Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 September 2016,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member
Jon Newman (United States of America), member
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member
Taku Nomiya (Japan), 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 1 June 2013, the Player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter; the Claimant or
the player) and the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter; the Respondent or the
club) (hereinafter jointly referred to as the parties) concluded an employment
contract valid as of the date of its signature until 30 May 2015.
2.
According to the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the
Respondent the total amount of USD 480,000 payable in 24 equal monthly
instalments of USD 20,000, i.e. USD 240,000 per season.
3.
Moreover, clause 4.3 and 4.4 of the contract provided that the Claimant was
entitled to extra bonuses of USD 20,000 “for group of UEFA” and of USD 30,000
“for group of League E”.
4.
On 4 February 2016, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front
of FIFA requesting outstanding salaries in the total amount of USD 80,000 as per
the months of February, March, April and May 2015 as well as 5% interest as of
the due dates. The Claimant also requested the “costs related to this arbitration
procedure”.
5.
In its reply to the claim, the Respondent argued that, “after revising the payment
status”, its only debt towards the Claimant is of USD 21,000. In this respect, the
Respondent enclosed a payment schedule containing the following payments:
For the season 2013/2014
Date of payment
16 August 2013
20 August 2013
29 August 2013
8 September 2013
1 October 2013
18 October 2013
28 October 2013
21 November 2013
28 November 2013
31 January 2014
19 March 2014
30 April 2014
15 May 2014
21 May 2014
Total amount
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Amount
USD 3,000
USD 21,200
USD 3,000
USD 4,000
USD 20,800
USD 5,000
USD 20,800
USD 16,000
USD 20,800
USD 41,600
USD 41,600
USD 20,800
USD 31,600
USD 20,800
USD 271,000
Page 2 of 7
For the season 2014/2015
Date of payment
27 July 2014
15 August 2014
25 August 2014
15 October 2014
18 November 2014
25 November 2014
26 December 2014
6 March 2015
30 April 2015
Total amount
Amount
USD 10,000
USD 10,000
USD 20,000
USD 20,000
USD 8,000
USD 20,000
USD 20,000
USD 60,000
USD 20,000
USD 188,000
6.
In his replica, the Claimant rejected the position of the Respondent and stressed
that some of the payments made by the latter are not related to his salaries but
to “rewards for achieved sports results”. In this respect, the Claimant referred to
the payments made for the season 2013/2014 and stressed that the Respondent
“mislead the court attempting to present that they, in the season 2013/2014, paid
their obligations in advance (…) which is not true”.
7.
Along those lines, the Claimant highlighted that the only payments which refer to
his salary are the ones made on 25 August 2014, 15 October 2014, 25 November
2014, 26 December 2014, 6 March 2015 and 30 April 2015 in the total amount of
USD 160,000.
8.
Finally, in view of the payment schedule presented by the Respondent, the
Claimant amended his claim by asking as outstanding his salary of June 2014 plus
5% interest as of its due date instead of his salary of February 2015.
9.
In its rejoinder, the Respondent argued that “any payment made in excess during
the first season of contract can be legitimately allocated by the club to the
subsequent season” and that such payments were made in advance at the explicit
request of the Claimant.
10.
Moreover, the Respondent denied having paid any bonuses to the Claimant as
“there is no such thing in the contract” save from those contained in clauses 4.3.
and 4.4 of the contract. In this respect, the Respondent stressed that the
conditions for the payment of such bonuses were not met. As a consequence, the
Respondent stressed that, any and all payments are allocated to the Claimant’s
salary. In this regard, the Respondent alleged that the Claimant failed to present
any evidence which could prove that the payments highlighted in the table are
related to “rewards for achieved sports results”.
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 the DRC or
the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at
stake. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA
on 4 February 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) 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 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 of Country B and a Club of Country D.
3.
Furthermore, 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 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 claim was lodged on 4 February 2016, the 2015
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, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber started
by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation
contained in the file. 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.
First of all, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that on 1 June 2013, the
parties entered into an employment contract valid until 30 May 2015 according to
which the Claimant was entitled to the total amount of USD 480,000 payable in
24 monthly instalments of USD 20,000.
6.
