THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER

OF THE PLAYERS’ STATUS COMMITTEE

convening in Zurich, Switzerland, on 22 November 2002 and comprising:

Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman

Philippe Piat (France), member
Theo van Seggelen (the Netherlands), member
Maurice Watkins (England), member
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member

and deliberating in accordance with Article 42 of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer
of Players (edition September 2001) on a claim lodged by the player H., against the club C.,
regarding a contractual dispute between the player and the club.

TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION

AS TO SUBSTANCE

- the Chamber duly noted that:

- the club C. and the player H. signed an employment contract valid from 1 March until 30
November 2002,
- in accordance with this contract, the player was entitled to receive a monthly salary of
USD 10,000 along with match bonuses, furnished accommodation and two round-trip
aeroplane tickets to his home country,

- the claimant, the player H., maintains in his claim that:

- when he arrived in the country of his new club C., he was immediately given the impression
that the club C. was no longer interested in his services. Instead of finding an apartment
with satellite television, telephone and heating at his disposal, he had to wait five weeks
before being provided with the mentioned accommodation. Furthermore, the apartment he
was eventually given had no heating, causing his wife to become ill,
- subsequently, when he left to his home country for his holidays, he noticed that the club
had provided him with a visa for a duration of two weeks only. The club C. had failed to
provide him with a work permit. He therefore had to organise a visa himself, in order to
return to the club,
- because the club C. had relocated to another city, his wife was left behind. As she felt
abandoned, and after having consulted with his contact person, the player returned to
collect her,
- upon his return to the club, he was informed that the club had made him redundant,
- according to art. 13 of the employment contract, the club was not entitled to rescind the
contract without having consulted him or obtained his approval. As a penalty, the contract
foresees the payment of an amount corresponding to three months salary. Finally, the
player outlined that he had not been paid for the month of June and that he had not
received the reimbursement of his aeroplane ticket, as stated in art. 10 of the contract,

./…
- in response to the claim, the respondent, the club C., maintains that:

- the player H. had displayed a very disagreeable conduct right from the start of his
employment. The player would not obey the instructions given by the coach and would
only train himself as he liked. On several occasions he refused to attend training,
- the club provided him with all that was foreseen in the employment contract, excepting
satellite television, as this was disallowed by the police,
- the club arranged for the necessary visa on 16 April 2002,
- the player failed to pay his telephone expenses,
- finally, the player did not turn up for the training session subsequent to the match of
23 June 2002 since he had left to collect his wife. Therefore, he was fined USD as
specified in the employment contract and the employment was terminated. The rules of the
club clearly allow the rescission of an employment under such circumstances,
- as a result, the player is not entitled to compensation.

- taking into consideration the above, the Chamber outlined that:

- it shall not enter into the question whether the violations of the contractual arrangements
of one party outweighed those committed by the other party,
- clearly, the contractual relationship reigning between both sides was far from satisfactory
and appears to have been problematic from the start,
- although the accusations being raised by the parties are significant, there is not a single
occurrence that prevails over the other,
- therefore, the question remains whether the dismissal of the player H. was justified,
- the Chamber recognised the admissibility of the employer to impose disciplinary sanctions
on an employee if he is failing to comply with his obligations. These sanctions must,
however, be in relation to the fault committed by the player,
- in the present case, the parties pre-determined the upper limit of a possible sanction in the
employment contact, setting it at a fine of no higher than USD ,
- the parties clearly concurred over the adequacy of this sanction,
- the player H. admits having left the club C. without the appropriate authorisation, to meet
up with his wife, and consequently, the club C. is entitled to impose a disciplinary sanction,
- the disciplinary sanction corresponding to a fine of USD is the most severe sanction listed
in the employment contract and, given that it corresponds to an entire month’s salary,
certainly not too lenient,
- however, and in light of the circumstances leading to the situation, this disciplinary
sanction can be accepted,
- the dismissal of the player, on the other hand, is unquestionably disproportionate and can
therefore not be accepted,
- the Chamber was consequently of the unanimous opinion that the club C. terminated the
employment contract with the player H. without just cause,
- therefore, the player H. is entitled to claim the penalty listed in art. 13 of the employment
contract, amounting to a payment of USD ,
- furthermore, the player H. is equally entitled to the payment corresponding to the salary of
the month of June 2001, amounting to USD ,
- finally, the Chamber concluded that the player must be reimbursed for the expenses
related to the aeroplane tickets. The Chamber set the payable amount at USD ,
- the fine of USD is, however, admissible and will be deducted from the amounts due to the
player,

2/3
 DECIDED FOR THESE REASONS

1. The claim lodged by Mr. H. is to be partially accepted.

2. The club C. must pay the amount of USD , comprising the penalty for the unilateral
breach of contract in the amount of USD and the amount of USD for the compensation
of the airfares, to Mr. H., within 30 days of notification of the present decision.

3. This decision may be appealed before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 20
days of receiving notification of this decision by contacting the court directly in writing.
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:

Avenue de l’Elysée 28
1006 Lausanne
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: info@tas-cas.org
www.tas-cas.org

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Players’ Status Committee,

Urs Linsi
Acting General Secretary

3/3