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 5 June 2013, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club B, from country T as Claimant against the club Club C, from country W as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player K

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 5 June 2013, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club B, from country T as Claimant against the club Club C, from country W as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player K I. Facts of the case 1. On 20 July 2011, the country T club, Club B (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the country W club, Club C Football Club (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded a transfer agreement for the definitive transfer of the player, Player K (hereinafter: the player), born in December 1979, from the Claimant to the Respondent. 2. The aforementioned transfer agreement stipulated, inter alia, that: “3. Transfer Fee 3.1 [The Respondent] will pay to [the Claimant] € 800,000.00 for the transfer of the Player. The payment terms will be as follows: (a) € 150,000 will be paid at the same day on this agreement being signed (b) € 150,000 on 1st August 2011. (c) € 300,000 payable on 31st August 2011. (d) € 200,000 payable on 31st December 2011. (…) After validity of this agreement according to article 4, if any of above remunerations (in article 3.1./b,c,d) are not paid on due date [the Respondent] will be responsible for both yearly %10 interests and € 100,000 as penal sum compensation to [the Claimant]. 3.2 The monies payable by [the Respondent] to [the Claimant] hereunder shall be inclusive of sales, value added or other taxes or withholding tax, where applicable. (…) 7.1 This Agreement is subject to the FIFA regulations governing the status and transfer of football players as at the date hereof and any issue in relation with its validity and performance shall be governed by country S law.” 3. On 12 December 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for breach of its payment obligations indicating that the Respondent paid the amount of EUR 260,000 to the Claimant on 31 August 2011, instead of the amount of EUR 300,000 as stipulated in art. 3.1 (c) of the transfer agreement, explaining that the Respondent had deducted 5% of the transfer fee in order to pay the solidarity contribution to the relevant training club(s) of the player. In view of the foregoing, the Claimant requested the payment of EUR 40,000 plus 10% interest as of 31 August 2011 and a penalty fee of EUR 100,000, based on art. 3 of the transfer agreement, from the Respondent. 4. The Claimant argued that the transfer agreement between the parties does not contain any clause concerning the deduction of the solidarity contribution from the transfer fee, and that, in accordance with the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Claimant could not be held responsible for the payment of solidarity contribution. The deduction made by the Respondent was therefore, according to the Claimant, unfair and illegal. 5. On 7 February 2012, the Respondent filed its answer to the claim of the Claimant and referred to art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, according to which the new club is obliged to deduct 5% solidarity contribution from the transfer fee. The Respondent confirmed that the transfer agreement does not contain a clause stating that the solidarity contribution will be deducted from the transfer fee. The Respondent argued, however, that the transfer agreement does not contain a clause to the contrary either. Finally, the Respondent stated that it had acted in accordance with the aforementioned Regulations, to which both clubs were bound as stipulated in art. 7.1 of the transfer agreement, by deducting EUR 40,000 from the total transfer compensation of EUR 800,000 and by distributing said amount to the relevant training clubs. 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 12 December 2011, 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 12 December 2011. 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. First of all, the Single Judge acknowledged that it was undisputed between the parties that, on 20 July 2011, a transfer agreement was concluded relating to the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent and that the Respondent had paid the amount of EUR 260,000 to the Claimant, pertaining to the third instalment of the transfer fee after deducting EUR 40,000, in order to pay the solidarity contribution to the relevant training club(s). 6. Having established the above, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent stating that the Respondent had illegally deducted the amount of EUR 40,000 from the total transfer fee of EUR 800,000. 7. Furthermore, the Single Judge took note that, in its reply, the Respondent stated that it had deducted and distributed the aforementioned amount in full compliance with the Regulations. 8. 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 Respondent had rightfully deducted the amount of EUR 40,000 from the transfer compensation payable to the Claimant, in order to pay the solidarity contribution to the relevant training club(s) of the player. 9. In this regard, the Single Judge referred to art. 21 of the Regulations in combination with art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations which stipulate that, if a professional moves during the course of a contract, 5% of any compensation, not including training compensation paid to his former club, shall be deducted from the total amount of this compensation and be distributed by the new club as a solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in the training and education of the player in proportion of the number of years the player has been registered with the relevant club(s) between the seasons of his 12th and 23rd birthday. 10. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that, in the matter at hand, it is the new club, i.e. the Respondent, which has to deduct 5% from the total amount of the transfer compensation and, subsequently, distribute said proportion to the club(s) involved in the training and education of the player. 11. Consequently, and taking into consideration that it was undisputed between the parties that the Respondent had deducted the amount of EUR 40,000, i.e. 5% of the transfer compensation, from the total amount of the transfer compensation, i.e. EUR 800,000, as well as taking into consideration the documentation provided by the Respondent from which it can be established that the amount of EUR 40,000 had indeed be distributed to the relevant training clubs of the player, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent had complied with the Regulations. 12. The Single Judge added that the provisions in the Regulations governing the solidarity mechanism system are mandatory and that transfer agreements therefore do not need to contain any specific clause to this end, as wrongly hold by the Claimant. 13. In light of all the foregoing, the Single Judge decided to reject the Claimant’s claim. 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 claim of the Claimant has been rejected, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant 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 140,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 20,000. 17. 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 10,000. Furthermore, and in line with his aforementioned considerations and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been rejected, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of currency of country H 10,000 has to be paid by the Claimant. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club B, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 10,000 are to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA, of which currency of country H 4,000 have already been paid by the Claimant as advance of costs at the start of the proceedings. Consequently, the amount of currency of country H 6,000 has to be paid by the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. XX-XXXXX: 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives