Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 12 February 2020,
in the following composition:
Om ar Ongaro (Italy ), Deputy Chairman
Johan v an Gaalen (S outh Africa), member
Jos é Luis Andrade (Portugal), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Em ilio Yam ín Faure, Mexico & Lebanon,
represented by Mr Luis Torres Montero and Ms Matilde Costa Dias
as Claimant
against the club,
Al S alam Zgharta Club, Lebanon
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
between the parties
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
On 6 July 2018, the Mexican and Lebanese player, Emilio Yamín Faure (hereinafter:
the claimant) and the Lebanese club, Al Salam Zgharta Club (hereinafter: the
respondent) signed an employment contract valid as from 1 June 2018 and for the
season 2018/2019 for a total remuneration of, inter alia, USD 25,000 (hereinafter:
the contract).
2.
On the same date, the claimant and the respondent executed a “Sign-on Fee
Agreement” (hereinafter: the additional agreement) by means of which the
respondent undertook to pay the claimant USD 15,000.
3.
The Claimant maintained that, after having signed both the contract and the
additional agreement, he kept training with the Respondent without having
received the amount of USD 15,000 indicated in the latter document nor the salary
of June 2018. The claimant recalled that: (i) on 25 July 2018, he received USD
10,000 as partial payment of the signing-on fee; (ii) on 3 August 2018 further USD
500; (iii) on 17 August 2018 further USD 500.
4.
On 19 August 2019, the claimant suffered an injury to his meniscus and
subsequently underwent the related medical tests confirming the occurrence.
5.
On 4 September 2019, the respondent terminated the contract. Subsequently, the
claimant tried to seek support from the Lebanese Football Association (LFA) by
paying “the registration of the contract” to no alleged no avail.
6.
On 28 October 2018, the claimant underwent surgery in Mexico in to repair his
meniscus injury.
7.
On 10 December 2019, the claimant filed a claim against the respondent before
FIFA holding that the respondent had terminated the contract without just cause
on 4 September 2018. The claimant requested the respondent be ordered to pay
him outstanding remuneration in relation to the months of June, July, and August
2018 for USD 7,500, and outstanding signing-on fee for USD 4,000, as well as
compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 17,500. On top of that,
the claimant asked the reimbursement of the incurred medical expenses in the
amount of MXN 96,765 and MXN 55,725.74.
II.
Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as 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 submitted to FIFA on 10 December
2018. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2018; hereinafter:
Player Emilio Yamín Faure, Mexico & Lebanon / Al Salam Zgharta Club, Lebanon
2/5
Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and par. 2
of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in
combination with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition January 2020) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal
with employment-related disputes with an international dimension between a
player and a club.
3.
In view of the above mentioned provisions, the Chamber was eager to emphasise
that, in principle, and without prejudice to the right of any player or club to seek
redress before a civil court for employment-related disputes, it falls under its
competence to deal with international employment-related disputes between
players and clubs, unless an independent arbitration tribunal has been established
at national level.
4.
The members of the Chamber then referred to the Introductory Provision of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and particularly to its art. 2 and
art. 3, according to which some principles outlined in the Regulations are also
binding at national level and each association is obliged to draw up its internal
regulations. The associations are within the framework of their autonomy, free to
adapt their internal rules to the necessity and the particularity of the country
concerned. Therefore, the competence of FIFA is restricted to international transfers
and disputes.
5.
Furthermore, in the context of labour disputes, the Chamber underlined that, as a
general rule, the international dimension is represented by the fact that the player
concerned is not a national of the country of the association to which the relevant
club is affiliated.
6.
However, when both parties have the same nationality, the dispute shall be
considered as national or internal, with the consequence that the rules and
regulations of the association concerned shall be applied to the matter and the
deciding bodies in accordance with the relevant provisions are to decide on the
issue. If FIFA’s deciding body would deal with such internal matter, the internal
competence of FIFA Members would be violated. These principles of delimitation
between the competence of FIFA and the competence of the associations are
primordial for the reciprocal recognition of the organisations and autonomy of FIFA
and the member associations.
7.
Having said this, the Chamber turned its attention to circumstances surrounding the
double citizenship of a player. The Chamber observed that more and more players
with two or more nationalities have appeared in the world of football and that FIFA
and its deciding bodies are confronted with an augmented number of cases, which
Player Emilio Yamín Faure, Mexico & Lebanon / Al Salam Zgharta Club, Lebanon
3/5
concern double citizenship. In this respect, the members of the Chamber
emphasised that a player’s nationality is expressed by his passport(s) or
identification documents, but that in the framework of plural citizenship a player
could, under certain circumstances, possibly invoke a “sportive nationality”. The
“sportive nationality” generally is linked to the concrete situation of the
registration of a player with a club affiliated to the specific association domiciled in
a country of which the player also is a national, in compliance with the rules of
registration and eligibility for a club of the association concerned.
8.
In such situations, both the club and the player may reap advantages of the
“sportive nationality”. For example, the player being registered as a “local player”
does not charge any quota of foreign players and would have no difficulty in
obtaining a visa or work permit, if at all required. Furthermore, any possible
restriction on the number of foreign persons in the country would not be applicable
in such situation. Obviously, such circumstances are to the benefit of both the club
and the player.
9.
In this context, the Chamber recalled the crucial fact that the player, who holds
both the Mexican and the Lebanese nationality, was registered with the club as an
Lebanese player and not as a Mexican player. According to the player, such
registration was made, if at all, with bad faith by the Lebanese Football Association.
In this respect, the Chamber deemed that in the contract, the term “Mexican”, as
referring to the claimant’s nationality, is crossed out and replaced by the
handwritten word “Lebanese”. To this extent, the Chamber took particular note
that the claimant did not submit such change was forged. Additionally, the DRC
acknowledged that the claimant does not dispute to hold both the Mexican and the
Lebanese nationalities.
10.
On account of all of the above considerations, in particular of the fact that the
Mexican/Lebanese player was registered as a Lebanese player with the club, the case
of the player in question comes under the jurisdiction of the football association in
the country concerned (i.e. Lebanon), as a result of which FIFA cannot intervene due
to a lack of jurisdiction over the matter.
11.
Consequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the present claim is
inadmissible.
III.
Decis ion of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Emilio Yamín Faure, is inadmissible.
*****
Player Emilio Yamín Faure, Mexico & Lebanon / Al Salam Zgharta Club, Lebanon
4/5
Note related to the publication:
The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or
the DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, 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 20 of the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).
Note relating to the m otiv ated decis ion (legal remedy):
According to art. 58 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 21 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. 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:
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
Avenue de Beaumont 2, CH-1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
e-mail: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Player Emilio Yamín Faure, Mexico & Lebanon / Al Salam Zgharta Club, Lebanon
5/5