Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 November 2015,
by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge,
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
between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 24 May 2013, the Player A from country B (hereinafter: player or Claimant)
and the Club C from country D (hereinafter: club or Respondent) signed an
employment contract valid as from 24 May 2013 until 24 September 2013
(hereinafter: the contract).
2.
According to article 4 of the contract, the player was entitled to receive the
total amount of 255,000,000, as follows:
a sign-on fee of 50,000,000, due ‘When the Player Signs this Agreement’;
3 monthly salaries of 35,000,000, due on the 10th day of the month;
a ‘player agent management fee’ of 100,000,000, due ‘after Player
Registration is authorized by league E’.
3.
Further, article 4 of the contract stipulates: ‘Payment of the sums due under
this Agreement shall be made according to the following Schedule […] Furnish
Player Welfare Facility (such as accommodation, transportation etc.) shall be
provided when the Player signs this Agreement’.
4.
Article 6 of the contract provides for the following: ‘The Club has the duty to:
[…] Player Welfare Facilities and other obligation as set out in Article 4 […]
Reimburse the Player for all sums spent on behalf of the Club with the
agreement of the Club. (for instance: KITAS, airplane ticket, etc.)’.
5.
On 29 April 2014, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the club,
claiming payment of outstanding remuneration, requesting the total amount
of 390,000,000, as follows:
a signing fee of 50,000,000;
4 monthly salaries of 35,000,000;
a “player agent management fee” of 100,000,000;
‘welfare facilities and reimbursement’ in the amount of 100,000,000.
The player further asked 5% interest on the abovementioned amounts as from
the due dates of the payments.
6.
The player states that he never ‘received any kind of payment, any kind of
assistance, and any kind of reimbursement of sums spent on behalf of the Club
as consequence of the labor relationship’, although he complied with all the
obligations for the duration of the contract.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
2/6
7.
Despite having been invited to do so, the club did not present its position to
the claim.
II.
Considerations of the DRC judge
1.
First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with
the matter at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was
submitted to FIFA on 29 April 2014. Consequently, the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (edition 2012; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the
matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the
Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par.
2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (edition 2015), he 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.
Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable
as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in
accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (edition 2015), and considering that the present claim was
lodged on 29 April 2014, the 2012 edition of said regulations (hereinafter:
Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been
established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this
respect, the DRC judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned
facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the
parties. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary
evidence, which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at
hand.
5.
In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that the parties to the dispute
had signed a valid employment contract on 24 May 2013, in accordance with
which the club would pay the player a sign-on fee in the amount of
50,000,000, three monthly salaries of 35,000,000 each and a player agent
management fee in the amount of 100,000,000. Further, the club would
provide the player with ‘Furnish Player Welfare Facility’, after the signature of
the contract.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
3/6
6.
Subsequently, the DRC judge noted that the club failed to present its response
to the claim of the player, in spite of having been invited to do so. By not
presenting its position to the claim, the DRC judge was of the opinion that the
club renounced its right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the
player.
7.
Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC
judge concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules,
he shall take a decision upon the basis of the documentation on file; in other
words, upon the statements and documents presented by the player.
8.
In continuation, the DRC judge took into consideration that according to the
player, the club had failed to pay his remuneration in the total amount of
390,000,000, corresponding to four unpaid salaries of 35,000,000 per month, as
well as a sign-on fee of 50,000,000, a player agent management fee of
100,000,000 and ‘welfare facilities and reimbursement’ in the amount of
100,000,000.
9.
Taking into account the documentation presented by the player in support of
his petition, the DRC judge concluded that the player had substantiated his
claim pertaining to the sign-on fee and the player management fee with
sufficient documentary evidence.
10.
Subsequently, the DRC judge noted that the player did not submit any
documentary evidence that he actually made costs in the amount of
100,000,000, which amount is claimed by him as ‘welfare facilities and
reimbursement’. In continuation, with respect to the four salaries of 35,000,000
each as claimed by the player, the DRC judge took note that the contract
clearly stipulates that the player was only entitled to receive three monthly
salaries of 35,000,000 each from the club.
11.
On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC judge established
that the club failed to remit the player’s monthly remuneration in the total
amount of 105,000,000 (corresponding to 3 monthly salaries of 35,000,000
each), as well as a player agent management fee in the amount of 100,000,000
and a sign-on fee in the amount of 50,000,000.
12.
Consequently, the DRC judge decided that, in accordance with the general
legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the club is liable to pay to the player
outstanding remuneration in the total amount of 255,000,000.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
4/6
13.
In addition, taking into account the player’s request as well as the constant
practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC judge decided that the
club must pay to the player interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of 255,000,000
as from the due dates of each payment, until the date of effective payment.
14.
Finally, the DRC judge concluded his deliberations in the present matter by
establishing that any further claim lodged by the player is rejected.
*****
III.
Decision of the DRC judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from
the date of notification of this decision, the amount of 255,000,000 plus 5%
interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows:
a. 5% p.a. as of 25 May 2013 on the amount of 50,000,000;
b. 5% p.a. as of 11 June 2013 on the amount of 35,000,000;
c. 5% p.a. as of 11 July 2013 on the amount of 35,000,000;
d. 5% p.a. as of 11 August 2013 on the amount of 35,000,000;
e. 5% p.a. as of 29 April 2014 on the amount of 100,000,000.
3.
In the event that the aforementioned sums plus interest are not paid within
the stated time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to
FIFA’s 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
DRC judge of every payment received.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
5/6
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 67 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 DRC judge:
Markus Kattner
Acting Secretary General
Encl. CAS directives
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
6/6