Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 22 November 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player A
BY:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland), member
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), member
CLAIMANT:
A, Country A
Represented by
RESPONDENT:
B, Country B
Represented by
pg. 2
I. Facts of the case
1. On 18 August 2022, the player A and B concluded and employment contract valid until 31
May 2024.
2. Accordingly, the player was entitled to the following net remuneration:
Season 2022/2023: EUR 1,100,000, payable as follows:
31.08.2022 100.000.-Euro
01.10.2022 150.000.-Euro
31.10.2022 150.000.-Euro
30.11.2022 100.000.-Euro
01.01.2023 100.000.-Euro
31.01.2023 100.000.-Euro
28.02.2023 100.000.-Euro
01.04.2023 100.000.-Euro
30.04.2023 100.000.-Euro
31.05.2023 100.000.-Euro
-
Season 2023/2024: EUR 1,100,000, payable as follows:
01.07.2023 2.500.-Euro
31.07.2023 2.500.-Euro
31.08.2023 95.000.-Euro
01.10.2023 100.000.-Euro
31.10.2023 150.000.-Euro
30.11.2023 150.000.-Euro
01.01.2024 100.000.-Euro
31.01.2024 100.000.-Euro
28.02.2024 100.000.-Euro
01.04.2024 100.000.-Euro
30.04.2024 100.000.-Euro
31.05.2024 100.000.-Euro
3. The contract stipulated the following:
(…) 4- THE CLUB’S OBLIGATIONS
c. To respect the Statutes, Regulations, including the Code of Ethics and Decisions of FIFA, UEFA
and Football Federation Country B and to comply with the Code of Ethics of the Football and to
maintain and promote ethical principles and code of conduct for football.
In addition to its contractual obligations under this contract the Club is also required to fulfil the
other obligations imposed by the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Professional Football
Players.
“9- DISPUTES
Any and all disputes arising out or in connection with this Contract shall be dealt with exclusively
by the Courts and Enforcement Offices of City country B and shall be resolved definitely in
accordance with Country B Law.”
4. Art 22 of the contract stipulated the following:
pg. 3
“The Club has the right to terminate this contract immediately, with just cause and without
paying any compensation:
a. immediately following the injury or illness arising from the causes other than his football
activities if it can be determined that the Player will not be able to provide his services to the
Club for more than six months or
b. after the passing of six months for the injury or illnesses for indefinite periods (art. 21 above is
reserved). The Player has been fully informed regarding Art. 27/1 of Football Federation Country
B Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (…) which regulates the clubs' right to
terminate contracts with just cause in case of players' injury or illnesses arising from the causes
other than their football activities that last for six months, has been reminded that he is free to
insure such a risk at his own cost and has accepted the Club's right in advance and irrevocably.”
5. On 5 July 2023, the player sent a default notice and requested the payment of the
outstanding amount of EUR 500,000 within 7 days.
6. On 2 August 2023, the player sent a new default notice indicating that the following
amounts remained unpaid, and granted 7 days to remedy the default:
• EUR 100,000 to be paid on or before 31st January 2023;
• EUR 100,000 to be paid on or before 28th February 2023;
• EUR 100,000 to be paid on or before 1st April 2023;
• EUR 100,000 to be paid on or before 30th April 2023; and
• EUR 100,000 to be paid on or before 31st May 2023.
7. On 4 August 2023, the club sent a letter to the player with, inter alia, the following:
“It has been noted that; on 04.08.2023 in the eating hall of our facilities, you carried a
disrespectful attitude towards the Professional Affairs Manager of our Club, swung the skewer
you held in your hand against him in a threatening manner, and verbally assaulted him with
insults.”
8. On 10 August 2023, the player via his lawyer sent a letter to the club in which he disputed
the accuracy of the club’s allegations, referring to CCTV footage to support his position. The
letter denied any prior improper behavior by the player and refuted claims of a "verbal
assault," asserting that it was the Professional Affairs Manager who had threatened him.
The letter concluded by requesting written confirmation that the club would not take
further action against him and sought the retraction of statements that could have harmed
his reputation.
9. On 10 August 2023, the player sent, via his lawyer, another letter, terminating the contract
with immediate effect.
