Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-14308
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 22 August 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Laura
Condon
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
CLAIMANT:
Laura Condon, France
Represented by Union Nationale des Footballeurs Professionnels (UNFP)
RESPONDENT:
CHIEVO VERONA WOMEN FM, Italy
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-14308
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to the dispute are:
-
The French player, Laura Condon (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant);
-
The Italian club, Chievo Verona Women FM (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent)
2.
In June 2023, the Club contacted the Player through her agent to engage her as a
professional football player.
3.
On 19 June 2023, the Club made a first offer to the Player.
4.
On 20 June 2023, after some modifications, the Club sent a second offer to the Player, which
was then signed by her (hereinafter: the Offer).
5.
In accordance with the Offer, the Player was expected to receive a monthly salary of EUR
1,500 for 10 months of the 2023/2024 season.
6.
On 25 July 2023, the Club announced the Player's recruitment on its social media platforms.
7.
On 31 July 2023, the Player arrived in Italy.
8.
On the same day, the Player signed an employment contract valid as from 1 September
2023 until 30 June 2024 (hereinafter: the Contract).
9.
In accordance with the Contract, the Player would be entitled to a total gross salary of EUR
15,000, payable in monthly instalments on the first day of the following month.
10. It should be noted that the copy of the Contract filed by the Player does not contain the
Club’s signature.
11. Between 1 and 3 August 2023, the Club informed the Player via the group message in
WhatsApp about the number she would use and provided information regarding the
medical appointments. Moreover, on 3 August 2023, the Club stated “bon début
d'entraînement” (freely translated into English: “good training’ start”).
12. On 13 August 2023, the Player had the following conversation with a person called
Alessandro, in accordance with the Player a Club’s representative:
“Alessandro : Bonjour Laura, peux-tu venir au centre sportif à 10h ?
Player : Bonjour Alessandro, pour quelles raisons ?
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-14308
Alessandro : Simone et moi voulions te parler
Player : Parler de quoi ? Nous avons tout dit la dernière fois
Alessandro : En parlant, on peut toujours comprendre les points de vue de chacun
Alessandro : Et peut-être trouver un point d’accord
Player : Tu sais déjà tout, c’était l’accord initial ou rien. Donc nous n’avons rien à dire”
Freely translated into English:
"Alessandro: Hi Laura, can you come to the sports center at 10am?
Player: Hi Alessandro, what's the reason?
Alessandro: Simone and I wanted to talk to you.
Player: Talk about what? We said it all last time
Alessandro: By talking, we can always understand each other's points of view.
Alessandro: And maybe find a point of agreement.
Player: You already know everything, it was the initial agreement or nothing. So we
have nothing to say. ”
13. As per the FIFA Transfer Matching System (hereinafter: TMS), the women’s professional
2023/2024 football season in Italy started on 1 July 2023 and ended on 30 June 2024.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 4 April 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
position is set out below.
a. Position of the Claimant
15. The Claimant requested outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of
contract.
16. In her claim, the Player indicated that following the signature of the Contract and the
communications via the application WhatsApp; the Club requested the Player to modify
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-14308
the terms of the Contract, specifically to reduce her salary, which she did not agree to; and
therefore, the Club requested her to leave. Consequently, the Claimant considered that the
Club unilaterally terminated the Contract.
17. The Player also mentioned that the existence of the contractual relationship was
materialised as she (i) accepted the Club’s offer, (ii) arrived at the Club’s premises, (iii)
signed the Contract, (iv) received various communications via WhatsApp, and (v)
participated in different training sessions.
18. In light of the foregoing, the Player requested the following relief:
-
EUR 1,500 net as outstanding remuneration (August salary) plus 5% interest
as from 1 September 2023 until the date of effective payment.
-
EUR 13,500 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest as
from 13 August 2023 until the date of effective payment.
-
EUR 3,000 as legal fees.
b. Position of the Respondent
19. The Respondent failed to provide its position to the claim within the time limit granted by
the FIFA general secretariat.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-14308
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
20. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 April 2024 and submitted for decision on 22
August 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 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.
