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 15 August 2012, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club W, from country G as “Claimant” against the club Club P, from country I as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties and relating to the player C

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 15 August 2012, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club W, from country G as “Claimant” against the club Club P, from country I as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties and relating to the player C I. Facts of the case 1. On 29 August 2009, the country G club W (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the country I club P (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded a transfer agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) for the transfer of the country I player Player C (hereinafter: the player) from the former to the latter for an amount of EUR 2,000,000 payable in three instalments as follows: a. EUR 500,000 immediately upon receipt of the player’s International Transfer Certificate (ITC); b. EUR 1,000,000 on 31 July 2010; c. EUR 500,000 on 31 July 2011. 2. On 27 June 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent arguing that the latter had not fulfilled its contractual obligations. 3. First of all, the Claimant explained that the first instalment of EUR 500,000, which was due upon receipt of the ITC of the player, had only been paid in two instalments on 1 April 2010 and 11 October 2010. As a consequence, the Claimant requested default interest at a rate of 5% per year on the amount of EUR 500,000 from 1 September 2009 until 1 April 2010 (which according to the Claimant represented EUR 14,583.33, i.e. EUR 500,000 x 5% x 7/12) as well as on the amount of EUR 250,000 from 1 April until 11 October 2010 (which according to the Claimant represented EUR 6,643.83, i.e. EUR 250,000 x 5% x 194/365). 4. With regard to the second instalment of EUR 1,000,000, the Claimant stated that the Respondent had only paid EUR 275,000. Therefore, the Claimant requested the remaining sum of the second instalment, i.e. EUR 725,000, as well as default interest at a rate of 5% per year from 1 August 2010 until the amount is finally paid off (which according to the Claimant represented EUR 5,729.16; i.e. EUR 275,000 x 5% x 5/12) Consequently, the Claimant requested a total amount of EUR 751,956.32. 5. On 20 July 2011, the Respondent, in its statement of defence, informed FIFA that, although it had “no intention of avoiding payment of the amount still due to Club W under the agreement”, it rejected to pay the amount of default interest as requested by the Claimant since the agreement did not stipulate anything in this respect. It consequently asked the Claimant to withdraw its claim for interest “or to recalculate it at the legal rate of 1.5% currently applied by Italian law”. Finally, the Respondent proposed to pay the remaining amount of EUR 1,225,000 as follows: EUR 225,000 by 31 July 2011, EUR 200,000 by 30 September 2011, EUR 200,000 by 30 November 2011, EUR 200,000 by 30 January 2012, EUR 200,000 by 30 March 2012 and EUR 200,000 by 30 May 2012. 6. On 25 July 2011, the Claimant accepted the proposition of the Respondent but refused to reduce the amount it was claiming as default interest. 7. On 5 August 2011, the Respondent proposed to pay a lump sum of EUR 15,000 in order to cover the requested interest payments. In response to this proposal, the Claimant reiterated on 18 August 2011 that it was not prepared to reduce the amount of default interest it requested from the Respondent and further claimed that the latter club had failed to pay the first instalment of EUR 225,000 it had proposed to pay on 31 July 2011 (cf. pt. 5 above). 8. Then, on 30 August 2011, the Claimant informed FIFA that the Respondent had still not paid anything else and pointed out that the last instalment of EUR 500,000 due on 31 July 2011 according to the agreement had also become outstanding. Consequently, the Claimant amended its original claim and requested from the Respondent the total amount of EUR 1,251,956.30 pursuant to the agreement, as follows: a. EUR 26,956.32 representing the amount of default interest as previously mentioned (cf. pt. 3 and 4 above); b. EUR 725,000 as well as 5% interest as from 1 August 2010; c. EUR 500,000 as well as 5% interest as from 1 August 2011. 9. On 15 September 2011, the Respondent accepted to pay the requested amount of EUR 26,956.32 “in interest” and further added that “Should this proposal be accepted, we shall proceed, as of now, to make the first payment in the sum of EUR 251,956.31” to the Claimant. Consequently, the Respondent proposed to pay the outstanding amount to the Claimant according the following new payment schedule: EUR 225,000 “within the date of acceptance of the proposal”, EUR 200,000 within 30 November 2011, EUR 200,000 within 30 January 2012, EUR 200,000 within 30 March 2012, EUR 200,000 within 30 May 2012 and EUR 200,000 within 31 July 2012. 10. On 27 September 2011, the Claimant accepted the Respondent’s new proposition but warned the latter that in case of any delay for more than 10 days, the whole outstanding amount would become due immediately and “additional interest shall be applicable as applied for in our latest submission dated Aug. 30, 2011”. 11. Subsequently, the Claimant informed FIFA that the Respondent had not paid anything as agreed in its latest proposition and, therefore, requested that a decision be taken in the present matter. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter also referred to as: the Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with 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 (edition 2008). Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 27 June 2011, the Single Judge concluded that the current version, i.e. the 2008 edition, of the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand. 2. Furthermore, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee confirmed that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 as well as art. 22 f) of the 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he was competent to deal with the present matter since it concerned a dispute between two clubs affiliated to different associations. 3. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be 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 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and, on the other hand, to the fact that the claim was lodged with FIFA on 27 June 2011. In view of this, the Single Judge concluded that the 2010 edition of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance. 