Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 July 2005,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Jean-Marie Philips (Belgium) member
Philippe Diallo (France) member
Gerardo Movilla (Spain) member
Philippe Piat (France) member
on the claim presented by the
Player X, Argentina
as Claimant
against the
Club Y, England
and the
Club Z., Mexico
as Respondents
regarding outstanding remuneration
on the basis of an employment relation
./…
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The player X from Argentina, Claimant, was under contract with the club, Y, as
from 1 July 2002 until 30 June 2006 with a weekly salary of £ 10,865.38.
2.
The Claimant was loaned for 1 year during the season 2003/2004 from Y to the
Mexican club, Z. By the end of the loan period the Claimant was transferred on a
definite basis from Y to Z.
3.
On 8 March 2005, the Claimant contacted the FIFA administration maintaining
during his loan period at the Mexican club, Y should have paid him the amount of
USD 200,000 because his yearly salary with the Y club totaled USD 500,000 and,
throughout the loan, Z was merely paying him an agreed amount of USD 300,000.
4.
In this respect, the Claimant specified that Y had, as such, paid him an amount of
USD 100,000 and that, on the basis of an annex to the employment contract that
was entered between Y and himself, the remainder amount of USD 100,000 would
have been payable to him at the time of a definitive transfer leaving the Y club.
However, the Claimant explained that he never actually received a copy of the
relevant annex to the employment contract.
5.
Furthermore, the Claimant insisted that during the negotiations on the definitive
transfer to Mexico and on the employment contract with the Mexican club, the
board of directors of the Mexican club invited him to sign a financial settlement,
by means of which he confirmed that he had received all monies from Y. In this
respect, the Claimant provided a copy of a document dated 29 June 2004, by
means of which he documented that he wanted to render his services to the
Mexican club and that therefore, he would sign a settlement agreement
confirming that Y had paid him all outstanding remuneration despite the fact that
he could not agree with such a settlement since Y still owed him the amount of
USD 100,000. The Claimant signed this financial settlement confirming that he
received all outstanding remuneration from Y on 1 July 2004.
6.
The Claimant provided copies of various correspondence he received from Y, by
means of which the Y club explained that it had reduced the transfer
compensation payable by Z in the amount of USD 100,000 so that this amount
could be paid to him by the Mexican club.
7.
Finally, the Claimant requested FIFA’s intervention since he had neither received
the outstanding amount of USD 100,000 from the Y club nor from the Mexican
club Z.
8.
On 22 March 2005, the English club Y informed the FIFA administration that it had
agreed with the Mexican club Z to reduce the transfer compensation by the
amount of USD 100,000, which was to be paid to the Claimant by the Mexican
club. The English club pointed out that this was agreed with the parties since the
Claimant was rendering his services in Mexico and it was felt that it would be
easier for him to receive the amount of USD 100,000 owed in Mexico rather than
transferring the amount from England. Furthermore, the English club maintained
that the original transfer compensation agreed with the Mexican club for the
2
transfer of the federative rights to the Claimant amounted to USD 1,600,000 and it
was reduced to the amount of USD 1,500,000 so as to enable the Mexican club to
pay the amount of USD 100,000 to the Claimant directly. Finally, the English club
provided a copy of a correspondence dated 30 June 2004, by means of which it
informed the Claimant’s agent about the relevant reduction of the transfer
compensation payable by the Mexican club.
9.
Furthermore, the English club provided a copy of the financial settlement signed
by the Claimant on 1 July 2004. As a result, Y is of the opinion that it fulfilled all
obligations towards the Claimant.
10.
On 23 March 2005, the Mexican club informed the FIFA administration that no
agreement existed, neither written nor oral, concerning a payment amounting to
USD 100,000 owed to the Claimant and relating to the reduction of the transfer
compensation . Moreover, the Mexican club requested that the English club should
provide evidence in order to sustain its allegations concerning the alleged
agreement.
11.
On 27 April 2005, the Claimant requested FIFA’s intervention once more and
pointed out, inter alia, that even if there had been an agreement between the
two clubs regarding the debt of USD 100,00, he had never authorized the English
club to cede the debt owed to him to the Mexican club.
12.
On 16 May 2005, the English club referred to its previous statement.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber reviewes disputes coming under its jurisdiction
pursuant to Art. 42 of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players
(edition September 2001), at the request of one of the parties to the dispute.
2.
According to Art. 42, par. 1 lit. (b) (i) of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and
Transfer of Players (edition September 2001), 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.
3.
As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is the competent body to
decide on the present litigation involving a player from Argentina, a club from
England and a club from Mexico.
4.
Subsequently, and entering into the substance of the matter, the members of the
Chamber started by acknowledging that the Claimant was under contract with the
English club as from 1 July 2002 until 30 June 2006 receiving a weekly salary of
£ 10,865.38. Moreover, the Chamber observed that during the season 2003/2004
the Claimant was rendering his services to the Mexican club on the basis of a loan
agreement signed by both clubs. At the end of the loan period the Claimant was
definitely transferred to the Mexican club.
3
5.
In continuation, the Chamber took note that the Claimant requests the payment
of an alleged outstanding amount of USD 100,000 either from the English or from
the Mexican club. The Chamber acknowledged that the claimed amount is directly
related to the fact that the player earned less whilst rendering his services to the
Mexican club when on loan than he would have done at the English club and that
the latter had allegedly agreed to pay the difference between both salaries, i.e.
USD 200,000, once the player were definitely transferred. Finally, the Chamber
observed that according to the Claimant, Y already paid half of the difference
between both salaries to him and therefore, the claimed amount still owed totals
USD 100,000.
6.
Turning its attention to the claim against the English club, the Chamber
acknowledged that on 1 July 2004 the Claimant signed a financial settlement
confirming that the English club settled all financial obligations towards him.
7.
Moreover, the Chamber took into consideration that the English club contested its
obligation to pay the mentioned amount to the Claimant arguing that the latter
had, on 1 July 2004, confirmed that it had fulfilled all financial obligations and
that the Mexican club had undertaken to pay the amount of USD 100,000 to the
Claimant.
8.
For the sake of good order, the Chamber emphasised that the document dated
29 June 2004, which had been signed by the Claimant and two witnesses and
according to which the Claimant documented that he would only sign the
financial settlement with the English club in order to safeguard his new
contractual relationship with the Mexican club although Y still owed him the
amount of USD 100,000. This document is neither legally binding for the English
club nor does it abrogate the legal consequences of the financial settlement
signed on 1 July 2004.
9.
As a result, the Chamber underlined that based on the duly signed financial
settlement dated 1 July 2004 it had to conclude that the English club had settled
all its financial obligations towards the Claimant.
10.
Turning its attention to the Mexican club, the Chamber took into account that the
Mexican club denies that it ever agreed with the English club to pay the amount
of USD 100,000 to the Claimant.
11.
Subsequently, the Chamber underlined that, due to the lack of evidence and due
to the denial of the Mexican club that it ever entered into such an agreement, it
must be concluded that the Mexican club never undertook to pay the amount of
USD 100,000 to the Claimant.
12.
Taking into account all of the above and based on all documentation provided,
the Dispute Resolution Chamber came to the conclusion that there are no grounds
based on which either Y or Z should pay the amount of USD 100,000 to the
Claimant.
4
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim lodged by the Claimant, Mr X, against Y is rejected.
2.
The claim lodged by the Claimant, Mr X, against Z. is rejected.
3.
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
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:
Urs Linsi
General Secretary
Encl.
CAS directives
5