Manzine

Decisionofthe DisputeResolutionChamber passedon6December2023 regardinganemployment-relateddisputeconcerningtheplayerLeratoDavidManzine BY: CalumBEATTIE(Scotland) CLAIMANT: LeratoDavidManzine,SouthAfrica RepresentedbyK4AlchemyConsult RESPONDENT: KarbalaClub,Iraq I.Factsofthecase 1.Accordingtotheplayer,LeratoDavidManzine,hesignedanemploymentcontractwithKarbalaClubvalidasfrom1September2023until30June2024. 2.Accordingtoart.10ofthecontract,theplayerwasentitledtoUSD3,000permonth,aswellastooneairticketfromIraqtoSouthAfrica. 3.Thecontractaspresentedbytheplayerisasfollows: II.ProceedingsbeforeFIFA 4.On9October2023,theplayerlodgedaclaimbeforetheFIFAFootballTribunalforbreachofcontractwithoutjustcauseandrequestedthefollowingamounts,plus5%interestp.a.asfromtheduedates. -USD3,000as“outstandingsalary”(note:nospecificationasfortheduedate) -USD“300,000”ascompensation(i.e.“3,000*10=300,000”)(note:thecalculationappearstobeincorrect) -Paymentoflegalcosts,includingtravelandaccommodationcostsresultingfromthedispute; 5.Theplayerarguedthattheclubrepudiatedthecontractandreferredtoart.s14par2and14bisoftheRegulations. 6.Accordingtotheplayer,theclubwasinbadfaithandexpressedlackofinterestforhim. 7.TheplayerprovidedacopyofanairticketfromJohannesburgtoBaghdadarrivingon15September2023. 8.Theplayeralsoprovidedscreenshotsfromsocialmedia. 9.Initsreply,theclubdeniedhavingsignedacontractwiththeplayer. 10.Accordingtotheclub,theplayerwaspresentedbyanagentforatest. 11.However,theclubexplainedthattheplayer’sfitnessandabilitywasdeterminedaslowfollowingthetestandnotedthathis“Wightishigh”. III.ConsiderationsoftheDisputeResolutionChamber a.Competenceandapplicablelegalframework 1.Firstofall,theSingleJudgeoftheDisputeResolutionChamber(hereinafteralsoreferredtoastheJudge)analysedwhetherhewascompetenttodealwiththecaseathand.Inthisrespect,hetooknotethatthepresentmatterwaspresentedtoFIFAon9October2023andsubmittedfordecisionon6December2023.Takingintoaccountthewordingofart. 34oftheMay2023editionoftheProceduralRulesGoverningtheFootballTribunal(hereinafter:theProceduralRules),theaforementionededitionoftheProceduralRulesisapplicabletothematterathand. 2.Subsequently,theSingleJudgereferredtoart.2par.1oftheProceduralRulesandobservedthatinaccordancewithart.23par.1incombinationwithart.22lit.b)oftheRegulationsontheStatusandTransferofPlayers(May2023),theDisputeResolutionChamberiscompetenttodealwiththematteratstake,whichconcernsanemployment-relateddisputewithaninternationaldimensionbetweenaSouthAfricanplayerandanIraqiclub. 3.Subsequently,theChamberanalysedwhichregulationsshouldbeapplicableastothesubstanceofthematter.Inthisrespect,itconfirmedthat,inaccordancewithart.26par.1and2oftheRegulationsontheStatusandTransferofPlayers(May2023edition),andconsideringthatthepresentclaimwaslodgedon9October2023,theMay2023editionofsaidregulations(hereinafter:theRegulations)isapplicabletothematterathandastothesubstance. b.Burdenofproof 4.TheJudgerecalledthebasicprincipleofburdenofproof,asstipulatedinart.13par.5oftheProceduralRules,accordingtowhichapartyclaimingarightonthebasisofanallegedfactshallcarrytherespectiveburdenofproof.Likewise,theSingleJudgestressedthewordingofart.13par.4oftheProceduralRules,pursuanttowhichitmayconsiderevidencenotfiledbytheparties,includingwithoutlimitationtheevidencegeneratedbyorwithintheTransferMatchingSystem(TMS). c.Meritsofthedispute 5.Hiscompetenceandtheapplicableregulationshavingbeenestablished,theSingleJudgeenteredintothemeritsofthedispute.Inthisrespect,theSingleJudgestartedbyacknowledgingalltheabove-mentionedfactsaswellastheargumentsandthedocumentationonfile.However,theSingleJudgeemphasisedthatinthefollowingconsiderationsitwillreferonlytothefacts,argumentsanddocumentaryevidence,whichitconsideredpertinentfortheassessmentofthematterathand. i.Mainlegaldiscussionandconsiderations 6.Theforegoinghavingbeenestablished,theSingleJudgemovedtothesubstanceofthematter,andtooknoteofthefactthatthematteratstakeconcernsanallegedbreachofcontractwithoutjustcause. 7.Inthiscontext,theJudgenotedthatthefirstlegalissuetodetermineiswhethertherewasavalidcontractbetweentheparties,giventhattheRespondentcontestedhavingsignedacontractwiththeplayer. 8.Inparticular,theJudgeobservedthatitisessentialtodeterminewhetheralegallybindingcontractexistsbetweentheparties,giventhatnosignedcontracthasbeenpresentedbytheClaimant(cf.pointI.1above).Onthisnote,andfollowingtheprincipleofburdenofproof,theJudgeunderstoodthatitwasuptotheClaimanttoprovetheexistenceofacontractualrelationship.Intheabsenceofasignedcontract,theJudgerecalledthelongstandingjurisprudenceoftheFootballTribunal,accordingtowhichtheDRCneedstobeparticularlycautiouswhenassessingthevalidityofclaimsregardingtheexistenceoflabourrelationships. 9.Moreover,theJudgealsoverifiedtheinformationincludedintheTransferMatchingSystem(TMS),andobservedthatthetransferoftheClaimanttotheRespondentwasnotenteredintothesystem. 10.TheJudgealsonotedthattheplayerprovidedscreenshotsfromsocialmedia.IntheopinionoftheJudge,thisevidencelacksthenecessaryattribu