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation contained in the file. 5. In this respect, the Single Judge reverted to the content of the transfer agreement concluded between the Claimant and the Respondent and which was at the basis of the present claim. In particular, the Single Judge noted that the agreement stipulated that a total amount of EUR 2,000,000 as transfer compensation was to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant in exchange for the transfer of the player C from the latter to the former club as follows: EUR 500,000 immediately upon receipt of the player’s International Transfer Certificate (ITC), EUR 1,000,000 on 31 July 2010 and EUR 500,000 on 31 July 2011. 6. Furthermore, the Single Judge underlined that, on the one hand, the Claimant, in its claim to FIFA, had argued that although the player had been transferred to the Respondent, the latter had failed to fulfil all of its obligations under the agreement, whereas, on the other hand, the Respondent had asserted having the intention to respect its contractual obligations and to pay the remaining sum due to the Claimant but contested the amount of default interest requested by the latter. Moreover, the Single Judge also acknowledged the fact that the parties had failed to reach an amicable settlement in the present matter. 7. In continuation, the Single Judge noted that, based on the information received from the Claimant during the course of the present investigation, the Respondent had only paid the total amount of EUR 775,000, representing the first instalment as well as part of the second instalment stipulated in the agreement. 8. In view of the above and in accordance with the general principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must fulfil the obligation it voluntarily entered into with the Claimant by means of the agreement signed between the parties, and therefore, the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the outstanding transfer compensation agreed upon for the transfer of the player. 9. Therefore and taking into account that the Claimant had acknowledged the receipt of an amount of EUR 775,000 from the Respondent and that the latter had confirmed owing the remaining amount to the Claimant, the Single Judge concluded that the remaining sum amounting to EUR 1,225,000 was still outstanding (i.e. EUR 2,000,000 - EUR 775,000) and should therefore be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. 10. With regard to the amount of EUR 26,956.30 requested by the Claimant as default interest in relation to the first instalment of the agreement, which was apparently paid by the Respondent to the Claimant in two instalments on 1 April 2010 and 11 October 2010, the Single Judge was keen to emphasise that the agreement did not stipulate that default interest would be due in the event that the Respondent paid any of the instalments (or part thereof) with delay. Therefore, and while referring to the well-established jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee in similar cases, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant should not be entitled to default interest on amounts which had already been paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. As a consequence, the Single Judge rejected this part of the claim. 11. Regarding the remaining amount which was still outstanding, i.e. EUR 1,225,000, and in view of the request of the Claimant, the Single Judge held that an interest of 5% per year over the aforementioned amount should apply as from the day after each of the respective instalments should have been paid by the Respondent to the Claimant pursuant to the agreement. 12. In view of all of the above, the Single Judge decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and held that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the remaining amount of EUR 1,225,000 together with an interest at a rate of 5% per year on the amount of EUR 725,000 as from 1 August 2010 until the date of effective payment as well as on the amount of EUR 500,000 as from 1 August 2011 until the date of effective payment. 13. Finally, 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. 14. In respect of the above and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been partially accepted, the Single Judge concluded that both parties have to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 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 over currency of country H 200,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 15. In conclusion, in view of the circumstances of the present matter and taking into account the amount of submissions that had to be analysed in the matter in hand, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 25,000. Consequently and since the claim has been partially accepted, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of currency of country H 5,000 has to be paid by the Claimant and the amount of currency of country H 20,000 by the Respondent in order to cover the costs of the proceedings. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club W, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club P, has to pay to the Claimant, Club W, the total amount of EUR 1,225,000, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. Additionally, and within the same timeframe, the Respondent, Club P, has to pay to the Claimant, Club W, interest at a rate of 5% per year as follows: - on the amount of EUR 725,000 as from 1 August 2010 until the date of effective payment. - on the amount of EUR 500,000 as from 1 August 2011 until the date of effective payment. 4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Club W, are rejected. 5. In case of non-payment of the abovementioned amount (cf. point 2), plus interest (cf. point 3), within the aforementioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 25,000 are to be paid within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 6.1 The amount of currency of country H 5,000 has to be paid by the Claimant, Club W. Given that the latter already paid an advance of costs in the amount of currency of country H 5,000 at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant, Club W, is exempted from paying the abovementioned costs of the proceedings. 6.2 The amount of currency of country H 20,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, Club P, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XX-XXXXX: 7. The Claimant, Club W, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club P, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under points 2 and 3 above is to be made and to notify 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