FIFA - Decisiones estatuto del jugador - 112371 06112023

Decision of the Players’ Status Chamber passed on 6 November 2023 regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player A BY: Jesús ARROYO (Spain)

CLAIMANT:

A, Country A Represented by

RESPONDENT: B, Country B Represented by pg. 2

I. Facts of the case

1. On 8 March 2022, the Country A coach A (hereinafter: the Claimant or the Coach) and the Country B club B (hereinafter: the Respondent or the Club) concluded an employment contract valid until 30 June 2023.

2. Art. 4 of the Contract reads inter alia as follows:

4. Basic salary. The First Party shall pay the Second Party the following monthly salaries for each football season on their due date as denied below: 4.1 Monthly salary: USD 21,500 or EUR 19,470 net from taxes starting from March 2022 and until end of season 2022-2023 4.2 The First Party shall pay the Second party the above-mentioned amounts on the last day of each month, net from taxes. For the purposes of this clauses net form taxes means net from taxes, social security, withholding, or any other contribution related to the Country B Law only.

3. On 31 January 2023, the parties agreed to terminate their employment relationship and concluded a settlement agreement (hereinafter: the Settlement). “Both parties agreed to early terminate the contract signed between them on 03.03.2022 and to waive all their rights or compensations or whatsoever as a result of this contract according to the following condition: The first party shall pay to the second party the sole amount of 64,500 US Dollars Net.

The First Party committees itself to pay such amount in three instalments as follows, to be transferred to the respective account in xxx, account number: xxx. 21,500 US$ Net will be paid in 01.04.2023 21,500 US$ Net will be paid in 01.05.2023

21,500 US$ Net will be paid in 01.06.2023 None of the parties have the right to claim for any dues or additional compensations rather the one mentioned in this agreement.”

4. On 16 March 2023 the Respondent paid the first instalment under the Settlement.

5. On 12 July 2023, the Claimant sent an email to the Respondent stating: “Respecting the Club and because I have been very happy and proud there, I don’t want to sue the club. Therefore, I really hope the Club can pay me and I will wait for the two payments missing until next September”

II. Proceedings before FIFA

6. On 23 August 2023, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation. pg. 3

a. Position of the Claimant

7. The Claimant states that he “has obeyed and fulfilled his employment contract under its terms until the end of it, i.e, until June 30th, 2023.”

8. The Claimant argues that he “worked and fulfilled his part of the “Employment Agreement” are in debt and are due to the Claimant the amounts above better identified, in the total amount of $172.000,00 net or Eur.: 155.760,00 net” corresponding to the salaries of November 2022 until June 2023.”

9. The Claimant filed the following requests for relief: B” be ordered and condemned to pay to the Claimant, A, the sum of $175.743,36 (ONE HUNDRED, SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED, FOURTY-THREE US DOLLARS AND THIRTY-THREE CENTS) net or Eur.: 159.149,91 (ONE HUNDRED, FIFTY-NINE THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED, FOURTYNINE EUROS AND NINETY-ONE CENTS) net, plus interests due for the delay of the agreed payment

calculated from 01.12.2022 until full and effective payment. b. Position of the Respondent

10. In its reply, the Respondent states that the parties agreed on 31 January 223 to terminate their employment relationship and concluded the Settlement.

11. The Respondent states that “In blatant bad faith the Coach hid to FIFA PSC the mutual termination of the Employment Contract with the regrettable aim to obtain a higher amount without any right to claim it.”

12. In the view of the Respondent, the claim of the Coach must be declared inadmissible because:

(i) it is based on an invalid and\or null and void Contract; (ii) it has not put in default the Club before to lodge the claim before the FIFA Tribunal, in violation of FIFA RSTP.

13. The Respondent filed the following requests for relief: the Respondent respectfully requests the FIFA PSC: a) to declare inadmissible the Claim filed by Mr.A; in any case, b) to reject in full the Claim filed by Mr. A. c) to apply any other measure it considers necessary in the decision of the case at stake.

c. Replica of the Claimant pg. 4

14. The Claimant admitted the conclusion of the Settlement and states that the Respondent “failed with the payment of the second and the third instalments, in the amount of $21.500,00 net, each, due on 01.05.2023 and on 01.06.2023”.

