F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2012-2013) – controversie tra società – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2012-2013) – 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 19 March 2013, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club B, from country I as Claimant against the club Club K, from country C as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player A

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2012-2013) – controversie tra società – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2012-2013) – 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 19 March 2013, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club B, from country I as Claimant against the club Club K, from country C as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player A I. Facts of the case 1. On 20 November 2010, the country I, Club B (hereinafter: Claimant), and the country C club, Club K (hereinafter: Respondent), concluded a transfer agreement for the transfer of the player A (hereinafter: the player). 2. The aforementioned transfer agreement contained a bonus clause (hereinafter: the bonus clause) which stipulated, inter alia, that: “An additional transfer fee of €50,000 (fifty thousand Euros) shall be paid by Club K once the aforementioned footballer has been on the field ten times at the kickoff in an official competition game.** (…) These sums are to be paid as follows: (…) - **€50,000 within a month of the submission of an invoice, including VAT, after the footballer has appeared ten times in official competition games.” 3. On 7 June 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract indicating that the player had appeared in 9 league matches and 1 official cup match in country B, making a total amount of “10 competition matches”. Consequently, the Claimant argued that the abovementioned conditional payment became due and, therefore, requested the amount of EUR 50,000. 4. On 27 August 2012, the Respondent replied to the claim lodged against it and acknowledged that the player had appeared in 9 league matches and 1 cup match. However, according to the Respondent, the wording “official competition game” should be interpreted meaning only official league matches. Otherwise, the word “competition” would be superfluous and the agreement had only mentioned “official games”. If the parties would have had the intention to include all official matches, they would have formulated the clause differently. 5. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that the clause should be interpreted in accordance with the true intentions of the parties and referred to a decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) dated 9 November 2004 which, inter alia, mentioned that “the true intentions of the parties could only be interpreted by studying the exact wording of the mentioned clause and by questioning how clauses of this nature are usually understood in football”. 6. Moreover, the Respondent referred to the Dutch draft of the transfer agreement, in which it had, allegedly, clearly stated that a bonus payment would only be payable to the Claimant in case the player would play in 10 matches of the country B national league only. 7. Finally, the Respondent referred to art. 1162 of the country B Civil Code, according to which a contract must be interpreted in favour of the party that has assumed an obligation and against the party that benefits from the obligation. 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. 2 and 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (editions 2008 and 2012; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) as well as to the fact that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 7 June 2012, thus after 1 July 2008 but before 1 December 2012. 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 2010 and 2012 editions 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 7 June 2012. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2010 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 confirmed 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 was competent to deal with the present matter since it concerned a dispute between two clubs affiliated to two different associations. 4. 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. 5. 6. First of all, the Single Judge acknowledged that it was undisputed between the parties that, on 20 November 2010, a transfer agreement was concluded relating to the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent and that said agreement contained a bonus clause as set out above. 7. Equally, the Single Judge observed that it was undisputed between the parties that the player had appeared in 9 league matches and 1 cup match for the Respondent. 8. Having established the above, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent stating that the condition for the payment of a bonus fee had been fulfilled since the player had appeared in “10 competition matches”. 9. Furthermore, the Single Judge took note that, in its reply, the Respondent stated that the wording “official competition game”, as stipulated in the bonus clause, should be interpreted meaning only official league matches, not including cup matches. 10. After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, taking into consideration all the aforementioned arguments, the Single Judge observed that the parties, in particular, disputed whether the bonus clause should be interpreted meaning all official matches or only league matches. 11. In this regard, and after having analyzed the wording of the bonus clause, the Single Judge held that the bonus clause refers to an “official competition game”, without differing between league or cup games. Therefore, the Single Judge, considering that the relevant clause was clear and unambiguous, concluded that an “official competition game” covered both league and cup matches, since both league as well as cup matches are part of competitions within the framework of organized football. In this respect, the Single Judge also referred to point 5 of the definitions section of the Regulations which defines “official matches” as follows: “matches played within the framework of organized football, such as national league championships, national cups and international championships for clubs, but not including friendly and trial matches”. 12. Consequently, and taking into consideration that it was undisputed between the parties that the player had appeared in 9 league matches and 1 cup match for the Respondent, the Single Judge decided that the player had appeared in 10 official competition games and that, therewith, the condition of the bonus clause had been fulfilled. Therefore, the Single Judge held that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 50,000. 13. For the sake of completeness and in relation to the Dutch draft of the transfer agreement, the Single Judge held that the content of the Dutch draft can evidently not be held against a club of country I, which signed the English version of the transfer agreement only. 14. 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 currency of country H 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). 15. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the Claimant is the successful party in the present proceedings, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the full costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 16. 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 amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 50,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 10,000. In conclusion, taking into account the particularities of the present matter and considering it was adjudicated by the Single Judge and not by the Players’ Status Committee in corpore, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 8,000. 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 currency of country H 8,000 has to be paid by the Respondent. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club B, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club K, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 50,000. 3. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the stipulated time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 8,000 are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 4.1. The amount of currency of country H 6,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XX-XXXXX: 4.2. The amount of currency of country H 2,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under point 2. and 4.2. above 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