Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 4 April 2007,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), Member
Ivan Gazidis (USA), Member
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), Member
Carlos Soto (Chile), Member
on the claim presented by
the player, A, X
as Claimant
against
the club, B, Y
as Respondent
regarding a dispute about
the employment contract concluded between the parties
I. Facts of the case
1. On 17 February 2005 the X player A and the Y club B concluded a contract due to expire
on 17 February 2008.
2. According to the aforementioned contract the player was entitled to receive the
monthly salary of YYY 1,000 (EUR 290), whereas any additional amount due as a bonus
or premium would be established in a separate agreement between the parties.
3. On 8 February 2006 the player contacted FIFA claiming the unilateral breach of contract
without just cause by the Y club.
4. In this respect, the player informed FIFA that he refused to sign, on 30 January 2006, a
document whereby he would have to agree on the mutual termination of the
employment contract, and declare all financial obligations stipulated therein as
fulfilled. The player would be consequently liberated from any contractual obligation
and free to join the club of his choice.
5. The player therefore requests compensation for contractual breach corresponding to
the amount he would have earned until the end of the contract, if the club had not
committed breach.
6. The player quantifies the remaining value of the contract in the amount of EUR 66,000,
on account of the fact that the parties allegedly signed an additional agreement
whereby the club would have committed itself to pay the player EUR 30,000 for the
second season and EUR 36,000 for the third season.
7. The existence of such alleged obligation undertaken by the club has been confirmed in
writing by the player’s agent, Mr C.
8. However, the player states that he is not in possession of this additional agreement, but
only of the employment contract signed on 17 February 2005.
9. According to the player, witness of the fact that the salary indicated in the employment
contract signed on 17 February 2005 is not the salary the parties actually agreed upon,
would be borne by the disciplinary sanction imposed by B against him, whereby the Y
club decided to reduce the player’s monthly salary down to YYY 1,730 (EUR 500). The
player points out that this document officially confirms that his authentic salary is
definitely higher than YYY 1,730 (EUR 500). In fact, according to the player YYY 1,730
(EUR 500) would be only 25% of his actual monthly salary.
10. A copy of the above document dated 8 September 2005, bearing the signature of the
club’s representatives, as well as that of the player for acceptance, was provided to FIFA
by both parties concerned.
11. The player adds that he was forced to leave Y due to the fact that the club unilaterally
terminated his contract and, in this respect, also asks to be refunded the flight ticket for
Player Y, X / B, Y
2
the destination of his choice, in casu Z, where he has since been trying to find a club,
though unsuccessfully (no mention in the employment contract of any such refund).
12. The player finally requests to be awarded EUR 500 as goal bonus, in compliance with
the contents of the additional agreement he allegedly concluded with the club (no
further specification of such claim was made by the player).
13. B maintain in their position that the salary due to the player corresponds to the one
indicated in employment contract concluded between the parties on 17 February 2005
and that no additional agreement was ever made.
14. In addition to that, B maintain that they were forced to terminate the contract with the
player due to his repeated breach of the club’s disciplinary rules. In particular, the
player was found guilty of unruly lifestyle, of reporting late for the training sessions
and even of having devastated the apartment the club had provided him with.
15. The only evidence supplied by the club in this sense is a report filled by the club’s coach
mentioning the player’s misbehaviour and poor performance both on and off the pitch.
16. The consequent unavoidable sanction, i.e. the reduction of the player’s monthly salary
down to YYY 1,730 (EUR 500), was in fact acknowledged and accepted by the player
himself.
17. However, on account of the fact that the above-mentioned measure did not prove to
be a good deterrent for the player’s unacceptable behaviour and systematic breach of
internal rules, the club was forced to terminate the employment contract due to the
sole fault of the player on 19 January 2006.
18. In light of the above, B request the Dispute Resolution Chamber to reject the player’s
claim.
19. A requests the Dispute Resolution Chamber to condemn B to pay him compensation for
breach of contract in the amount EUR 66,000, corresponding to the remaining value of
the contract, plus the reimbursement of the flight ticket from B to Z, as well as EUR 500
as goal bonus.
II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed whether it was competent to deal
with the matter at stake. In this respect, it referred to art. 18 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber. The present matter was submitted to FIFA in January 2006, as a consequence
the Chamber concluded that the revised Rules Governing Procedures (edition 2005) on
matters pending before the decision making bodies of FIFA apply to the matter at
hand.
2. With regard to the competence of the Chamber, art. 3 par. 1 of the above-mentioned
Rules states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its jurisdiction in the
light of articles 22 to 24 of the current version of the Regulations for the Status and
Player Y, X / B, Y
3
Transfer of Players (edition 2005). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in connection with
art. 22 (b) of the aforementioned Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall
adjudicate on employment-related disputes between a club and a player that have an
international dimension.