10. The termination letter stated, inter alia, the following:
“For the avoidance of any doubt, the Outstanding Sum, together with the balance of the
Employment Contract for next season in the sum of €1,100,000 million (resulting in a total sum
owed of €1,600,000)
(…)
pursuant to Article 14 of FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player's, our client is
further entitled to terminate the Employment Contract with just cause (…) We have today written
to FIFA separately to inform them of the situation and to advise them as to our
pg. 4
client's release for registration to another team. We will also provide FIFA's registrations team
with a copy of this letter and the previous letters sent by ourselves to the Club. We also enclose
a copy of the letter that we have sent to FIFA today.
11. On 5 September 2023, the Football Federation Country B confirmed the termination of the
contract (“the termination has been entered to our records”)
12. On 16 November 2023, the Country C club, C, entered a transfer instruction to engage the
player permanently (Transfer Reference: XXXX).
13. On 17 October 2023, FIFA authorised the transfer under exceptional circumstances.
14. On 17 October 2023, the Football Federation Country B requested the cancellation of the
transfer in view of the “incorrect counter club”, indicating that the correct club name is XB.
15. On 17 October 2023, C entered a new transfer instruction to engage the player from XB.
16. On 17 October 2023, FIFA granted “validation exception” for the registration of the player
“Out of contract transfer prior to next registration period” with C, noting that “it would appear
that the requirements of art. 14bis to the RSTP are seemingly fulfilled and that therefore, it could
be, prima facie, asserted that the Player may have had just cause to terminate his contract in the
sense of said article” and that “it will remain the sole competence of the deciding authority having
jurisdiction to pass a decision as to the substance of the existing contractual dispute between the
parties to establish who is to be deemed responsible for the early termination of the employment
relationship in question and the possible financial and sporting consequences thereof.”
17. In this respect, the player and C concluded an employment contract valid as from 3 October
2023 until 30 June 2024, for a monthly salary of Currency Country C 2,500 per week (from 3
October 2023 until 30 June 2024, with a monthly salary of Currency Country C 2,500 per week,
the player would earn Currency Country C 90,000, i.e. 36*2,500, equivalent to approx. EUR
100,000).
pg. 5
II. Proceedings before FIFA
18. On 4 October 2023, the player lodged a claim before the FIFA Football Tribunal for outstanding
remuneration and breach of contract without just cause and requested the payment of the
following amounts:
Description
Outstanding salaries from 31 Jan 2023 to 31
May 2023
Salaries for the Second Season of the Contract
Balance of Sums Due for the 2023/24 Season
Total
Amount (EUR)
500,000 EUR
100,000 EUR
(01.07.23 2,500 EUR; 31.07.23 2,500
EUR; 31.08.23 95,000 EUR)
1,000,000 EUR
1,600,000 EUR
19. The player also requested the imposition of sporting sanctions against the club as well as to
Formally recommend and request that the Football Federation Country B do investigate the
conduct of the Club's Professional Affairs Manager
20. In its reply, the club referred to art. 9 of the employment contract specifies exclusive jurisdiction
in City country B, Country B.
21. The club noted that FIFA Regulations allow recourse to civil courts for employment-related
disputes.
22. The Respondent requested the Chamber to rule that the Football Tribunal lacks jurisdiction and
declare the Claimant's claim inadmissible.
23. The club wished to briefly underline that, in its view, the Player does not have outstanding
remuneration in the amount of EUR 500,000 and considered that the latter violated his
obligations and breached the employment contract without just case. The club considered that
the termination of the employment contract by the Claimant is without just cause since the player
did not abide by the procedure for the termination of the employment contracts of football
players as given under the Country B Law
24. In his replica, the Claimant insisted in the competence of FIFA.
25. In particular, the Claimant argued that the dispute resolution provision inserted at clause in the
contract is not a clear, exclusive, and comprehensive removal of FIFA's jurisdiction. According to
the player, FIFA's jurisdiction is still explicitly acknowledged in other parts of the contract, as
follows:
In the Payments and Special Conditions section (3(3)), the parties have adopted RSTP (save
as fully excluded), showing the continued recognition of FIFA's jurisdiction.
pg. 6
-
-
Special provision 22 allows for 'just cause' termination, a concept from FIFA law and
jurisdiction, not Country B law, indicating that the intention was not to render parts of the
contract redundant by declining FIFA's jurisdiction.
