Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 November 2015,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
John Bramhall (England), member
Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member
Philippe Diallo (France), member
Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Player A, country B,
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1
against the club,
Club C, country D
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
with the club,
Club E, country F
as Counter-Respondent 2
regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 24 November 2011, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: player or
Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1) and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter:
Club C or Respondent / Counter-Claimant) signed an employment contract valid
for three seasons, as from the 2011-12 season until the 2013-14 season.
2.
According to the employment contract, the player was entitled to receive inter alia
the total amount of “Dollars” 1,350,000 for three seasons payable as follows:
a. $ 350,000 for the 2011-12 season: $ 175,000 on 30 September 2011 and
three instalments of $ 58,333 each, falling due on 1 January and 31 July
2012, without any indication as regards the due date of the third
instalment;
b. $ 450,000 for the 2012-13 season: $ 112,500 on 1 November 2012 and four
instalments of $ 84,375 each, falling due on 1 January 2013, 1 March 2013,
31 July 2013 without any indication as regards the due date of the fourth
instalment;
c. $ 550,000 for the 2013-14 season.
3.
According to the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the seasons of country D ran as
follows:
2011-12: as from 20 July 2011 until 15 May 2012
2012-13: as from 15 August 2012 until 30 May 2013
2013-14: as from 22 November 2013 until 30 July 2014
4.
The Football Association of country D provided the following particulars regarding
these seasons:
2011-12: ceased in February 2012 and was cancelled in March 2012
2012-13 started on 2 February 2013 and was cancelled before its end
2013-14: started on 26 December 2013
5.
According to art. 4 of the employment contract, “the player will incur the taxes of
the total amount of the contract according to law. The club will settle the taxes to
the concerned tax administration and inform the player for the document of
paying after the end of the season and before the beginning of the next season.”
6.
In addition, the employment contract refers to the payment of 1% of the
contractual value to the association as a contract approval fee.
7.
According to art. 5.15 of the employment contract, sanctions on the player may
not exceed the “total amount of the contract or 50% of it”.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F
Page 2 of 14
8.
Under the heading “special conditions”, the contract contains a handwritten
clause, which stipulates, inter alia, “If he [the player] did not receive his salary
after 3 months of the date required in this contract then he is free player”.
9.
On 24 May 2012, the player put the club in default of payment of his
remuneration indicating inter alia that the last time he received a payment was in
January 2012. He further set a time limit for Club C to pay or he would consider
the contract as terminated for sporting and financial just cause.
10.
On 12 July 2012, the player informed FIFA that he cancels his employment contract
based on art. 14 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players referring
to his notice of 24 May 2012 as well as to the contractual clause under point I./8.
above. He further asked FIFA to confirm such termination and lodged an
unspecified claim against the club. The player was then informed by FIFA of the
particulars that petitions lodged in front of FIFA shall contain in accordance with
the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the
Dispute Resolution Chamber. The player reverted to FIFA on 24 June 2013 (cf.
point I./18. below).
11.
On 17 December 2012, the player contacted the Football Association of country D
informing it of his desire to put an end to the employment contract due to the
Club C’s alleged non-respect of its financial obligations and the fact that the
league had been cancelled for an indefinite period of time.
12.
On 19 January 2013, the player allegedly sent a “warning letter” to Club C via the
Football Association of country D, asking Club C to pay outstanding remuneration,
i.e. USD 112,500 due on 1 November 2012 plus USD 84,375 due on 1 January 2013,
and pointing out that the season had been pending since 1 February 2012, which
negatively affected his career.
13.
On 21 January 2013, the player terminated the employment contract in writing
invoking that he had not played any official match in the league of country D
since 1 February 2012, as the league had been cancelled since that date, and that
the following instalments had remained unpaid: the last instalment of USD 58,000
from the previous season, the USD 112,500 instalment of 1 November 2012, 2 x
USD 84,375 which according to the player fell due on 1 January 2013.
14.
On 2 April 2013, the player, Club C and the club from country H, Club G, signed an
agreement regarding a 4 months’ loan of the player to the club from country H,
i.e. until 30 July 2013. Article 4 of this loan agreement reads that: “Player A
accepts and declares that he fully releases Club C from any dues and cancels any
dues or payments for season 2012/2013 according to his employment contract with
Club C dated 14/9/2011 and the first party [Club C] is considered clear under this
loan agreement from any obligations and payments for season 2012/13 towards
the third party [Player A] upon the signature of this contract by the parties.”
Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F
Page 3 of 14
15.
According to the information available in the TMS, the player was not registered
with the club from country H due to administrative TMS issues.
16.
On 27 January 2014, the player signed an employment contract with the club from
country F, Club E (hereinafter also Counter-Respondent 2), valid as from 27
January 2014 until 31 May 2014.
17.
On 26 February 2014, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee authorised
the Football Federation of country F to provisionally register the player with Club
E following the refusal of the Football Association of country D to issue the
relevant international transfer certificate (ITC).
Claim of the player:
18.
On 24 June 2013, the player lodged a claim against Club C and after various
requests from FIFA to specify and clarify the financial part of the claim, on 18
November 2013, the player claimed payment of the difference between the entire
contractual value (USD 1,350,000) and the total amount which Club C allegedly
paid to him (USD 278,500), i.e. USD 1,071,500.
19.
In his 24 June 2013 petition, the player indicated that he felt pressured to sign the
loan agreement with Club C and Club G including its art. 4, in order to be able to
register with the club from country H within the registration period and that,
finally, due to administrative errors the transfer fell through.
20.
The player maintains that he terminated the contract due to the Club C’s breach of
its obligations and for sporting reasons.
Club C’s reply and counterclaim against the player and Club E:
21.
Club C rejected the player’s claim and, on 1 April 2014, lodged a counterclaim
against the player and his new club, Club E, for breach of contract without just
cause and payment of compensation of USD 1,843,000, plus 5% interest as of the
date on which the breach occurred, which was detailed as follows:
a. USD 887,500 as residual value of the contract;
b. USD 150,000 relating to its loss of future earnings;
c. USD 530,000 for the replacement of the player;
d. USD 275,000 in connection with the specificity of sport.
22.
With respect to its alleged loss of earnings, Club C highlights that it paid a transfer
compensation of USD 150,000 to the player’s former club.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F
Page 4 of 14
23.
As regards the specificity of sport, Club C points out that it was impossible for it to
hire a replacement player of the same calibre due to the registration limit of 3
foreign players. In addition, it alleges that Club C’s reputation was damaged due
to huge media attention based on the player’s false claims.
24.
In addition, Club C asks that sporting sanctions be imposed on the player and Club
E.
25.
Should the Dispute Resolution Chamber decide that the player had just cause to
terminate the employment contract, Club C refers to the player’s obligation to
mitigate damages.
26.
Club C further points out that the player disregarded the procedural rules of FIFA
and that he failed to provide a breakdown of the amount claimed and even
changed the claimed amount when he was asked to provide a breakdown.
27.
Club C considers that the player failed to submit the relevant employment contract
or any other documentation or substantiated arguments in support of his position.
In this regard, Club C denies that it received a default notice from the player.
28.
Club C confirms that, on 1 February 2012, the league of country D was suspended
indefinitely due to the “incident I” and that on 10 March 2012 the Football
Association of country D decided to cancel the 2011-12 season.
29.
Furthermore, according to Club C, between March 2012 and July 2012, it
sanctioned the player several times for late arrival at training, misconduct, absence
from training, red cards, all in line with its internal regulations. Furthermore, the
player was sanctioned with a 4 match ban by the African Football Confederation
relating to African Champions League matches.
30.
According to Club C, the player travelled to country J on 7 May 2012 and was
absent for 3 months, until 30 July 2012.
31.
Club C, allegedly still wishing to make use of his services, decided to reduce the
fine imposed upon the player due to his 80 days’ absence and it allegedly even
had started to pay the instalment that fell due on 1 November 2012 in advance in
portions.
32.
Club C further holds that the player failed to return from holidays as from 3
January 2013 and it asserts having warned the player, who allegedly refused to
return and asked being transferred to another club.
33.
According to Club C, it then received the player’s letter of termination dated 21
January 2013 claiming outstanding remuneration, whereas he had received all of
his payables until December 2012.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F
Page 5 of 14
34.
In respect of the payments made to and entitlements of the player, Club C
presented the following particulars:
2011-12 season
a. Entitlement to USD 276,500 net (gross salary of USD 350,000 minus alleged
20% taxes according to art. 4 of the employment contract and minus 1%
registration fee).
b. It alleges having paid USD 50,000 by cheque on 15 October 2011; USD
125,000 in cash on 20 October 2011; USD 46,666 by cheque on 16 January
2012, totalling USD 221,666.
c. Fines in the total amount of USD 66,500 were allegedly imposed by Club C
on the player, mainly due to his absence as from 7 May until 30 July 2012
(USD 55,000) in accordance with the internal regulations, and deducted
from his salary. Therefore, Club C holds that the player owed USD 11,666
to the club, which were to be deducted from his next salary.