21. Furthermore, 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 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2024 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a French player and
an Italian club.
22. 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 (June 2024 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 4 April 2024, the February 2024 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
b. Burden of proof
23. 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 TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
24. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-14308
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
25. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that this
is a claim of a Player against a Club concerning an alleged termination of their employment
relationship.
26. The Chamber started by recalling the arguments of the Claimant, who asserted that the
parties had entered into a valid and binding contract, which the Club prematurely
terminated without just cause on 13 August 2023.
27. Equally, the Chamber observed that the Respondent failed to present its reply to the claim
of the Claimant, and therefore its decision would be made on the basis of the
documentation on file, that is, the argumentation and evidence filed by the Claimant, in
line with article 14 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules.
28. Consequently, the Chamber considered that its task was to determine whether the parties
had a proper employment relationship; and, if so, the consequences of its early
termination.
29. Having established the above, the Chamber recalled that, according to the well-established
jurisprudence of the DRC, in order for an employment contract to be considered as valid
and binding, it must contain, in addition to the consent of both the employer and the
employee (usually manifested by the signature to the relevant agreement), the essentialia
negotii of an employment contract, such as the parties to the contract and their role, the
duration of the employment relationship and the remuneration payable by the employer
to the employee.
30. The DRC further explained that the actual signature of the contract is not the only (or even
a necessary) element to determine whether the contractual relationship existed between
the parties. Instead, the validity and enforceability of the contract should be determined
on the basis of a comprehensive understanding of all the facts and actions taken by the
parties in the context of their relationship. In other words, the DRC confirmed that the
signature requirement is essentially the simplest way for a party has to prove that their
counterparty has entered into a contract; however, in line with the jurisprudence of both
the Football Tribunal and the CAS, an employment contract may be materialised by the
wish to be executed, and the signature can be understood as a requirement to prove the
club’s acceptance, but it is not the only evidence.
31. On this note and in the absence of a copy of the Contract signed by the Club, the DRC
deemed that it was for the Player to prove the existence of the employment relationship
on the basis of which she claimed outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach
of contract from the Club.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-14308
32. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the Player submitted proof that: (i) she was in
the Club’s premises,(ii) she was presented via the Club ‘s social media, and (iii) she was
provided with the Contract after accepting the Offer. As a result, and given that the Club
failed to dispute her claim, the Chamber concluded that the Player could sufficiently
establish that they had entered into a valid contract.
33. In continuation, the Chamber turned to the Player’s allegations as to the premature
termination caused by the Club and the ensuing consequences.
34. Accordingly, the DRC acknowledged that the only evidence submitted by the Player (i.e.,
the WhatsApp communications between the Player and the Club) only shows that the
Respondent attempted to reach an unsuccessful agreement. However, the Chamber could
not find any link between the Player’s apparent refusal to settle with the Club and her
departure from the Club's premises. Moreover, the Chamber found it essential that, since
these WhatsApp communications, the Player had not contacted the Club to either request
the performance of the Contract or confirm its termination.
35. In this context, the Chamber considered that the Player had failed to produce any
document that could corroborate the events between the signing of the Contract and the
submission of the claim. Consequently, the DRC found that, from the (lack of)
documentation on file, it could not establish that there has been a breach of contract on
the part of the Club, let alone that it was severe enough to trigger the consequences of a
termination. It followed, in the Chamber’s view, that the Player could not prove that she
was interested in continuing her employment with the Club, nor that the Club had
prevented her from doing so.
36. Based on all the above, and particularly the lack of conclusive evidence in the file, the
Chamber decided that the parties mutually departed from the Contract before its
execution started.
37. In conclusion, the Chamber decided that no compensation should be awarded and
therefore rejected the Player’s claim.
d. Costs
38. 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.
39. 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-14308
40. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-14308
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Laura Condon, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-14308
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