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 23 April 2013, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club M, from country G as Claimant against the club, Club K, from country T as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player H

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 23 April 2013, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club M, from country G as Claimant against the club, Club K, from country T as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player H I. Facts of the case 1. On 11 January 2010, Club M, from country G (hereinafter: the Claimant) and Club K, from country T (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded a transfer agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) for the transfer of the player H (hereinafter: the player), from the Claimant to the Respondent. 2. The agreement provided, inter alia, a “sell-on clause”, stipulating the following (NB: freely translated from language from country G): “(…) 4. Should the player during the course of his employment contract with Club K (01.01.2010 - 30.06.2013) be transferred to a third club nationally or internationally, [the Claimant] shall receive 20% of any possible transfer fee. (…)” 3. On 22 June 2012, the Respondent concluded a transfer agreement regarding the player with Club F, from country T, for a transfer fee of EUR 3,750,000, payable as follows: “(…) - EUR 500,000, on 30 July 2012; - EUR 500,000, on 30 August 2012; - EUR 275,000, on 30 September 2012; - EUR 275,000, on 30 October 2012; - EUR 275,000, on 30 November 2012; - EUR 275,000, on 31 December 2012; - EUR 275,000, on 31 January 2013; - EUR 275,000, on 28 February 2013; - EUR 275,000, on 31 March 2013; - EUR 275,000, on 30 April 2013; - EUR 275,000, on 31 May 2013; - EUR 275,000, on 30 June 2013; (…)” 4. On 3 September 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim at FIFA and, after amending its claim, requested payment of EUR 750,000 from the Respondent, representing 20% of said transfer fee of EUR 3,750,000, plus 5% interest p.a. “as of July 2012”. 5. In its reply, the Respondent indicated that at the time when the claim was lodged, only the first two instalments of said transfer agreement between the Respondent and Club F for a total amount of EUR 1,000,000 had fallen due. Therefore, the Respondent claims that the Claimant’s request, as far as it exceeds the amount of 20% of EUR 1,000,000, should be rejected. Equally, the Respondent argued that the Claimant’s request for interest is “unlawful”, since the Claimant acted in bad faith. 6. In its replica dated 10 December 2012, the Claimant holds that it was initially informed by the Respondent, on 27 July 2012 and 17 August 2012, that the transfer fee of EUR 3,750,000 was only payable in two instalments and that the transfer had been completed on 22 June 2012. 7. Furthermore, the Claimant states that despite having been asked to either inform the Claimant about the instalments which have already fallen due or to make the relevant payments, the Respondent had not made any payments to the Claimant. 8. In light of the above, the Claimant claimed the first five instalments of the transfer fee of EUR 3,750,000, which had already fallen due at that date, and announced that, should the Respondent not make the relevant payments, the Claimant would claim the whole amount. 9. In its position dated 30 January 2013, the Respondent reiterated its previous argumentation and claimed that the Claimant was not acting in good faith, as it lodged a claim for 20% of EUR 3,750,000, whereas only 20% of EUR 1,000,000 had fallen due at the time when the Claimant lodged its claim at FIFA. 10. By correspondence dated 7 February 2013, the Claimant reiterated its previous argumentation and amended its claim, now requesting the full amount of EUR 750,000, emphasising that the Respondent had not made any payments to it following the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Club F. 11. In spite of having been asked to do so, the Respondent did not provide FIFA with its final position to the claim of the Claimant. 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 (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) as well as to the fact that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 3 September 2012, 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 was 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 3 September 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. First of all, the Single Judge noted that it was undisputed between the parties of the dispute that, in the agreement dated 11 January 2010, they had agreed upon a “sell-on-clause” according to which the Claimant was entitled to receive 20% of the transfer fee paid to the Respondent for the subsequent transfer of the player to a third club. 6. In addition to that, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent and Club F, on 22 June 2012, concluded a transfer agreement, transferring the player from the Respondent to Club F, for a total transfer fee of EUR 3,750,000, payable in twelve instalments, the first two thereof for an amount of EUR 500,000 each, payable on 30 July 2012 and 30 August 2012, the last ten for an amount of EUR 275,000 each, payable on 30 September 2012, 30 October 2012, 30 November 2012, 31 December 2012, 31 January 2013, 28 February 2013, 31 March 2013, 30 April 2013, 31 May 2013 and 30 June 2013. 7. In continuation, the Single Judge took note of the arguments of the Respondent, indicating that only two instalments of the transfer agreement between the Respondent and Club F had fallen due at the time when the Claimant lodged its claim in front of FIFA and that the Claimant was consequently acting in bad faith by requesting the payment of the full amount of EUR 750,000. 8. However, the Single Judge acknowledged in this regard the reply thereto by the Claimant, whereby the latter had apparently been informed by the Respondent that the transfer fee of EUR 3,750,000 was payable in only two instalments. In this context, the Single Judge examined the documentation provided by the Claimant in this regard, particularly the correspondence between the Claimant and the Respondent dated 27 July 2012 and 17 August 2012. 9. Furthermore, the Single Judge took note that during the course of the proceedings, the Respondent had not paid any amounts to the Claimant, i.e. neither 20% of the instalments of the transfer agreement between the Respondent and Club F which had already fallen due in accordance with said agreement, nor of the instalments which had not yet fallen due. 10. Lastly, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Claimant is claiming 20% of the full transfer fee payable by Club F to the Respondent, i.e. 20% of EUR 3,750,000 equalling to an amount of EUR 750,000. 11. After a careful examination of the arguments put forward by the parties of the dispute and of the documentation provided by both parties, the Single Judge proceeded to decide whether the Claimant was entitled to 20% of the whole transfer fee payable by Club F to the Respondent. 