3. As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is the competent body to decide on
the present litigation involving a Y club and a X player regarding a dispute in
connection with an employment contract.
4. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations
for the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the
matter. In this respect, the Chamber referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of
the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005) and, on the other
hand, to the fact that the relevant contract at the basis of the present dispute was
signed on 17 February 2005 and the claim was lodged at FIFA by the X player on 8
February 2006. In view of the aforementioned circumstances, the Chamber concluded
that the current FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005,
hereafter: the Regulations) apply to the case at hand as to the substance.
5. In continuation, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber
acknowledged the documentation contained in the file and focussed its attention on
the fact that on 17 February 2005 the X player A and the Y club B concluded a threeyear contract, whereby the player was entitled to receive the monthly salary of YYY
1,000 (EUR 290).
6. Besides, the deciding body took note of the fact that, according to the player, the
parties allegedly signed an additional agreement whereby the club would have
committed itself to pay him EUR 30,000 for the second season and EUR 36,000 for the
third season.
7. The Dispute Resolution Chamber then ascertained that no evidence of such additional
agreement was ever supplied.
8. Yet, due consideration was given to the document dated 8 September 2005 whereby
the Y club decided to reduce the player’s monthly salary down to YYY 1,730 (EUR 500).
This document, it was noted, seems to confirm that the player’s authentic salary was
meant to be definitely higher than the one indicated in the employment contract dated
17 February 2005.
9. The Chamber came therefore to the preliminary conclusion that, contrary to the Y club’s
allegations in this respect, the salary received by the X player did not correspond to YYY
1,000 (EUR 290).
10. However, the deciding body was faced with a major lack of evidence corroborating the
player’s financial request and, in particular, the alleged additional agreement whereby
the club would have committed itself to pay Mr A EUR 30,000 for the second season and
EUR 36,000 for the third season.
Player Y, X / B, Y
4
11. Moreover, no evidence was brought in support of the request for goal bonus and
reimbursement for flight tickets, as neither of the above are mentioned in the only copy
of the contract that FIFA was provided with.
12. On the other hand, the deciding authority concentrated its attention on the reasons
that led the Y club to unilaterally terminate the contract with the X player on 19
January 2006 due to his poor performance and repeated breach of the club’s
disciplinary rules.
13. To this end it was observed that, although the player himself acknowledged and
accepted the reduction of his monthly salary down to YYY 1,730 (EUR 500) by signing
the document dated 8 September 2005, the club had apparently never issued a prior
warning to the player before proceeding to unilaterally terminate the employment
contract.
14. The Chamber therefore concluded that the Y club B terminated the employment
contract with A without just cause and is therefore liable to pay compensation.
15. With regard to the determination of the applicable amount of compensation, the
Chamber referred to Article 17 § 1 of the Regulations and, in particular, to the nonexhaustive enumeration of the objective criteria which need to be taken into account in
assessing the amount of compensation due.
16. In continuation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber took due note of the fact that the
player A claims the remaining value of the contract as compensation for the breach of
the said agreement, on the basis of an additional agreement, which was never supplied
to FIFA. In this regard, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the player had
been rendering his services to the club for eleven months, and that the relevant
employment contract still had approximately two years to run at the moment of its
termination. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber took note of the fact that the
player, since the date of the termination, has not succeeded in concluding an
employment contract with another club.
17. On account of the aforementioned circumstances, and relying on the documentation at
its disposal, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 12,000 was to be
considered reasonable and justified as compensation for breach of contract.
18. Consistently with the all of the above-mentioned considerations, all other requests filed
by the player are rejected due to lack of evidence.
19. To conclude with, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the Y club B, must pay
to the X player, Mr A, the amount of EUR 12,000.
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the X player, Mr A, is partially accepted.
Player Y, X / B, Y
5
2. The Y club, B, has to pay the amount of EUR 12,000 to the player, Mr A, within 30 days
of notification of this decision.
3. If the aforementioned amount is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, a 5%
interest rate per annum as from the expiry of the aforementioned deadline will apply,
and the present matter will be submitted to the FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee, so that
the necessary disciplinary sanctions may be imposed.
4. The player, Mr A, is directed to inform the club, B, immediately of the account number
to which the remittances are to be made, and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber
of any payment received.
5. According to art. 61 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:
Château de Béthusy
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00, Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
[email protected], www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Jérôme Valcke
General Secretary
Encl. CAS directives
Player Y, X / B, Y
6