Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 October 2009,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member
Carlos Soto (Chile), member
Brendan Schwab (Australia), member
Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member
Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member
Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member
Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member
on the claim presented by the player
F,
as Claimant
against the club
B,
as Respondent
regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties.
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 17 September 2007, the player, F (hereinafter: Claimant), and the club, B
(hereinafter: Respondent), concluded an employment contract valid until 16
July 2008.
2.
According to this contract, the Claimant was to receive from the Respondent a
monthly salary of USD 12,000.
3.
On 2 February 2008, the Claimant signed a document referred to as
“Declaration” which stipulates the following:
“I, the Player Name: F (…) has received all my financial dues until 16/07/2008 –
Thus, the club is totally acquitted from any financial obligations related to me
in accordance to the contract that was signed between us on the date
17/09/2007”.
4.
On 18 March 2008, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA for breach of
contract against the Respondent. In this respect, the Claimant claimed the
amount of USD 54,000 as compensation, which corresponds to the residual
value of the contract, i.e. the salaries of the months of March, April, May, June
and half of July 2008.
5.
In this respect, the Claimant underlined that the employment contract
contained a clause according to which the Respondent was entitled to
terminate his contract unilaterally “if the coach and the Committee members
were not satisfied with his performance”, and that, although he did not agree
with this clause, he still signed the contract, as the Respondent’s
representatives assured him that such a situation was unlikely to happen.
6.
However, according to the Claimant, on 2 February 2008, the Respondent’s
representatives told him that they had signed a new player in his position and
that they did not count on his services in future. Thereupon, on the same day,
he was allegedly forced to sign an agreement, also written in E and X, which
he apparently did not entirely comprehend, but which apparently stated that
the Respondent had paid him all his financial dues until 16 July 2008, and that
he had no further claims towards the Respondent. However, the Claimant
alleged that he had, ultimately, only received his salaries until February 2008.
7.
The Claimant therefore claimed that he was entitled to receive his whole
salaries until the expiry of his employment contract with the Respondent.
8.
The Claimant finally pointed out that, after having left E, and due to the early
termination of his employment relationship with the Respondent, he could
only sign an employment contract with a second division club, for a much
lower salary.
9.
In reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent denied the Claimant’s
allegations that he was not fully aware of the terms of the employment
agreement as well as of the agreement for the termination of the contract.
The Respondent further stated that the Claimant was not entitled to receive
any further financial compensation as he had signed a termination agreement
on 2 February 2008, according to which he declared having received all his
financial dues. In this respect, the Respondent provided FIFA with, inter alia, a
receipt dated 4 February 2008 and signed by the Claimant, indicating that he
had received the amount of 128,292 “for finalisation process for Termination
of Contract from B on 4 February 2008”. The Respondent therefore concluded
that it was not in breach of contract, and rejected the Claimant’s claim
entirely.
10.
On 17 April 2009, the Claimant maintained his claim and, in particular,
emphasized that the Respondent had terminated the contract without just
cause, in violation of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players, and that he had been forced by the representatives of the Respondent
to sign the termination agreement. Furthermore, he asserted that he was
entitled to receive the remaining salaries due to him under the employment
contract.
11.
In its final position, the Respondent reiterated its previous statement.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as
Chamber) analysed 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 18
March 2008. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’
Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2005;
hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21
par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules, edition 2008, in combination with art. 18
par. 2 and 3 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 2009) 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 and a club.
3.
Furthermore, the Chamber analysed 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 2009), and considering that the present claim was lodged on
18 March 2008, the 2005 edition of the said regulations (hereinafter:
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 members of the Chamber started by acknowledging that the
parties had, on 17 September 2007, signed an employment contract valid until
16 July 2008. Furthermore, the Chamber took note of the fact that the
Claimant asserted that the Respondent had terminated the said employment
contract without just cause, and that consequently, the Claimant is claiming
compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 54,000, which
corresponds to the remaining value of the employment contract. In this
respect, the members of the Chamber took into account that the Claimant had
admitted having signed a document by means of which he had declared
having received all his financial dues from the club until 16 July 2008, but that
he did not entirely comprehend the terms of this document. Finally, the
Chamber referred to the Claimant’s statement that he had only received his
financial dues until February 2008.
5.
The Chamber also acknowledged that the Respondent, contrary to the
allegations presented by the Claimant, deemed that it had not acted in breach
of contract, since the parties had mutually agreed on the termination of the
employment contract. The Chamber also noted that the Respondent had
presented a receipt dated 4 February 2008 and signed by the Claimant,
indicating that he had received the amount of 128,292 “for finalisation process
for Termination of Contract from B on 4 February 2008”.
6.
In this context, the members of the Chamber deemed it important to highlight
the fact that the Claimant had signed a document which expressly mentioned
that the Claimant had received all his contractual receivables until 16 July 2008
and that the Respondent “is totally acquitted from any financial obligations
related to [the Claimant] in accordance to the contract that was signed
between us on the date 17/09/2007”. Furthermore, the Chamber took due note
that the Respondent had submitted, as supporting evidence, a document
which was signed by the Claimant and indicated that the latter had received
128,292 “for finalisation process for Termination of Contract from B on 4
February 2008”, this amount representing, in USD, approximately USD 34,946,
i.e. almost three months of the agreed salary under the employment contract.
In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Claimant had not contested having
signed this document, nor having received the aforementioned amount.
7.
In continuation, the Chamber referred to the Claimant’s assertion that he did
not fully understand the contents of the document which he signed on 2
February 2008. In this respect, the Chamber emphasised 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. Furthermore, the Chamber,
referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, rejected the Claimant’s
argument that he was forced to sign the mentioned document, as such
allegation could not be corroborated by any documentary evidence.
8.
In view of the above, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that the question
of whether or not the relevant employment contract in question was
terminated with or without just cause was irrelevant in the present case, since
it is obvious from the documentation on file that the parties mutually agreed
on the termination of the contract in question and the consequences thereof.
9.
In this respect, the Chamber stressed that the documents signed by the
Claimant on 2 and 4 February 2008, respectively, unequivocally establish that
the Claimant had accepted that he was not entitled to claim any other kind of
financial compensation from the Respondent and that the sums received from
the Respondent are related to the termination of the employment contract.
10.
In view of the foregoing, the Chamber held that it had no alternative but to
conclude that the Claimant had no more rights to claim further compensation
against the Respondent.
11.
Finally, all of the abovementioned considerations led the members of the
Chamber to decide that the employment relationship between the Claimant
and the Respondent had been mutually terminated on 2 February 2008 and
that the parties of the dispute had agreed on the terms of this termination.
12.
Consequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the Claimant’s
claim for compensation for breach of contract by the Respondent had to be
rejected.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, F, is rejected.
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to article 63 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:
Markus Kattner
Deputy Secretary General
Encl. CAS directives