Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 8 September 2016,
in the following composition:
Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman
Eirik Monsen (Norway), member
Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member
Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member
Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), 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 15 July 2015, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant),
and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed an
employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 23 July 2015 until
22 July 2017.
2.
On 23 January 2016, the Claimant and the Respondent signed a document titled
“Agreement for Termination of Contract” (hereinafter: the termination
agreement) by means of which the parties mutually terminated the contract
and the Respondent undertook the obligation to pay the Claimant the amount
of USD 166,665, as follows:
USD 66,666 on 1 March 2016;
USD 66,666 on 1 April 2016;
USD 33,333 on 1 May 2016.
3.
On 26 January 2016, the player signed a document titled “Letter of Settlement”
(hereinafter: the settlement), in which it is established that:
“I a professional player / Player A (country B nationalety) passport No.
047191450 with expiry date on 24/06/2020 hereby declare and confirm that I
have signed contract with Club C dated 10/07/2015 for duration from 23/07/2015
to 22/07/2017 registered in professionalism & Players Affairs committee no
10163/9 dated 12/11/1436
I hereby voluntarily admit and consent with Club C on the termination of my
above mentioned contract effective 26/01/2016
I hereby admit that I had fully received all my entitlements from Club C under
this Contract and any rights that may resulted of the termination of this
contract. And I do hereby declare that not to claim the Club/other party for any
entitlement which may result from the termination of this contract.”
4.
By correspondence dated 24 May 2016 and 9 June 2016, the Claimant put the
Respondent in default of payment of USD 166,665 setting a 12 days’ time limit
and a 10 days’ time limit, respectively, in order to remedy the default.
5.
On 8 June 2016, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of
FIFA asking that the club be ordered to pay to him outstanding remuneration in
the amount of USD 166,665. The Claimant further asks to be awarded interest
of 5% p.a. as of the relevant due dates.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 2 of 7
6.
According to the Claimant, the Respondent has not paid any of the instalments
agreed in the termination agreement.
7.
In its reply, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim. In this respect, the
Respondent acknowledged signing the termination agreement on 23 January
2016, and provided a copy of the settlement signed by the Claimant on 26
January 2016. In this respect, the Respondent argued that “[The Claimant] sign
[the settlement] and admit he had fully received all his entitlements from [the
Respondent] under his contract, which is terminated on 23 January 2016, and
any rights that may resulted of the termination of this contract. In addition, [the
Claimant] declare that not to claim the club/other party for any entitlement,
which may result from the termination of his contract”.
8.
The Claimant submitted his replica, in which he repeated his initial position and
request for relief. In respect to the settlement, the Claimant did not challenge
having signed the document, however, he explained that he “does not speak or
comprehend the English language” and that “he was not duly advised”.
9.
Furthermore, the Claimant argued that based on a wrong interpretation of the
settlement the Respondent wants to avoid the payment of its obligations as
agreed in the termination agreement. In this respect, the Claimant sustained
that the settlement only makes reference to the contract, which was already
terminated, but makes no reference to the payment agreed in the termination
agreement, which according to the Claimant, is the basis of the dispute.
10.
The Claimant questioned the logic of why he would renounce to the right of
claiming the amount established in the termination agreement just 3 days
before, and pointed out that the settlement does not contain any reference to
the termination agreement.
11.
Moreover, the Claimant held that the most important thing in the matter at
hand, is that up to date, the Respondent has not proven the payment of the
instalments in accordance with the termination agreement.
12.
The Respondent submitted its duplica, where it repeated its position.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 3 of 7
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First, 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 8
June 2016. Consequently, the 2015 edition of the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at
hand (cf. art. 21 of the 2015 edition of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 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 from country B and a club from country D.
3.
The competence of the Chamber having been established, 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, 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 8 June 2016, the 2016 edition of the
aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the 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.
In this regard, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant
and the Respondent signed an employment contract valid as from 23 July 2015
until 22 July 2017 and that on 23 January 2016, the parties signed the
termination agreement, by means of which, on the one hand, the Claimant and
the Respondent agreed to mutually terminate the contract, and on the other
hand, the Respondent undertook the obligation to pay the Claimant the
amount of USD 166,665.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 4 of 7
6.
The DRC further observed that on 26 January 2016, the Claimant signed the
settlement. In this regard, the Chamber paid due consideration to the fact that
the Claimant did not challenge or contest signing the settlement.
7.
The Chamber then reviewed the claim of the Claimant, who maintained that the
Respondent failed to fulfil its obligations in accordance with the termination
agreement, and that, therefore, the amount of USD 166,665 remains
outstanding.
8.
The Chamber took into account that the Respondent, for its part, fully rejected
the claim maintaining that the Claimant waived his right to claim any amounts
from it by means of the settlement signed on 26 January 2016.
9.
Having stated the aforementioned, the members of the DRC turned their
attention to the arguments put forward by the Claimant in relation to the
settlement signed on 26 January 2016, in particular to the Claimant’s assertion
that said document cannot be interpreted as a waiver of his rights under the
termination agreement. In this regard, the Chamber, duly observed that the
Claimant argued, inter alia, that:
a) He “does not speak or comprehend the English language” and that “he
was not duly advised”;
b) The Respondent wants to avoid the payment of its obligations as agreed
in the termination agreement, based on a wrong interpretation of the
settlement, as according to the Claimant, the settlement only makes
reference to the contract but not to the payment agreed in the
termination agreement;
c) It is illogical that he would renounce to the right of claiming the amount
established in the termination agreement just three days before.
10.
In light of the above and first of all, the Chamber highlighted, once again, that
the Claimant did not deny having signed the settlement, and with respect to the
Claimant’s allegations that he does not speak or understand the English
language and that he was not duly advised, as a result of which the Claimant
appears to imply that he had no knowledge of the content of the settlement,
the Chamber deemed it fit 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. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that
such arguments could not be upheld.
11.
In continuation, the Chamber focused on the Claimant’s argument as to the
alleged wrong interpretation of the settlement, as the Claimant held that the
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 5 of 7
settlement does not mention that he waived his right to the amount established
in the termination agreement and that it only refers to the contract, as well as
the logic of renouncing to a right established just three days before. In this
respect, the DRC deemed it important to recall the wording of the settlement,
which establishes the following:
“Letter of Settlement
I a professional player / Player A (country B nationalety) passport No.
047191450 with expiry date on 24/06/2020 hereby declare and confirm that I
have signed contract with Club C dated 10/07/2015 for duration from 23/07/2015
to 22/07/2017 registered in professionalism & Players Affairs committee no
10163/9 dated 12/11/1436
I hereby voluntarily admit and consent with Club C on the termination of my
above mentioned contract effective 26/01/2016
I hereby admit that I had fully received all my entitlements from Club C under
this Contract and any rights that may resulted of the termination of this
contract. And I do hereby declare that not to claim the Club/other party for any
entitlement which may result from the termination of this contract.”.
12.
After a thorough examination of the settlement, the Chamber stressed that the
document in question can be understood as the result of negotiations
conducted between the parties, as its signature was not contested by the
Claimant. Moreover, the DRC highlighted that the document is unambiguously
titled “Letter of Settlement”, which gives a clear indication that the parties
intended to settle all claims that they might have against each other, without
reserving any.
13.
In the light of such context, the members of the Chamber were convinced that
the abovementioned assertion is confirmed by the text of the settlement, which
explicitly states that the Claimant declared “not to claim the Club/other party
for any entitlement which may result from the termination of this contract”.
14.
In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the settlement constituted a
valid and binding document by means of which the Claimant waived any claim
he might have or have had against the Respondent.
15.
On account of the above, the Chamber decided to reject the claim of the
Claimant in its entirety.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 6 of 7
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is rejected.
*****
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:
Marco Villiger
Deputy Secretary General
Encl. CAS directives
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 7 of 7