15. The Claimant sustains that due to his travel to Country A, he lost his copy of the Settlement.

16. In the view of the Claimant, he was “forced, by FIFA Regulations, to lodge a new claim before FIFA Tribunal against the Respondent, under the terms in which it was done in the present case, solely to guarantee his best interests and the truth!”

17. The Claimant amended his requests for relief as follows: The “B, be ordered and condemned to pay to the Claimant, A, the total sum of $43.792,26 (FOURTYTHREE THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED, NINETY-TWO US DOLLARS AND TWENTY-SIX CENTS) net, plus interests due for the delay of the agreed payment calculated from 01.05.2023 until full and effective payment.

d. Duplica of the Respondent

18. The Respondent stresses that the Claimant has not attached any proof in relation to the alleged “lost of the physical document” nor has never requested a copy of the Contract to the Respondent.

19. The Respondent underlines that the Claimant had to indicate the above circumstance – if true – at the moment of filing his Claim and not only after the Respondent’s objections.

20. The Respondent further states that the Coach, by means of his email, sent to the Club on 12 July 2023 expressly confirmed his availability to await the end of the month of September to receive the payments.

21. The Respondent reiterated its previous request for relief.

III. Considerations of the Players’ Status Chamber

a. Competence and applicable legal framework

22. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as 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 August 2023 and submitted for decision on 6 November 2023. 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.

23. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 24 par. 2 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 pg. 5 Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023), he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute between a club and a coach of an international dimension.

24. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 23 August 2023, the May 2023 edition of said regulations

(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. b. Burden of proof

25. The Single Judge 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.

c. Merits of the dispute

26. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

1. Main legal discussion and considerations

27. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that after the second round of submissions were the Claimant admitted the conclusion of the Settlement, the parties dispute the payment of certain financial obligations by the Respondent as per the Settlement.

28. The Single Judge started underscoring that the behaviour of the Claimant, via his legal

representative who has openly lied during this proceeding, is reprehensible and against the most basic principles of professional ethic and good faith. However, the Single Judge remarked that this inappropriate conduct does not make the claim inadmissible or precludes the Claimant from his rightful entitlements.

29. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine, based on the evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the latter had a valid justification for not having complied with its financial obligations.

30. The Single Judge first noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between the parties. pg. 6

31. Nonetheless, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent has admitted not having paid the amounts claimed although it considers that based on the email of 12 July 2023, the Claimant had accepted to delay the payment until September 2023.

32. In view of the foregoing and bearing in mind the basic legal principle of pact sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Respondent is held liable to pay the Claimant the outstanding amounts deriving from the contract concluded between the parties.

33. The Single Judge observed that the financial obligations deemed as outstanding in the present case correspond to two instalments of USD 21,500 net under the contract.

34. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts claimed as outstanding under the contract, in total USD 43,000 net, as detailed above.

35. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Single Judge in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due dates until the date of effective

payment. ii. Compliance with monetary decisions

36. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 8 par. 1 and 2 of Annexe 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.

37. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.

38. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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. 8 par. 2, 4, and 7 of Annexe 2 of the Regulations.

39. 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.

40. The Single Judge 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. 8 par. 8 of Annexe pg. 7 2 of the Regulations.

d. Costs

41. 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”.

Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed on the parties.

42. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art. 25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in these proceedings.

43. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any of the parties. pg. 8

IV. Decision of the Players’ Status Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant, A, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, B, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s): - USD 43,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows: On USD 21,500 net from 2 May 2023 until the date of effective payment; On USD 21,500 net from 2 June 2023 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 indicated in the

enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.

5. Pursuant to art. 8 of Annexe 2 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. 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.

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 made by the end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.

6. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance with art. 8 par. 7 and 8 of Annexe 2 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.

7. This decision is rendered without costs.

For the Football Tribunal: Emilio García Silvero Chief Legal & Compliance Officer pg. 9

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 FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777 pg. 10