Clauses 4c and 5c expressly incorporate the FIFA Statutes and Regulations, which are not
under Country B court jurisdiction. Therefore, the dispute resolution clause does not
provide a complete replacement for FIFA jurisdiction.
26. The player underlined that respecting the principle of contractual autonomy requires respecting
all parts of the contract.
27. Furthermore, the player considered that the parties' common intention must prevail on the
wording of their contract and referred to the principle of in dubio contra stipulatorem.
28. The player emphasized in particular that, by letter dated 5 September 2023, the Professional
Affairs Unit of the Football Federation Country B -without any reference to the Courts and
Enforcement Offices of City country B, and without challenge by the Club to the Courts and
Enforcement Offices of City country B- formally declared the contract to have been terminated.
29. In addition, the player argued that the presented contract is only a template and that because
of the international nature of the contract, it would not be fair, just and reasonable to impose
him a standard-form provision requiring him to contemplate suing as an overseas foreigner in
the Country B Courts for any redress due to him under the Contract.
30. In its duplica, the Respondent disagreed with all of the Claimant's assertions and insisted that
Art. 9 of the employment contract clearly discards FIFA's jurisdiction.
31. The Respondent underlined that CAS jurisprudence establishes that a choice-of-forum clause is
deemed exclusive unless expressly provided otherwise, while insisted that the employment
contract doesn't acknowledge FIFA jurisdiction, and there's no reference to FIFA Regulations.
32. In the opinion of the Respondent, the jurisdiction clause is clear and leaves no room for the
application of the principle of in dubio contra stipulatorem.
33. The Respondent further considered that FIFA's correspondence does not indicate a prima facie
acceptance of jurisdiction and explained that the Football Federation Country B's notification is
just a record of the termination.
34. The club also considered that the arguments about fair proceedings and equality of arms are
not applicable to State Courts.
pg. 7
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a.
Competence and applicable legal framework
35. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC)
analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note
that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 4 October 2023 and submitted for decision on
22 November 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the May 2023 edition of the
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
36. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber would
in principle be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a Country A player and a Country B
club.
37. Subsequently, 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 (May 2023 edition), and considering that the
present claim was lodged on 4 October 2023, the May 2023 edition of said regulations
(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b.
Burden of proof
38. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13 par. 5 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. Likewise, the Chamber stressed the wording of art. 13 par.
4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider evidence not filed by the parties,
including without limitation the evidence generated by or within the Transfer Matching System
(TMS).
c.
Admissibility
39. The Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent, on the one hand, contested the competence
of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of clause 9 of the contract, alleging that the competent
body to deal with any dispute deriving from the relevant employment contract corresponds to
the “Courts and Enforcement Offices of City Country B”. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that
the Claimant insisted on the competence of FIFA to adjudicate the claim.
40. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 par.
1 of the Regulations, FIFA is competent to hear employment-related disputes between a player
pg. 8
and a club with an international dimension “without prejudice to the right of any player (…) or club
to seek redress before a civil court for employment related disputes”.
41. In the present matter, the Chamber duly noted that the Claimant and the Respondent had
unambiguously and exclusively decided that any dispute that would arise from the contract
would be submitted to the “Courts and Enforcement Offices of City Country B”.
42. The Chamber recalled that parties may freely agree to give jurisdiction to a civil court, and that
such choice shall always prevail. In fact, the Chamber, recalling its jurisprudence as well as the
CAS jurisprudence in this regard, highlighted that even if the choice of law does not specify which
courts are competent (e.g. a generic reference is made to a region/city), FIFA is not competent
when the parties have exclusively agreed upon the jurisdiction of a civil court. In addition, the
Chamber emphasized that art. 22 par. 1 of the Regulations provides a clear hierarchy in favour
of contractual autonomy.
43. In view of all the above, the Chamber concluded that it was not competent to hear the dispute
between the Claimant and the Respondent, and consequently declared the claim inadmissible.
d.
Costs
44. The Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “Procedures
are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent, or match agent”.
Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed on the parties.
45. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 25 par. 8
of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in these
proceedings.
46. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any
of the parties.
pg. 9
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The FIFA Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, A.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 11