2012-13 season
d. Entitlement to USD 85,500 net for the first instalment (gross instalment of
USD 112,500 minus alleged 20% taxes according to art. 4 of the
employment contract and minus 1% registration fee on the total
contractual value for the relevant season).
e. It alleges having paid USD 10,000 by cheque on 31 July 2012; USD 10,000
on 1 August 2012; USD 25,000 on 11 August 2012; USD 15,000 on 17
October 2012. In this respect, Club C maintains that this subtotal of USD
60,000 was related to the 1 November 2012 instalment and paid in
advance to the player in order to persuade him to return to training; USD
7,000 on 22 November 2012; USD 11,000 on 5 December 2013.
f. The amount of USD 3,450 relating to a fine allegedly imposed on the
player in August 2012 for absence from training for 4 days as well as the
balance of USD 11,666 as alleged undue payment from the previous
season should be deducted.
35.
Subsequently, in January 2013, Club C was allegedly contacted by other clubs in
order to obtain its approval for trials with the player, to which it had consented.
36.
Club C asserts that, in this context, on 2 April 2013, the above-mentioned tripartite
4 months’ loan agreement was signed with Club G and it highlights that the player
failed to return after said loan.
37.
According to Club C, it then asked the Football Association of country D, on 1
October 2013, to inform the Football Association of country B that the player shall
return to the club.
38.
For these reasons, Club C holds that the player was repeatedly in breach of his
contractual obligations and that he terminated the employment contract without
just cause.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F
Page 6 of 14
39.
Club C further points out that the player’s unjustified lengthy absence should be
considered a termination of the contract by the player without just cause.
40.
Club C submitted some press articles, which, in its view, demonstrate the
characteristics of the player as a “troublemaker”.
41.
Club C highlights that in accordance with art. 4 of the loan agreement signed on 2
April 2013, the player had renounced his right to claim any monies owed, if at all,
as from the conclusion of the employment contract until the date of signature of
the loan agreement.
42.
The club further deems that by presenting his claim on 24 June 2013, thus shortly
after having signed the aforementioned loan agreement with its clause 4, the
player has demonstrated a greedy and malicious behaviour.
Reply of the player to the counterclaim of Club C:
43.
The player rejects the counterclaim and highlights that the loan to the club from
country H never transpired. Accordingly, so the player, the loan agreement and
thus all of its articles are null and void. The player adds that Club C was aware of
this fact and even is to be held liable for the fact that he could not be registered
with the club from country H due to its inputting a wrong and non-matching loan
duration into TMS.
44.
The player further states that Club C is also responsible for the cancellation of a
try-out at a club from country K following the termination of the employment
contract.
45.
Furthermore, the player considers that the fines imposed upon him show a
deliberate pattern used by Club C to avoid its financial obligations towards him.
He highlights that Club C has not presented any proof of warning, invitation to
defend himself or notification of sanctions.
46.
As regards his alleged absence, the player highlights that he was on national team
assignment at FIFA/CAF recognised competitions for five consecutive weeks,
during which time he was sanctioned by Club C. Upon his return to Club C, he
allegedly was given a cheque which was not covered.
47.
The player states that he reluctantly invoked the handwritten clause of the
employment contract (cf. point I./8. above) after his salary had been outstanding
for many months. He adds that he has not received any salary during the period of
time he was supposed to be on loan with the club from country H.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F
Page 7 of 14
48.
He further holds that, as at December 2012, he had not received any salary for 8
months. As regards the payment documents presented by the club in support of its
position, the player contests having signed the document relating to a payment of
USD 46,666 on 16 January 2012 maintaining that the signature is different from
his signature.
49.
The player points out that he cancelled his contract in January 2013 but still
showed sportsmanship to the club by allowing them to benefit from his transfer.
50.
The player states that he has not been able to join any club as from January 2013
until January 2014.
Reply of Club E to the claim of Club C:
51.
Club E points out that the player had declared that he terminated his contract
with Club C due to outstanding remuneration.
52.
It further highlights that following the refusal of the Football Association of
country D to issue the relevant ITC, FIFA authorised the registration of the player
with it.
