F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2011-2012) – controversie tra società – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2011-2012) – club vs. club disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 January 2012, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club FC N, from country M as Claimant against the club FC L, from country O as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player R

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2011-2012) – controversie tra società – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2011-2012) – club vs. club disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 January 2012, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club FC N, from country M as Claimant against the club FC L, from country O as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player R I. Facts of the case 1. On 19 September 2007, the club FC N from country M (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the club FC L from country O (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) related to the transfer of the player R (hereinafter: the player) from the Claimant to the Respondent. 2. The agreement contained, inter alia, the following provisions: 1. FC N shall grant a permission for the football player R from 3 - 21 December 2007 to undergo medical tests and sport examinations and train under the expert and medical personnel of FC L (…). 2. FC N shall grant a permission to FC L to, in case it turns out that all the above stated tests and exams are positive for FC L, it shall temporarily accept the football player as a member of their team from the month of January 2007 until 30 June 2007 and, in such case it undertakes to enter into an agreement which shall be deposited at the National amateur league of country O which shall contain the following provisions: - EUR 100,000: for the temporary affiliation (from January 2007 to June 2007) and as a compensation for qualification (…). - An option for FC L to finally purchase sport services of the football player (…) as of 1 July 2008 (…). The purchase price (…) has already been set at EUR 1,200,000 (…). This amount shall be paid in four installments of EUR 300,000.00 each during the football season 2008/2009. 3. FC L as payment for the entitlements stated in items 1 and 2 above, undertakes to pay FC N the amount of EUR 50,000.00 (…), after the relevant administrative document has been issued, within fifteen days of the conclusion of this Agreement. 3. By means of correspondence dated 15 May 2008, received by FIFA on 24 March 2009, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, alleging that the latter had not fulfilled its payment obligation as per the agreement, and it claimed payment of an amount of EUR 50,000, in accordance with art. 3 of the agreement, plus interest as from 4 October 2007, as well as procedural costs in the amount of CHF 10,000. 4. In particular, the Claimant held that after the agreement had been signed, the Respondent was obliged to settle the agreed amount of EUR 50,000 within the next 15 days, but that the Respondent had failed to do so. 5. The Claimant also emphasized that, at the time of signature of the agreement, the player had been in “very good shape”. In support of this, the Claimant submitted the minutes of a game of the Claimant which took place on 22 September 2007, in which the player was fielded for the Claimant. 6. Equally, the Claimant stated that any subsequent injury of the player could not have had any effect on the validity of the agreement. It emphasized that the payment of the amount of EUR 50,000 was “intended for the entitlements stated in Art. 1 and 2 and not for the de facto realizations thereof”. Therefore, it argued that the obligation to pay the amount of EUR 50,000 was not dependent on the actual fulfillment of the stipulations of art. 1 and 2 of the agreement. 7. In its response, the Respondent rejected the claim and argued that it was prescribed, since the claim was allegedly lodged in October 2010, whereas the relevant agreement had been concluded in September 2007. 8. As to the substance of the dispute, the Respondent stated that a few days after signature of the agreement, the player had suffered a serious injury which prevented him from training with the Respondent and from executing art. 1. and 2. of the agreement. 9. The Respondent held that the Claimant had never responded to the Respondent’s subsequent questions about the player’s injury and that the player had eventually never performed his duties towards the Respondent. Therefore, the Respondent held that the agreement was not executable. 10. The Respondent furthermore stated that the player had not played any game after September 2007 and that he only went to country O “to care himself in city B of country O since 23rd November until 21st December 2007”. The Respondent explained that it then “noticed the sign of a recent surgical intervention (…), needing therapy and a period of rest for 30 (…) days.” According to the Respondent, this further demonstrated the bad faith of the Claimant. In this context, the Respondent provided a doctor’s note, dated 23 November 2011, stating that: “Subject to the effect of medical surgeon regarding check and clean of back tendon of left ankle. [The player] needs to have a rest, idrokinesitherapy and […] specific therapy of thirty days”. 11. In view of the above, the Respondent referred to law of country O, according to which, allegedly, “the debt is settled when, for reasons not attributable to the debtor, the performance becomes impossible”. The Respondent held that the execution of the agreement had become impossible because of the injury suffered by the player, and that therefore the agreement had to be considered terminated without any fault and responsibility of the Respondent. 12. Furthermore, the Respondent also stated that the agreement was invalid, since it would have had to pay EUR 50,000 for a training stage of a player, whereas, according to FIFA Regulations, it is forbidden to request an ITC in order to allow a player to participate in trial matches. 