Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-7666
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 7 December 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Albi Alla
BY:
Jorge GUTIERREZ, Costa Rica
CLAIMANT:
Albi Alla, Albania
Represented by Metjon Giannis Braho
RESPONDENT:
Nanjing City FC, China PR
Page 2
REF FPSD-7666
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 28 July 2021, the Albanian player, Albi Alla (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant), and
the Chinese club, Nanjing City FC (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent), concluded an
employment contract valid as from 1 August 2021 until 31 December 2021 (hereinafter:
the contract).
2.
According to article 3 the contract, the club undertook to pay the player: (i) RMB 225,000
net as monthly salary; and (ii) USD 1,000 net per goal scored or every 2 assists.
3.
Furthermore, article 3, par. 5 of the contract read inter alia as follows, quoted verbatim:
“In addition to the salary stipulated in the paragraph 1 of this Article, [the club] has the
right to determine whether to pay bonuses to [the player] depending on the
circumstance. The amount as well as the payment method of the bonuses shall be
determined according to the relevant bonus distribution pal of [the club]. [The club]
shall have the right to make the final decision on the amount and payment method of
bonuses. At the same time, the total amount of bonuses (before tax) paid by [the club]
shall not exceed the maximum amount of bonus stipulated by regulations of Chinese
Football Association (‘CFA’) and/or the relevant League Management Council [...]. Apart
from the above described salary and bonus, [the club] shall not pay any other money
to [the player]”.
4.
On 30 August 2022, the player put the club in default and requested payment of USD
30,000 corresponding to bonuses on the basis of art. 3, par. 5 of the contract. The player
granted the club a 10 days’ deadline to remedy the breach.
5.
On 13 September 2022, the player sent the club a reminder and requested the payment
to be delivered within the following 3 days, to no avail.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 29 September 2022, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA and requested to
be awarded the total amount of USD 30,000 as outstanding bonuses plus 5% interest p.a.
as from the due dates.
7.
After being requested by the FIFA general secretariat to provide a breakdown of the
amounts sought, the player explained that the payments were due on the basis of article
3, par. 5 of the contract for 10 matches played during 2021.
8.
The club failed to reply to the player’s claim despite being invited to do so by the FIFA
general secretariat.
Page 3
REF FPSD-7666
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
9.
First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred
to as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand.
In this respect, he took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 29
September 2022 and submitted for decision on 7 December 2022. Taking into account
the wording of art. 34 of the October 2022 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.
10. The Single Judge then 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 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (October 2022 edition), the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (DRC) is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an Albanian player
and a Chinese club.
11. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations 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 (October 2022 edition),
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 29 September 2022, the July 2022
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
12. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
13. The competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
Page 4
REF FPSD-7666
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
14. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that it pertains to a claim for outstanding bonuses.
15. In particular, the Single Judge observed that the player claimed to be entitled to a total
amount of USD 30,000, corresponding to bonuses for wins and ties. The club, on the other
hand, failed to reply to the claim.
16. In this context, the Single Judge turned his attention to content of the contract and in
particular to its art. 3, par 5. In doing so, he noted that such provision refers in general
terms to bonuses to paid to the player upon the club’s decision. What is more, the Single
Judge was also observant that there is neither specification as to the quantum nor
reference to the method of calculation of such bonuses. On the contrary, the Single Judge
considered that wording of the cited provision is clear to establish that any additional
remuneration would be subject to the discretion of the club.
17. In parallel, the Single Judge also took due consideration that the player failed to provide
any convincing evidence that the amounts claimed were ever formally agreed upon with
the club (e.g. private agreement, acknowledgment of debt, proof of payment of similar
bonuses for other matches).
18. In light of the above and although the claim sub judice was not contested, the Single Judge
deemed that it was for the player to demonstrate that he was indeed entitled to the
concepts sought (cf. art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules). Nevertheless, it was his
conclusion that the player’s claim lacks contractual basis and is not sufficiently
substantiated.
19. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the claim be rejected.
d. Costs
20. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs
were to be imposed on the parties.
21. Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
Page 5
REF FPSD-7666
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Albi Alla, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 6
REF FPSD-7666
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).
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
Page 7