53.
After the closure of the investigation-phase of this matter, Club C and the player
presented further, unsolicited, comments and documentation.
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 24 June
2013. 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 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 2015) 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 an club from
country D and involving a club from country F.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F
Page 8 of 14
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 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(edition 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 24 June
2013, the 2012 edition of 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 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. Furthermore, the Chamber 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 Transfer Matching
System (TMS).
5.
In this context and to begin with, the Chamber deemed it fit to highlight that the
unsolicited comments and documents received from both parties after the closure
of the investigation in the present matter could not be taken into consideration by
the Chamber in its assessment of the facts relating to the present matter. In this
respect, on 16 July 2015, the parties were duly informed of the closure of the
exchange of correspondence in this matter and of the fact that no further
submissions from the parties with respect to the claim and counterclaim would be
admitted to the file.
6.
Having said that, the Chamber acknowledged that, on 24 November 2011, the
parties signed an employment contract, which was valid during three seasons, i.e.
as from the 2011-12 season until the 2013-14 season (hereinafter: contract). It was
further noted that in accordance with the contract the player was entitled to
receive inter alia the total amount of “Dollars” 1,350,000 for three seasons and
that it has remained undisputed that the applicable currency is the United States
Dollar (USD).
7.
The Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, on the one hand, maintained that the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the
employment contract and, thus, shall be held liable to pay, inter alia,
compensation for breach of contract.
8.
The Chamber noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, for its part, rejected
the claim put forward by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 and lodged a
counterclaim against the latter. According to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant,
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 is to be held liable for breach of contract
Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F
Page 9 of 14
without just cause due to his alleged repeated breaches of contract and lengthy
absences. Therefore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant maintained that the player
must pay compensation for breach of contract and that his new club shall be held
jointly and severally liable for the payment of such compensation.
9.
In continuation, the Chamber took into account that the Claimant/CounterRespondent 1 fully rejected the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim
maintaining his own position. In addition, it was noted that the CounterRespondent 2, for its part, equally rejected the claim of the Respondent/CounterClaimant.
10.
Subsequently, the Chamber proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances
surrounding the present matter, the parties’ arguments as well the documentation
on file, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with
which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the
burden of proof.
11.
The Chamber took into account that, as of the 2011-12 season, the sporting
seasons of country D appear to have been affected by national riots. According to
the Football Association of country D, the sporting season ceased as from February
2012 until February 2013 and the 2012-13 season was cancelled prior to its
ordinary expiry. The 2013-14 season then started on 26 December 2013.
12.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber recapped the chronology of events
in which a termination of the employment relationship between the parties is
referred to. Indeed, in July 2012, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 informed
FIFA that he cancelled the employment contract asking the latter to confirm such
action. It was further noted that, subsequently, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
1 returned to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, towards the end of July 2012.
Later on, in December 2012, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 turned to the
Football Association of country D with a complaint against the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant, in which the player highlighted his desire to put an
end to the employment contract, the alleged failure of the Respondent/CounterClaimant to fulfil its contractual obligations and the fact that he had not played in
official matches since the cancellation of the sporting season in February 2012.
13.
With respect to the year 2012, it was further noted from the financial documents
presented by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the position of the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 in this respect, without, at this point, addressing
the question as to whether Club C had fully complied with its financial contractual
obligations, that during said cessation of the sporting seasons the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant has made payments to the Claimant/CounterRespondent 1 until in December 2012. Indeed, apart from his general position that
he had not received any payments during eight months as stated in his claim, the
Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F
Page 10 of 14
Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 has not commented on the various specific
payments that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant alleged having made. Nor has
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 commented on the payment-related
documents presented by Club C in this regard, except for the specific receipt and
related alleged payment of USD 46,666 on 16 January 2012, for which alleged
payment the player contested the signature on the relevant receipt.
14.
On account of the above, the members of the Chamber concluded that the
employment contract signed by and between the parties continued to be in force
until at least the end of the year 2012 and that the parties had acted in the same
belief, in spite of references having been made, in particular by the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, to the termination of the employment contract
during said year.
15.
The members of the Chamber felt confirmed in their opinion by the fact that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 addressed a notice of termination of the
employment contract to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant only on 21 January
2013.
16.
Subsequently, the DRC analysed the question as to whether by said notice of 21
January 2013, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 had undeniably terminated the
employment relationship with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
17.