13. Finally, the Respondent argued that the person who signed the agreement (the “technical director”) did not have the authority to legally represent the Respondent. 14. In its response, the Claimant reiterated its claim and stated that it was not prescribed. 15. The Claimant emphasized that the injury in question had occurred after signature of the agreement and after the due date of the payment in question. Therefore, it held that the Respondent could not use the injury of the player as an argument for its non-fulfillment of the alleged payment obligation. 16. Equally, the Claimant stated that the argumentation of the Respondent was unclear. In particular, the Claimant held that the agreement did not stipulate any obligation to issue an ITC for the player and that it only mentioned a “relative administrative document”. 17. Finally, the Claimant argued that the technical director of the Respondent had indeed been able to legally represent the latter, and that the Claimant had trusted therein in good faith. In particular, the Claimant stated that all subsequent correspondence from the Respondent showed that the latter considered itself to be a party to the agreement. 18. In its final comments, the Respondent reiterated its previous position. 19. In particular, it emphasized that the agreement was concluded with the aim of the player participating in the squad of the Respondent as from 3 to 21 December 2007, which had become impossible due to the player’s injury. Therefore, the Respondent held that it would have to pay a sum without the player ever having executed his duties under the agreement. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter: the Single Judge) analysed which Procedural Rules were applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 par. 1 and 2 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) as well as to the fact that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 24 March 2009, thus after 1 July 2008. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the 2008 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand. 2. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players is applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and, on the other hand, to the fact that the claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 24 March 2009. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2008 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance. 3. Furthermore, the Single Judge indicated that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Procedural Rules in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and par. 3 as well as art. 22 lit. f) of the Regulations, he is competent to deal with disputes between clubs belonging to different associations. 4. In continuation, the Single Judge duly noted that the Respondent was of the opinion that the present claim should be viewed as time-barred, since more than two years had allegedly elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute. 5. In view of the above, the Single Judge deemed fundamental to underline that in order to determine whether he could hear the present case, he should, first and foremost, establish which is the event giving rise to the dispute, i.e. which is the starting point of the time period of two years as set out under art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the event giving rise to the dispute according to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations is the non-fulfillment of the payment obligation by the Respondent in accordance with art. 3 of the agreement. Therefore, the two-year limit provided for in art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations starts to run as of the day “after the relevant administrative document has been issued, within fifteen days of the conclusion of this Agreement.” 6. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant, by invoice dated 11 October 2007, requested payment of the amount of EUR 50,000 from the Respondent, based on art. 3 of the agreement. Consequently, the Single Judge held that the time period of two years had elapsed, in casu, on 12 October 2009. 7. Finally, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting payment of the abovementioned amounts by means of correspondence dated 18 May 2008, received by FIFA on 24 March 2009. 8. On account of the foregoing, the Single Judge came to the firm conclusion that, in casu, between the event giving rise to the dispute and the date on which the Claimant lodged its claim in front of FIFA, less than two years had elapsed. 9. As a consequence, the Single Judge concluded that the present claim is not barred by the statute of limitations and that therefore, the claim of the Claimant can be heard by the Single Judge. 10. The competence of the Single Judge and the applicable regulations having been established and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. 11. In this respect, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, stating that the conditions of art. 1 of the agreement had been fulfilled but that the Respondent had failed to pay the due amount of EUR 50,000 to the Claimant. 12. The Single Judge also noted the Respondent’s statement that the payment stipulated in art. 3 of the agreement was based on the successful execution of art. 1 and 2 of the agreement and that the execution of art. 1 and 2 had become impossible, due to the injury of the player. 13. Equally, the Single took note of the argument of the Respondent, according to which its technical director, Mr E, who signed the agreement, had no power of attorney to sign legally binding contracts on behalf of the Respondent. 14. In this regard, with regard to the latter argument of the Respondent, the Single Judge closely examined the correspondence exchanged between the parties prior to the Claimant lodging his claim in front of FIFA. The Single Judge especially took notice that, before the dispute arose, the Respondent had at no point indicated that it deemed the agreement to be invalid due to an alleged lack of capacity of its technical director. Hence, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent had tacitly approved Mr E’s capacity and thereby granted him implied authority to act on the Respondent’s behalf. Therefore, the Claimant could in good faith believe that Mr E was duly authorised to sign the agreement on behalf of the Respondent. 