Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-4131
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 May 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Iain Irinco Ramsay
COMPOSITION:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairperson
Stefano Sartori (Italy), member
Laurel Vaurasi (Fiji), member
CLAIMANT:
Iain Irinco Ramsay, Australia
Represented by Professional Footballers Australia
RESPONDENT:
Sukhothai FC, Thailand
Page 2
REF FPSD-4131
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 6 November 2018, the Australian player, Iain Irinco Ramsay (hereinafter: player or Claimant)
and the Thai club, Sukhothai FC (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded an employment
contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from 1 January 2019 until 30 October 2019.
2.
According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a monthly salary of USD
12,000 “net”.
3.
On 28 December 2020, the Thailand Revenue Department informed the player of his outstanding
income tax liability of Thai Baht (THB) 407,081.84 relating to the year 2019.
4.
On 30 June 2021, the player put the club in default and requested reimbursement of THB
407,081.84 within 10 days.
5.
On 10 July 2021, the club replied to the player and denied its obligation to reimburse such amount
since it had only to deduct the withholding tax as it did.
6.
On 19 and 20 July 2021, the parties exchanged further correspondence insisting on their
respective positions.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 28 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
8.
The Claimant requested payment of THB 407,081.84 as outstanding remuneration in connection
with the player’s tax liability in Thailand.
9.
In his claim, the player maintained that the outstanding remuneration in connection with the
taxes in Thailand are an employment related issue in the sense of the Regulations and that the
DRC is therefore competent to decide the dispute in question.
10. Furthermore, the player argued that the contract specifies his salary as “net” and does not
distinguish between withholding tax and income tax. Accordingly, the Claimant deems that the
club is responsible to pay any kind of taxes in connection with the contract.
11. Moreover, the Claimant pointed out that the total income in the year amounted to THB
4,042,105.30 and that the club paid THB 202,105.30 “in withholding tax on the Player’s behalf
which was taxed a rate of approximately 5% and withheld as income tax at source.”
Page 3
REF FPSD-4131
12. The player further held that he paid the taxes in accordance with the payment schedule provided
by the tax authorities.
b. Position of the Respondent
13. In its reply, the club rejected the player’s claim.
14. The Respondent argued that it complied with its obligation to withhold taxes as to the law in
Thailand and that it remained the player’s duty to “file a return and pay his personal income tax”.
15. In this respect, the club held that the contract has “no provision whatsoever contained therein
which would impose an obligation on the club to apply all of the relevant fulfill the tax obligations
on the Player’s behalf.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
16. 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 28 October 2021 and submitted for decision on 19
May 2022. 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.
17. 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 (March 2022), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is, in
principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an alleged employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between an Australian player and a Thai club.
18. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the diverging positions of the parties regarding the nature
of the claim and if it is indeed “employment-related” in the sense of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players. In this context, the DRC established that the claim is based
on the employment contract concluded between the parties, which defined a “net” salary for the
player. The reimbursement of the tax invoice claimed by the player is a consequence of the
contractual agreement between the parties and therefore, if granted, part of the player’s
remuneration. On account of the above, the Chamber established that the claim is employmentrelated in the sense of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
Page 4
REF FPSD-4131
19. 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 (March 2022), and considering that the present
claim was lodged on 28 October 2021, the August 2021 edition of said regulations (hereinafter:
the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
20. At this point, the DRC referred to art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations which stipulates that the
decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more than two years have elapsed
since the facts leading to the dispute arose. The application of this time limit shall be examined ex
officio in each individual case.
21. In this context, the Chamber recalled that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 28
October 2021. Therefore, in line with art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations, any amounts fallen due
before 28 October 2019 are affected by the statute of limitations.
22. The members of the Chamber maintained that, in the present case, the date giving rise to the
dispute was not due date of the salaries, but the tax invoice issued by the Thai tax authorities,
dated 20 December 2020. The Chamber concluded therefore that the claim is not affected by the
statute of limitations.
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 Transfer Matching System
(TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
24. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into
the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the abovementioned 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 the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
25. The foregoing having been established, the DRC moved to the substance of the matter, and took
note of the fact that the parties dispute the amount claimed by the player.
Page 5
REF FPSD-4131
26. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that his task was to determine if the Claimant is
entitled to the outstanding remuneration in connection with a tax invoice and if yes, to what
extent.
27. First of all the members of the Chambers started to analyse the wording of the contract in
connection with the definition of “net” salary due to the player. Since the contract does not
contain a specific clause regarding the payment of taxes or any other clause specifying the term
“net”, it appears that that the club was responsible to pay the all the taxes.
28. Therefore, based on the wording of the contract, the DRC decided that the Respondent’s
argument that the personal income tax and the withholding tax are different and that the player
was responsible for the personal income tax, has to be rejected.
29. Moreover, the Chamber established that the Claimant substantiated his claim and provided the
relevant tax invoice, dated 20 December 2020, establishing that he had to pay the amount of THB
407,081.84 relating to the year 2019.
30. As a conclusion, the DRC decided that the club is liable to reimburse the player for the amount
claimed in connection with the tax invoice as part of the player’s remuneration.
ii. Consequences
31. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount of Thai Baht
(THB) 407,081.84.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
32. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24 par. 1 and
2 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.
33. 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.
34. 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. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
Page 6
REF FPSD-4131
35. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the present
decision.
36. 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. 24 par. 8 of the
Regulations.
d. Costs
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any
of the parties.
Page 7
REF FPSD-4131
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Iain Irinco Ramsay, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Sukhothai FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the amount of Thai Baht (THB)
407,081.84 as outstanding remuneration.
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in the
enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision, the
following consequences shall apply:
1.
2.
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 the ban shall be
of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
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 made by the end of
the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
5.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance with art.
24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 8
REF FPSD-4131
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 9