Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16181
Decision of the
Players’ Status Chamber
passed on 2 December 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning Mr. Petar Dekic
BY:
Castellar GUIMARAES NETO (Brazil)
CLAIMANT:
Petar Dekic, Portugal
Represented by Pedro Macieirinha
RESPONDENT:
Arabi SC, Kuwait
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16181
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 4 November 2023, the Portuguese fitness and physical coach (hereinafter: the Claimant),
and the Kuwaiti club, Arabi SC (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered into an
employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 10 November 2023 until 30
June 2024.
2.
The Contract states as follows:
“The second party agreed to join the technical staff of the first party as a Fitness and physical
coach […].”
3.
In accordance with clause 2 of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the
Claimant the following amounts:
“The first party shall pay the second party a lump sum financial reward, including all its
contractual and legal entitlements, amounting to 1,200 KD to be paid to him at the end of each
month throughout the contract period […].”
4.
On 11 September 2024, the Claimant sent a default notice to the Respondent requesting
KWD 1,200 as outstanding remuneration from June 2024, plus 5% interest as from the due
date until effective payment and gave the respondent a 10-day deadline to comply with
their default, to no avail.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
5.
On 23 September 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
6.
According to the Claimant, he “shall be deemed a coach because notwithstanding the
nomination of the Claimant as Second Party Fitness and physical coach, the reality is that,
among others, the duties of the Claimant were related to training and coaching players.”
7.
In this regard the Claimant provided photos of him training with the team as evidence that
his duties matched the duties of a coach as defined in the Regulations.
8.
In addition, the Claimant provided a copy of the Claimant’s UEFA A Licence alleging that the
position of the coach “requires the holding of a coaching license in accordance with a domestic
or continental club licencing regulation.”
9.
The requests for relief of the Claimant, were the following:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16181
“FIFA has jurisdiction to hear the present dispute;
The Respondent shall be condemned to pay the following outstanding remuneration:
•
1200 KDW related to the June 2024 salary plus interest at 5% rate since the overdue
date until effective payment.”
b. Position of the Respondent
10. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent did not reply to the claim.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16181
III. Considerations of the Players’ Status Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
11. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
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 23 September 2024 and submitted
for decision on 2 December 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.
12. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 2 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. c) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2024 edition), the Single Judge had
to assess whether he was competent to rule upon this matter. On this note, the Single
Judge remarked that the competence of FIFA is not disputed by the parties, yet there is an
ex officio issue to be tackled regarding the Claimant’s role at the Club.
13. To this effect, the Single Judge noted that the role of the Claimant in the Contract was
“Fitness and physical coach.”
14. In this regard, the Single Judge recalled that on 1 January 2021, FIFA introduced a new
regulatory framework governing the labour relations between coaches and clubs, and
coaches and member association. In particular, the amendment package included a
definition of the term “coach” for the purposes of FIFA regulations (cf. definition item no.
28 of the RSTP).
15. In particular, the Single Judge acknowledged that said definition identifies a coach as an
individual employed in a “football-specific occupation.” This means that a coach shall be
engaged in activities inherent to football that do not exist in the same way in other sports.
Consequently, individuals practicing activities that are not inherent to football are excluded
from FIFA jurisdiction, such as nutritionists, sport scientists, fitness coaches and video
analysts.
16. On this note, the Single Judge then determined that he had to examine the reality of the
facts to assess what the real function exercised by the Claimant at the Club was. In doing
so, it initially highlighted that the Claimant is identified as a “fitness and physical coach” in
the Contract, with duties of a rather general nature.
17. This was, in the Single Judge’s view, unequivocal proof that the Claimant had not been
employed in a function which is recognized as that of a coach under the RSTP, especially
because none of the activities listed under item no. 28 of the definitions of the RSTP was
found therein.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16181
18. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge remarked it could have been the case -as
raised by the Claimant- that he effectively exercised the role of a coach with a “footballspecific occupation”, which would entail that he was employed in more than one function at
the Club. Yet, the Single Judge noted that the additional explanation and/or documentation
concerning the Claimant’s tasks at the Club are limited as they only show him participating
in training activities without further elements.
19. The evidence provided by the Claimant in this respect consists of photos only showing him
in the field of play during training sessions, running and encouraging the players. The Single
Judge was nonetheless of the view that this is insufficient to confirm that the Claimant was
engaging in training/ coaching the players.
20. Accordingly, the Single Judge highlighted that having an UEFA license in this respect is
irrelevant, since the Claimant has not presented any evidence to demonstrate that his role
as fitness and physical coach required the holding of a license according to domestic or
continental regulations.
21. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant’s occupation is not considered
to be football-specific in accordance with the FIFA regulations and the well-established
jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Chamber, in that (a) the Contract confirms that he had
been employed as a fitness and physical coach, and (b) the Claimant was not able to
discharge his burden of proof to the contrary under art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules.
22. Finally, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge noted that the parties, in line
with the principle of pacta sunt servanda, are free to choose FIFA as a forum for settling
their disputes. However, the parties exercise their contractual freedom does not form the
obligation upon the Football Tribunal to hear disputes which is not competent for.
23. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the Football Tribunal does not have
jurisdiction to hear the dispute at stake since it falls outside of the scope of art. 22 par. 1
lit. c) of the RSTP.
b. Costs
24. 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”. While confirming that the Claimant is not a coach under the Regulations,
the Single Judge recalled that the mens legis of the cited provision is directed at natural
persons whom, unlike legal persons, do not have to bear any costs regarding proceedings
before the Football Tribunal.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16181
25. Lastly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed on the
Claimant, also because it would result unfair, in this specific case, that a party who is not
subject to the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal would have to pay any costs.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16181
IV. Decision of the Players’ Status Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Petar
Dekic.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16181
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 – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 9