15. In view of the above, the Single Judge held that the Respondent’s argument relating to an alleged lack of capacity of the signatory to conclude the agreement on behalf of the Respondent could not be sustained. 16. In continuation and as to the first argument of the Respondent, the Single Judge recognised that, according to art. 2 of the agreement, the Respondent’s obligations as stated in art. 2 par. 1 to 3 should only apply under the condition that the player successfully passed the medical test as laid out in art. 1 of the agreement. 17. In this regard, the Single Judge took due note that it was undisputed that the player successfully passed said medical test and was deemed fit to play for the Respondent. The Single Judge also understood that the player suffered an injury a few days after said medical test and had to undergo medicals treatments. 18. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge took due note that the Claimant interpreted the agreement emphasising that the payment of the requested EUR 50,000 was “intended for the entitlements stated in art. 1 and 2 and not for the de facto realizations thereof.” In other words, according to the Claimant, the payment of EUR 50,000 was not dependent on the execution of the agreement, meaning the player joining the Respondent and participating in official games for it, but for the abstract entitlement of the rights as stipulated in art. 1 and 2. 19. In this respect, the Single Judge found it worthwhile to emphasize that the agreement at no point draws a connection between the execution and realization of the transfer as stipulated in art. 1 and 2 of the agreement, but on the contrary, solely implies the obligation of the Respondent to pay the amount of EUR 50,000 to the Claimant, “after the relevant administrative document has been issued.” In this context, the invoice undisputedly sent by the Claimant to the Respondent on 11 October 2007 can be regarded as such “relevant administrative document.” 20. With this established, the Single Judge could not agree with the submission of the Respondent that the payment obligations as stipulated in art. 3 of the agreement should depend on the possibility to exercise art. 1 and 2 of the agreement. 21. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant, in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by parties in good faith, is entitled to receive payment of EUR 50,000 from the Respondent, according to art. 3 of the agreement. 22. Finally, the Single Judge looked into the Claimant’s claim to receive procedural costs in the amount of CHF 10,000. In this regard, the Single Judge referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, according to which no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings of the Players’ Status Committee. As a consequence of the above, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant’s claim was to be rejected. 23. In sum, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant’s claims had to be partially accepted and that the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 50,000 to the Claimant as well as 5% interest per annum as from 5 October 2007 until the date of effective payment. 24. Lastly, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee including its Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25’000 are levied. The relevant provision further states that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings (cf. art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules). 25. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the claims of the Claimant are partially accepted. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 26. Furthermore and according to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. On that basis, the Single Judge held that the amounts to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings are EUR 50,000 for the Claimant’s claim based on the agreement and an additional CHF 10,000 in connection with the Claimant’s claim to receive procedural costs. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000. 27. In conclusion, and considering the complexity of the case, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 5,000. 28. Furthermore, and in line with his aforementioned considerations and taking into account the degree of success, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid by the Respondent. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, FC N, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, FC L, has to pay to the Claimant, FC N, the amount of EUR 50,000 as well as interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as from 5 October 2007 within 30 days as from the notification of this decision. 3. If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and decision. 4. The final amount of costs of the proceedings amounting to CHF 5,000 is to be paid by the Respondent, FC L, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 4.1 The amount of CHF 4,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. xxxxxxx: UBS Zurich Account number xxxxxx Clearing number xxx IBAN: xxxxx SWIFT: xxxx 4.2 The amount of CHF 1,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant, FC N. 5. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, FC N, are rejected. 6. The Claimant, FC N, is directed to inform the Respondent, FC L, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are to be made and to notify the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received. Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to article 67 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives). The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following: Court of Arbitration for Sport Avenue de Beaumont 2 1012 Lausanne - Switzerland Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org www.tas-cas.org For the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives