Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 13 May 2005,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Maurice Watkins (England), Member
Paulo Rogerio Amoretty Souza (Brazil), Member
Gerardo Movilla (Spain), Member
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), Member
on the claim presented by
the player, X
as Claimant
against
the club, Y
as Respondent
regarding a contractual dispute between the parties involved
./…
Facts of the case:
− The parties signed an employment contract on 8 August 2004 for the period until 31
May 2005, with a monthly salary of USD 5’000 net, to be paid on the very last day of
each month.
− The claim of X (the Claimant) arrived at FIFA on 1 November 2004, stipulating that
after a few games with the club’s A-team, the management of Y apparently lost
interest in him and proposed that he play in the lower B-team until further notice.
− According to the player, this was all part of a ploy to indirectly oust him from the
team in order to avoid costs.
− He therefore rejected the proposal, which he says led the club to unilaterally cancel
the contract in October 2004, falsely basing its decision on a series of minor
disciplinary offences as a justification.
− Consequently, the player declares the contract was unjustly cancelled by the club and
requests payment of his salaries from October 2004 until the end of the contract,
USD 40’000 in total.
− The Respondent, Y, denies all allegations made by the player, maintaining that he
was guilty of misconduct on various counts throughout the month of October 2004,
including: insolence towards a team mate and towards the coach during practice on
12.10.2004; absence from an official match on 16 October 2004; lack of effort at two
training sessions on 19 and 22 October 2004; use of his mobile phone in the changing
room and the team bench during an official game.
− As a result of these repeated disciplinary infractions of the player, as well as his
refusal to join the B team until further notice, the contract was rescinded on
26.10.2004.
− The club believes that the amount of CYP 1’100 should be deducted from the player’s
salary of October 2004 for disciplinary fines imposed on him throughout that month,
so that only CYP 1’400 is in fact still outstanding.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
The Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Players’ Status Committee shall review
disputes coming under its jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 42 of the FIFA Regulations for
the Status and Transfer of Players (hereafter: FIFA Regulations) at the request of one of
the parties to the dispute.
Page 2 of 5
According to Art. 42 of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players, the
triggering elements of the dispute (i.e. whether a contract was breached, with or
without just cause, or sporting just cause), will be decided by the Dispute Resolution
Chamber of the FIFA Players’ Status Committee.
Consequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is the competent body to decide on the
present litigation concerning the alleged breach of contract between the claimant and
the respondent.
Entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber noted that the principle ground
on which X bases his claim, is the early termination of his employment contract on
disputable grounds, and the ensuing non-payment of his salary for the month of
October 2004.
The club, on the other hand, contests the questionability of its reasons for the
termination of the player’s employment contract, as it has concrete proof of the
repeated incidents of disciplinary misconduct that allegedly brought about the decision
to cancel the contract, including the initial refusal of the player to train with the club’s
B-Team.
Based on these points of debate, the members of the Chamber began their study of the
case by analysing the relevant documents in the file, finding no documentary proof of
any problems between the parties that may have existed before the disciplinary
misconduct of the player throughout the month of October 2004.
However, the members remarked, this does not exclude the possibility that such
problems did in fact arise before that time period, and that the player’s disciplinary
misbehaviour was the result thereof.
The members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber found no documentary evidence in
the file that may unquestionably clarify the actual course of events that led up to the
player’s misconduct throughout the month of October 2004. However, there was
sufficient evidence that X had committed a number of disciplinary offences, and,
whether these allegations were entirely accurate or not, that he had been officially
warned in this respect on several occasions.
In this context the members of the Chamber deemed it was important to acknowledge
that certain disciplinary sanctions for a player’s misconduct or absenteeism may be
called for from the club’s perspective. Nevertheless, such disciplinary misconduct is not
always sufficient justification for the immediate termination of the employment
contract, especially when the player has not been heard in the matter and has therefore
not been allowed to offer a defence before an official disciplinary deciding body of the
club or of the relevant football association.
Page 3 of 5
In the case at hand, the Chamber observed, the player had not been officially heard by
any deciding instance and, moreover, the decision to release him from his duties had
apparently not been officially communicated to him in writing.
In conclusion, Y could be held accountable for the irregular termination of the
employment contract and would consequently have to pay a damage compensation to
the claimant.
On the other hand, the Chamber turned its attention to the actions of the claimant,
acknowledging that there was sufficient documentary proof that X had been officially
warned about the consequences of the disciplinary offences he was being accused of. It
was therefore agreed that this failure to fulfil his own contractual duties was not
entirely justifiable and in this respect fault could also be found in the player’s own
behaviour.
Hence, the Chamber found there was a mutual accountability for the early termination
of the contract. As a result of this reciprocal liability, a compensation would be payable
by the club, but not in the full amount claimed by the player. Moreover, the financial
sanctions inflicted on the player would be upheld.
In view of the foregoing, it was decided that X shall receive the outstanding part of his
salary for October 2004, minus the disciplinary fines imposed on him. Converted into
U.S. Dollars, this leaves roughly USD 2’500 due. In addition to this, the player shall
receive a global damage compensation sum of USD 12’500 for the early termination of
his employment contract by the club.
To conclude, the total amount due to be paid to the claimant by Y is equal to USD
15’000.
Page 4 of 5
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim lodged by the Claimant is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent shall pay the total amount of USD 15’000 to the Claimant, within 30
days following the date of the communication of the present decision.
3. In the event that the debts of the Respondent are not paid within the stated
deadline, an interest rate of 5% per year will apply.
4. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately of the bank account
number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution
Chamber of every payment received.
5. According to art. 60 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 10 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:
Avenue de Beaumont 2
CH-1012 Lausanne
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:
Jérôme Champagne
Deputy General Secretary
Page 5 of 5