Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-3921
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 9 December 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Sebastian
Prödl
COMPOSITION:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairperson
Khadija Timera (Senegal), member
Mario Flores Chemor (Mexico), member
CLAIMANT:
Sebastian Prödl, Austria
Represented by Nils Baumgarten
RESPONDENT:
Watford FC, England
Page 2
REF FPSD-3921
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 1 July 2015, the Austrian player, Sebastian Prödl (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the
English club, Watford FC (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed an employment contract valid
as from the date of signature until 30 June 2020.
2.
On 16 September 2017, the parties extended the employment contract until 30 June 2021.
3.
On 31 January 2021, the parties terminated their contractual relationship and concluded a
termination agreement.
4.
According to the termination agreement, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a
total payment of GBP 1,160,000 net, payable as follows:
GBP 88,637.23 net on 28 January 2020;
GBP 214,272.60 net on 30 June 2020;
GBP 214,272.60 net on 30 September 2020;
GBP 214,272.60 net on 30 December 2020;
GBP 214,272.60 net on 30 March 2021;
GBP 214,272.60 net on 30 June 2021.
5.
Art. 8 of the termination agreement establishes: “Each party irrevocably agrees that the courts
of England and Wales shall have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute or claim arising
out or in connection with this agreement or its subject matter or formation (including noncontractual disputes or claims)”.
6.
On 7 November 2020, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment
of GBP 214,272.60 until 21 November 2020.
7.
On 4 January 2021, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment of
GBP 428,545.20 until 20 January 2021.
8.
On 10 August 2021, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment of
GBP 857,040.90 net until 24 August 2021.
Page 3
REF FPSD-3921
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 7 October 2021, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
10. The Claimant requested payment of GBP 857,040.90, corresponding to the last four
instalments of the termination agreement plus 5% interest p.a. as of the due dates (1 October
2020, 31 December 2020, 31 March 2021 and 1 July 2021).
11. In his claim, the Claimant held that the Respondent failed to remit the last four instalments
resulting from the termination agreement, even after having been put in default.
12. In this regard, the Claimant held that art. 12bis RSTP shall apply.
b. Position of the Respondent
13. In its reply, the Respondent contested FIFA’s competence to deal with the matter at hand
based ond art. 8 of the termination agreement.
14. According to the Respondent, the courts of England and Wales have “exclusive jurisdiction”
to settle any dispute arising from the termination agreement and that therefore FIFA’s
competence was excluded by the agreement of the parties.
15. The Respondent requested twice to be provided with an extension of its time-limit to submit
its complete reply. The first request was granted, the second one denied.
c. Position of the Respondent
16. On 12 November 2021, the Claimant acknowledged receipt of a payment in the amount of
GBP 857,030.51. The Claimant reduced its claim to GBP 59.89 and 5% interest p.a. payable
between the due dates and 11 November 2021.
17. On 22 November 2021, the Claimant acknowledged receipt of a payment in the amount of
GBP 51.37. The Claimant reduced its claim to GBP 8.52 and 5% interest p.a. payable
between the due dates and 11 November 2021, respectively 16 November 2021.
Page 4
REF FPSD-3921
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
18. 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 07 October 2021 and submitted for decision
on 9 December 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021 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.
19. Subsequently, the members of 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 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (August 2021 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an
Austrian player and an English club.
20. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent, on the one hand, contested the
competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of art. 8 of the termination agreement,
alleging that the exclusively competent body to deal with any dispute deriving from the
relevant employment contract is are the courts of England and Wales. On the other hand, the
Chamber noted that the Claimant insisted on the competence of FIFA to adjudicate the claim.
21. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22
par. 1 of the Regulations, FIFA is competent to hear employment-related disputes between a
player and a club with an international dimension “without prejudice to the right of any player
(…) or club to seek redress before a civil court for employment related disputes”.
22. In the present matter, the Chamber duly noted that the Claimant and the Respondent had
unambiguously and exclusively decided that any dispute that would arise from the contract
would be submitted to the civil “courts of England and Wales”.
23. The Chamber recalled that parties may freely agree to give jurisdiction to a civil court, and
that such choice shall always prevail. In fact, the Chamber, recalling its jurisprudence as well
as the CAS jurisprudence in this regard, highlighted that even if the choice of law does not
specify which courts are competent (e.g. a generic reference is made to a region/city), FIFA is
not competent when the parties have exclusively agreed upon the jurisdiction of a civil court.
In addition, the Chamber emphasized that art. 22 par. 1 of the Regulations provides a clear
hierarchy in favour of contractual autonomy.
Page 5
REF FPSD-3921
24. In view of all the above, the Chamber concluded that it was not competent to hear the dispute
between the Claimant and the Respondent, and consequently declared the claim
inadmissible.
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Sebastian Prödl, is inadmissible.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 6
REF FPSD-3921
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