Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 24 November 2016,
by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge,
on the matter between the player,
Player A, Country B
as Claimant
and the club,
Club C, Country D
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
arisen between the parties
I. Facts of the case
1. On 5 February 2015, the Player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) with the Club of
Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), valid as from the date of
signature until 30 November 2015.
2. According to clause 5.1. of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a monthly
salary in the amount of USD 4,000, to be paid “in local currency at the Exchange
rate of the National Bank of Country D” (i.e. USD 40,000 in total).
3. Moreover, the contract included the following clauses:
4.1.1. The [Respondent] shall have the rights:
(…)
4.1.2 to demand from the [Claimant] to perform the work duties timely and
personally as well as to comply with the terms of this Contract and the current
labor regulation;
4.1.3. In case the level of professional skills due to the systematic violation of the
sport mode, skip training sessions and games without a valid reason to change the
wage.
4.1.4 In case the failing [the Claimant] of its obligations and not fulfilling
expectations hereunder Respondent has the right to revise the terms of this
Contract or abandon existing commitments and to terminate the contract without
paying any compensation.”
4. On 30 May 2016, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent, and
requested the payment of the total amount of USD 9,500 as outstanding
remuneration, detailed as follows:
- USD 8,000, corresponding to two months of outstanding salaries, respectively
due in October 2015 and November 2015;
- USD 1,500, corresponding to five months of rent, from July 2015 until
November 2015 and payable on the basis of a “verbal agreement”.
5. In addition, the Claimant requested the imposition of sporting sanctions against
the Respondent.
6. In particular, the Claimant explained that, on 15 October 2015, he sent a default
notice via email to the Respondent, by means of which he requested the payment
of his salary due in August and September 2015, as well as his “last bonus” and
four months of “house rent”.
7. In this regard, the Claimant attached an email allegedly sent by the Respondent
on 15 October 2015 in reply thereto, by means of which the latter “confirmed its
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
2
debts” and stated that they will be settled. According to the same
correspondence, the Respondent apparently declared that it was also expecting to
extend the Claimant’s contract.
8. The Claimant further acknowledged that at a later stage, the salaries of August
and September 2015 were paid by the Respondent, but that at the moment of
filing his claim before FIFA, the salaries due in October 2015 and November 2015
as well as the rent were still outstanding.
9. Subsequently, the Claimant stated that he sent a final default notice to the
Respondent on 10 March 2016, by means of which he requested the payment of
the total amount of USD 9,500, and that failure to do so would entitle him to
lodge a claim before FIFA.
10. In its reply, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s arguments and argued that
the Claimant is only focusing on his remuneration, while disregarding his
responsibilities which, according to the Respondent, consist in reaching a certain
result. In this regard, the Respondent stated that, following clause 4 of the
contract, it was entitled to change a player’s remuneration in view of his low
professionalism.
11. In his replica, the Claimant considered that the Respondent failed to substantiate
his alleged low professionalism and that, under any circumstance, the Respondent
was not entitled to unilaterally change the stipulations agreed upon in the
contract. Moreover, the Claimant noted that the Respondent, in its
correspondence dated 15 October 2015, stated that it was willing to extend his
contract.
12. In reference to the claimed rental costs, the Claimant considered that the
Respondent already acknowledged said debt by means of its correspondence
dated 15 October 2015 (cf. point 6 above).
13. As final comments, the Respondent confirmed its previous arguments. Moreover,
the Respondent argued that the payment of rent to the Claimant was not
stipulated in the contract.
II. Considerations of the DRC judge
1. First of all, the DRC judge analyzed whether he was competent to deal with the
case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted
to FIFA on 30 May 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 2015 edition of the Procedural Rules).
2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules and
confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with art. 22
lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016) he is
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
3
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated disputes between a club and a player with an international dimension
between a Player of Country B and a Club of Country D.
3. The competence of the DRC judge having been established, he decided thereafter
to analyse 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, he
confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2015 and 2016), and considering that the
present matter was submitted to FIFA on 30 May 2016, the 2015 edition of the
aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the
matter at hand as to the substance.
4. Having established the foregoing, and entering into the substance of the matter,
the DRC judge continued by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as
the documentation contained in the file in relation to the substance of the
matter. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following considerations
he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he
considered for the pertinent assessment of the matter at hand.
5. In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that, on 5 February 2015, the parties
to the dispute had signed an employment contract, valid until 30 November 2015,
in accordance with which the Respondent would pay the Claimant a monthly
salary in the amount of USD 4,000.
6. Moreover, the DRC judge took into consideration that according to the Claimant,
the Respondent had failed to pay his remuneration in the total amount of USD
9,500, corresponding to unpaid salaries, respectively due in October 2015 and
November 2015 (i.e. USD 8,000), as well as the amount of USD 1,500,
corresponding to five months of rent, from July 2015 until November 2015 and
payable on the basis of a “verbal agreement”.
7. In relation to the claimed outstanding salaries, the DRC judge took note of the
Respondent’s argument, according to which it had no overdue payables towards
the Claimant since it was entitled to deduct, in accordance with art. 4 of the
contract, said amounts in view of the alleged “low professionalism” of the
Claimant.
8. In this respect, the DRC judge wished to highlight that the Respondent failed to
support with any reliable evidence the alleged “low professionalism” of the
Claimant. More importantly, and regardless of the existence or not of said
circumstance, the aforementioned deductions, for the total amount of at least
USD 8,000, which were imposed for alleged “low professionalism” are manifestly
excessive and disproportionate and cannot be upheld. In particular, the DRC judge
highlighted that the total amount of said deductions corresponds to two months
of the Claimant’s monthly salary with the Respondent. Hence, the DRC judge
concluded that the deductions imposed on the Claimant by the Respondent must
be disregarded.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
4
9. Furthermore, and in any case, the DRC judge wished to point out that the
deduction of salary, or any other available financial sanction in general, shall not
be used by clubs as a means to set off outstanding financial obligations towards
players.
10. In conclusion, the DRC judge determined that the Respondent could not set off its
debt towards the Claimant by means of the various fines and deductions imposed
on him and that thus, the amount of USD 8,000 is due to the Claimant. Moreover,
the DRC judge highlighted that the Respondent never proved that said debt was
settled.
11. Moreover, in relation to the claimed reimbursement of the rent costs, the DRC
judge observed that the provided copy of the contract did not include any specific
stipulation in this regard.
12. For the sake of completeness, the DRC judge noted that, according to the
Claimant, said costs were included as a “verbal agreement”.
13. In this respect, the DRC judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as
stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party
claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of
proof.
14. In this regard, the DRC judge observed that the Claimant failed to provide any
convincing evidence in relation to the existence of said “verbal agreement”.
Consequently, the DRC judge decided to reject the Claimant’s claim in relation to
the rent costs.
15. The DRC judge concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing
that any further claims lodged by the Claimant are 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, outstanding remuneration in the amount of
USD 8,000.
3. In the event that the aforementioned amount is not paid within the stated time
limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the
aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon
request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal
decision.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
5
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 under point is to be made and to
notify the DRC judge of every payment received.
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 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 (CAS)
Avenue de Beaumont 2
CH-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:
Marco Villiger
Deputy Secretary General
Enclosed: CAS directives
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
6