That is, on 2 April 2013, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant, and the club from country H, Club G, signed an
agreement regarding a 4 months’ loan of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1
from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to Club G.
18.
In this respect, the Chamber took into account that according to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, this loan agreement is null and void, since the
related transfer to Club G never transpired due to administrative issues. In
addition, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 asserted that he had felt pressured
to sign this loan agreement in order to be able to register with the club from
country H during the relevant registration period.
19.
The members of the Chamber, however, whilst referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the
Procedural Rules, took into account that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 had
not presented any documentation corroborating his allegations that he had signed
said loan agreement under pressure. Furthermore, whereas the information
contained in TMS demonstrates that the relevant loan indeed has not transpired
due to administrative TMS issues, which fact has moreover remained undisputed
by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Chamber disagreed with the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1’s argument that, therefore, the loan agreement
Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F
Page 11 of 14
and all of its articles are null and void. On a side note, the Chamber remarked that
the relevant loan agreement does not contain any conditional clause to this effect.
20.
On account of the above, the Chamber concurred that by agreeing to his loan to
the club from country H in April 2013, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 in fact
explicitly acknowledged the existence of an ongoing contractual relationship with
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. This seems to be confirmed by the wording of
art. 4 of the relevant loan agreement which clearly refers to “his [the player’s]
employment contract with Club C …”. The DRC further took into account that the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant equally considered that the contractual relationship
with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 continued to exist, not only by signing
the relevant loan agreement, but also in the light of its statement that the player
had not returned to the club after the said loan.
21.
For these reasons, the members of the Chamber concluded that by their action, i.e.
the signature of the loan agreement, the parties acknowledged that their
employment relationship continued to exist beyond the date on which the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 issued the notice of termination of 21 January
2013.
22.
Having established the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the
circumstances that occurred subsequent to the signature of the relevant loan
agreement.
23.
As stated above, the loan of the player to the club from country H as of 2 April
2013 until 30 July 2013 did not transpire due to administrative issues linked to the
registration of the player via the TMS. Hence, the Chamber established that both
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must
have been aware, at the latest by May 2013, of the fact that the player would not
be transferred on a loan basis to the club from country H.
24.
Equally, the Chamber noted that at the time the above circumstances relating to
said loan occurred and until 26 December 2013 the sporting seasons of country D
had been cancelled.
25.
The members of the Chamber considered that, in spite of the loan transfer having
failed, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 did not return to the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant and lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA.
26.
According to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, the Respondent/CounterClaimant had not respected its financial obligations towards him, which he
considered to be a just cause for the termination of the employment contract.
27.
In this respect, and bearing in mind its considerations under points I./14. and II./19.
above, the members of the Chamber concurred that by signing the loan
agreement, including its art. 4, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 had waived
Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F
Page 12 of 14
any rights relating to his remuneration for the 2012-13 season on the basis of the
employment contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
28.
Having come to this conclusion, the members of the Chamber deemed that they
did not need to further address and examine the allegations and documents
presented by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in support of its position with
regard to the financial entitlements of and payments made to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, in order to establish if there are any outstanding
payables towards the player.
29.
Furthermore, on account of the above, the Chamber decided to reject the claim of
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1.
30.
In continuation, whilst recalling its consideration outlined in point II./23. above,
the Chamber took into account that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, for its
part, first reacted with respect to the apparent absence of the Claimant/CounterRespondent 1 in October 2013 by means of its request to the Football Association
of country D to contact the association of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 in
order for the latter to return to the club. In other words, between May 2013 and
October 2013, no action was undertaken by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in
order to ensure the return of the player to Club C.
31.
Consequently, the Chamber concurred that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had
not demonstrated any real interest in the player’s services any longer, not even
after the player did not return to the club in October 2013, bearing in mind that
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant lodged its claim against the player in April 2014
only, without having undertaken any other action against the Claimant/CounterRespondent 1 as from October 2013 until then.
32.
Therefore, the Chamber decided
Respondent/Counterclaimant.
33.
As a final remark, the Chamber wished to highlight that, in the case at hand, the
parties may have acted as established above against the particular background of
the sporting seasons of country D having been cancelled during the time when the
facts which are at the basis of the present dispute occurred.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, Player A, is rejected.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club C, is rejected.
to
reject
the
counterclaim
of
the
*****
Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F
Page 13 of 14
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to article 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Markus Kattner
Acting Secretary General
Encl.: CAS directives
Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F
Page 14 of 14