Having established the above, the members of the Chamber focused their
attention on the claim of the Claimant who argues that the Respondent has an
outstanding amount towards him of USD 80,000 corresponding to his salaries of
June 2014 as well as March, April and May 2015.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 4 of 7
7.
The Chamber further noted that, conversely, the Respondent, while enclosing a
partially translated payment schedule, rejected the Claimant’s claim and argued
that its only debt towards the Claimant amounts to USD 21,000.
8.
Subsequently, the DRC observed that the Claimant denied the argumentation of
the Respondent holding that not all the payments provided in the payment table
referred to his salaries. In particular, the Claimant maintained that the only
payments related to his salaries are the ones dated 25 August 2014, 15 October
2014, 25 November 2014, 26 December 2014, 6 March 2015 and 30 April 2015
whilst all the others refer to “rewards for achieved sports results”.
9.
With the aforementioned considerations in mind, the Chamber proceeded to
analyse the payment schedule provided by the Respondent and, in this respect, it
first wished to stress that the Claimant is not disputing having received all the
amounts provided therein but rather disputes the nature of said payments.
10.
Having said that, the Chamber found it imperative to emphasise that the version
of the payment schedule presented by the Respondent in Language F was only
partially translated. Indeed, the members of the DRC considered that the quite
limited translation of the relevant schedule does not allow the Chamber to
perform a proper analysis of said document. In this respect, the members of the
DRC wished to recall the content of art. 9 par. 1 lit. e) of the Regulations which
provides that documents submitted within the framework of a dispute in front of
FIFA’s deciding bodies shall be provided in its original version and, if applicable,
translated into one of the official FIFA languages.
11.
Consequently, the members of the Chamber considered that any lack of clarity as
to the nature of the payments contained in the payment schedule should be
interpreted against the Respondent.
12.
With the above in mind, the Chamber proceeded to analyse the payment schedule
to the extent possible and noted that the latter document is clearly divided in
several tables each with its own title. In this respect, the Chamber took note that
several payments considered by the Respondent as salary payments are detailed in
a table which title reads “Olke çempionati ve UEFA turnilerinde verilen mükafat”
(hereinafter; the award table). At this point, the DRC stressed once again that the
translation provided by the Respondent of the payment schedule is very limited
and does not contain the translations of all the titles of the different tables, in
particular, the Respondent did not provide a translation of the table with the
aforementioned title. Nevertheless, the Chamber noted that, from a prima facie
translation, the said title appears to refer to certain “awards” won in “UEFA
tournaments”. Indeed, from the payment schedule it would seem that all the
payments contained in the award table do not relate to the Claimant’s salaries
but rather to certain awards related to certain UEFA tournaments.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 5 of 7
13.
In view of the above and with the DRC’s reasoning explained in par. II/11. ut supra
in mind, the members of the Chamber were of the unanimous opinion that the
payments contained in the award table will not be taken into account when
determining the amount due to the Claimant as outstanding remuneration.
14.
Having so found, the DRC focused on the rest of the payments contained in the
payment schedule and observed that these amount to USD 408,000. Taking into
account that the Claimant was entitled to the total amount of USD 480,000, the
Chamber determined that the Claimant’s outstanding remuneration amounts to
USD 72,000.
15.
On account of the above, and while referring to the principle of pacta sunt
servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant
outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 72,000.
16.
In addition, taking into consideration the player’s claim as well as the Chamber’s
jurisprudence, the members of the DRC decided to award interest on said
amounts at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the respective due dates.
17.
Furthermore, as regards the claimed “costs related to this arbitration procedure”,
the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to its
long-standing and well-established jurisprudence, in accordance with which no
procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject this part of the
Claimant’s claim.
18.
Finally, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by establishing that any other
requests from the parties are rejected.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club C, is ordered to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as
from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 72,000 plus 5%
interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows:
a. 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 12,000 as of 1 July 2014;
b. 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 20,000 as of 1 April 2015;
c. 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 20,000 as of 1 May 2015;
d. 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 20,000 as of 1 June 2015.
3.
In the event that the amount plus interest due to the Claimant in accordance with
the above-mentioned number 2. is not paid by the Respondent within the stated
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 6 of 7
time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA
Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
4.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
5.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly, of
the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the
Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
*****
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