with regards to the Claimant’s claim relating to the EUR 100,000
bonus established in the second hyphen of clause “c” of the schedule, the DRC
pointed out that the wording of this clause is clear and therefore the payment of
such bonus is linked to matches to be played. Therefore, the Chamber decided to
reject the argumentation of the Respondent that the clause should be interpreted
as referring to minutes.
16. Moreover, the DRC, referring to the principle of the burden of proof explicitly
stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, established that the Claimant
submitted evidence in this respect to prove that he participated in all the 26
matches of the Country D Super League in the 2014/2015 season. Consequently,
the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive the EUR 100,000
bonus established in the second hyphen of clause “c” of the schedule.
17. In view of the above-mentioned considerations, the DRC decided that, in
accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Respondent is to be held liable to pay the Claimant the total amount of EUR
100,000.
18. In addition, and taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant
practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the Chamber decided to award the
Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 100,000 as from 1
June 2015, until the effective date of payment.
19. Furthermore, as regards the claimed legal expenses and procedural costs, the
Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to the longstanding and well-established jurisprudence of the DRC, in accordance with which
no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, the DRC decided to reject the
Claimant’s request relating to legal expenses.
20. Finally, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any further claim
lodged by the parties.
III. Decis ion of the Dispute Res olution Cham ber
1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is admissible.
2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
8
3. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, w ithin 30 day s as from the
date of notification of this decision, the outstanding amount of EUR 100,000 plus
5% p.a as from 1 June 2015 until the effective date of payment.
4. 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.
5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent 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.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
9
*****
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
10