Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF 21-00153 / FPSD-687
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 August 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Davide Lanzafame
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA / France), Deputy Chairman
Pav el Piv ov arov (Russia), member
Roy Verm eer (Netherlands), member
CLAIMANT:
Davide Lanzafame, Italy
Represented by Mr Salvatore Civale
RESPONDENT:
Adana Demir Spor, Turkey
Represented by Mr Aygin Kuruloglu
Page 2
REF 21-00153 / FPSD-687
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 26 August 2020, the Italian player, Davide Lanzafame (hereinafter: Claimant), and the
Turkish club, Adana Demir Spor (hereinafter: Respondent) signed employment contract
(hereinafter: contract) valid as of the date of signature until 31 May 2021.
2.
According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a monthly salary
of EUR 31,000, payable in 10 instalments between October 2020 and July 2021.
3.
On 13 January 2021, the club announced on its twitter account that the Claimant along
with two other players would leave the club.
4.
On 15 January 2021, a meeting between the player and the club’s sports director took place
in order to discuss a possible termination agreement, which the player refused to sign.
5.
On 15 January 2021, the club issued a letter to the player, stating that he ”has no obligation
to join training until 19.01.2021”.
6.
On 21 January 2021, according to the Claimant, while training alone, a group of fans
attacked the three players on the training facility of the club, where no security was around.
7.
On 22 January 2021, the parties concluded a termination agreement, according to which
the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the following monies:
- EUR 31,000 until 30 January 2021;
- EUR 31,000 until 28 February 2021;
- EUR 31,000 until 10 March 2021;
- EUR 31,000 until 10 April 2021.
8.
Said termination agreement states: “By virtue of this mutual termination agreement the
Parties declare that all relations between them with regard to the employment contract (i.e.
as compensation, as remuneration, salary, additional payments or in any other name) are
finally and completely resolved, subject to the terms of the mutual termination agreement
being fully and duly complied with by the club, as set out in this agreement”.
9.
On 25 January 2021, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment
of EUR 217,000 as compensation for breach of contract, within 10 days. In this letter, the
player stated that he was pressured to sign the termination agreement, which shall be null
and void.
10.
According to information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 2 February
2021, the player signed an employment contract with the Italian club, Vicenza, valid as from
the date of signature until 30 June 2021, including a monthly salary of EUR 20,345.
Page 3
REF 21-00153 / FPSD-687
11.
During the course of the proceedings, the player acknowledged receipt of the following
payments received from the Respondent:
- EUR 30,823 on 9 February 2021;
- EUR 30,950 on 2 March 2021;
- EUR 30,913 on 15 March 2021;
- EUR 30,975 on 6 May 2021.
II.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
12.
On 17 February 2021, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a.
13.
The claim of the Claimant
On 17 February 2021, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA
and requested the following monies:
- EUR 217,000 as compensation for breach of contract corresponding to the residual
value of the contract;
Or alternatively:
- EUR 124,000 corresponding to the amounts resulting from the termination agreement.
The player requested interest of 5% p.a. as of 22 January 2021 or alternatively as of 15
February 2021.
14.
In his claim, the player argued that he was pressured to sign the termination agreement
and that he signed it without reading its content on 22 January 2021 after the incident on
the day before on the training ground.
15.
According to the Claimant, the fans who attacked and threatened the players were sent by
the club’s president in order to push them towards signing the termination agreements.
16.
The player maintained having signed the termination agreement with the sole purpose to
“avoid further act of violence”.
17.
According to the player, the termination agreement prevents him from receiving a fair
compensation and he would never have voluntarily agreed to it.
18.
On account of the above, the player argues that the termination shall be null and void and
that he is entitled to compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the residual
value of the contract.
Page 4
REF 21-00153 / FPSD-687
19.
The player held that he only received a total of three monthly salaries during the contractual
relationship and that he therefore shall be entitled to the residual 7 monthly salaries (i.e.
EUR 217,000). He further pointed out that the club failed to comply with the payments in
the termination agreement.
b.
Position of the Respondent
20.
In its reply, the Respondent rejected the player’s claim.
21.
The club argued that the parties were not satisfied with the contractual situation and
negotiated the termination agreement, which was signed by both parties in mutual
consent.
22.
In this regard, the Respondent pointed out that there is no clause establishing that noncompliance with the termination agreement would render it null and void. Therefore, the
club held that the termination agreement was validly concluded and that the player is not
entitled to claim any compensation for breach of contract.
23.
Moreover, the club held that the player’s argument that he was not aware of the legal
consequences by signing the termination agreement has to be rejected, as the player has a
good level of the English language.
24.
Furthermore, the Respondent pointed out that the player found new employment after the
mutual termination.
25.
Moreover, the club alleged having complied with the instalments due from the termination
agreement.
III.
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
a.
26.
Competence and applicable legal framework
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 presented to FIFA on 17 February 2021 and
submitted for decision on . Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the January 2021
edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition
of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
Page 5
REF 21-00153 / FPSD-687
27.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules
and observed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. a) and
b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition February 2021), 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 player and a
club.
28.
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 Player (edition February 2021), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 17 February 2021, the February 2021
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b.
Burden of proof
29.
The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12
par. 3 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 DRC stressed the
wording of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties.
30.
In this respect, the Chamber also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3
of the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings
pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated
or contained in TMS.
c.
31.
Merits of the dispute
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the
DRC entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the DRC started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the DRC emphasised that in the following considerations
it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered
pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
32.
The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the parties dispute that the termination agreement was validly
concluded.
33.
In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to determine if the
termination agreement was valid or if the contract was potentially breached by one of the
parties.
Page 6
REF 21-00153 / FPSD-687
34.
On account of the above, the DRC started to examine the circumstances leading to the
conclusion of the termination agreement. First of all, the Chamber noted that both parties
confirmed having signed the document, but that the player argued that he was under
duress when doing so.
35.
In this context, and according to the documentation on file, the members of the Chamber
acknowledged that there was a certain pressure from the club side to conclude the
agreement. Nevertheless, with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules in mind, the majority
of the Chamber concluded that the incident of 21 January 2021 could not be directly linked
to the club. With that in mind, the majority of the members decided that there is not enough
evidence on file to conclude that the termination agreement was concluded under duress.
ii. Consequences
36.
Taking all of this into account, the DRC held that the termination agreement was mutually
agreed between the parties and that the club has the obligation to remit the total amount
of EUR 124,000 to the player.
37.
With that in mind, the Chamber took note that the player acknowledged receipt of
payments in the total amount of EUR 123,661 between 9 February 2021 and 6 May 2021.
38.
Consequently, the DRC Judge decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle
of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant outstanding amount
of EUR 339 plus 5% interest as of 11 April 2021, i.e. the day after the last instalment of the
termination agreement fell due.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
39.
Finally, taking into account the consideration under number 28. above, the Chamber
referred to par. 1 lit. and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its
decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from
the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration
and/or compensation in due time.
40.
In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum
duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration
periods.
Page 7
REF 21-00153 / FPSD-687
41.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
42.
The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
43.
The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 8
of the Regulations.
d.
Costs
44.
The Chamber referred to article 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “DRC
proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in relation to the maintenance
of contractual stability as well as international employment related disputes between a club
and a player are free of charge”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural
costs were to be imposed on the parties.
45.
Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 18
par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
46.
Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 8
REF 21-00153 / FPSD-687
IV.
DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Davide Lanzafame, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Adana Demir Spor, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
- EUR 339 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11 April 2021 until the
date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account set out in the
enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to article 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not paid within 45 days of notification of this decision, the
following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee in
the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not paid by the end of
the of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with article 24bis paragraphs 7 and 8and article 24ter of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 9
REF 21-00153 / FPSD-687
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 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 20 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 10