12. In this regard, the Single Judge stressed that the last three instalments of the transfer agreement concluded between the Respondent and Club F for an amount of EUR 825,000 have not fallen due yet. 13. Equally, the Single Judge observed that the amount of EUR 2,925,000 of the aforementioned transfer agreement had already fallen due i.e. in accordance with the agreement concluded between Club F and the Respondent, the former already had to pay the first 9 instalments to the latter. 14. In this respect, the Single Judge ruled that the Respondent did not provide any valid argument which would justify the non-payment of the amounts due according to the “sell-on-clause” and that, thus, the Respondent had failed to respect the terms of the transfer agreement it had entered into with the Claimant on 11 January 2010. 15. Consequently, the Single Judge held that, in accordance with the basic legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Respondent has to fulfill its contractual obligations towards the Claimant. Therefore, the Single Judge decided to partially accept the claim of the Claimant, including the interests requested, and held that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant 20% of the amount of EUR 2,295,000, equalling to an amount of EUR 585,000. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that any further claim lodged by the Claimant had to be rejected, since the relevant payments had not yet fallen due in accordance with the payment scheme agreed upon between Club F and the Respondent. 16. 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 C 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). 17. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been partially accepted, the Single Judge concluded that the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA had to be divided between the Claimant and the Respondent. 18. 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 750,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country C 25,000. 19. In conclusion, and considering the particularities of the present proceedings, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country C 15,000. 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 C 12,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, whereas the Claimant has to pay an amount of currency of country C 3,000. ** III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club M, is partially 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 585,000 plus default interest until the date of effective payment as follows: - 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 100,000, as from 31 July 2012; - 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 100,000, as from 31 August 2012; - 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 55,000, as from 1 October 2012; - 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 55,000, as from 31 October 2012; - 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 55,000, as from 1 December 2012; - 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 55,000, as from 1 January 2013; - 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 55,000, as from 1 February 2013; - 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 55,000, as from 1 March 2013; - 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 55,000, as from 1 April 2013. 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 consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The final amount of costs of the proceedings, amounting to currency of country C 15,000, are to be paid within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1 currency of country C 10,000 by the Respondent to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. XX-XXXXX: 5.2 Currency of country C 2,000 by the Respondent to the Claimant. 5.3 Currency of country C 3,000 by the Claimant to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of currency of country C 5,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, no additional amount has to be paid by the Claimant. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 April 2013, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club S, from country B as “Claimant” against the club Club F, from country P as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the player K I. Facts of the case 1. On 6 July 2001, Club S, from country B (hereinafter: “the Claimant”) and the Club M, from country P (hereinafter: “Club M”) concluded a loan agreement (hereinafter: “the loan agreement”) for the player K (hereinafter: “the player”), for the period from 1 July 2001 until 30 June 2002 without involving any payment. 2. Clause one of the loan agreement stated that: “The ASSIGNOR [the Claimant] loans on a free basis the professional athlete player K […] for the season 2001/2002, as from 1 July 2001 until 30 June 2002, to the ASSIGNEE [Club M], who will be able to renew the present agreement for more 04 (four) years.” 3. Clause four of the loan agreement stated that: “In the event that the definitive transfer of the player is negotiated with a third club after the present agreement, the ASSIGNEE [Club M] will be entitled to receive 50% (fifty per cent) over the net amount of the transaction, and the minimum fee of EUR 2,000,000 (two million Euros) is hereby established with EUR 1,000,000 (one million Euros) to the ASSIGNOR [the Claimant] and EUR 1,000,000 (one million Euros) to the ASSIGNEE [Club M].” 4. Clause four paragraph one of the loan agreement stated that: “The ASSIGNEE [Club M] shall immediately release the player in case of a proposal for his definitive transfer to a third club, and shall receive 50% (fifty per cent) over the net amount of the transfer, in the conditions mentioned on the clause above.” 5. Clause four paragraph two of the loan agreement stated that: “In case the ASSIGNEE [Club M] do not agree with a proposal for the definitive transfer of the player, the ASSIGNEE [Club M] will be able to acquire the player´s international certificate definitively by paying to the ASSIGNOR [the Claimant] the amount corresponding to 50% (fifty per cent) of the proposal presented by the third club, in accordance with the parameters of this clause 4.” 6. On 14 June 2002, the Claimant and the player concluded an employment contract valid until 14 June 2007. 7. On 14 June 2002, the Claimant and Club M agreed to extend the loan for four more years, for the period from 3 July 2002 until 30 June 2006. 8. On 2 June 2004, the Claimant and the Portuguese club F (hereinafter: “the Respondent”) signed a document entitled “PRE SALE AGREEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CERTIFICATE OF THE PROFESSIONAL ATHLETE Player K” (hereinafter: “the transfer agreement”), for the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent. 9. Clause one of the transfer agreement stated that: “The ASSIGNOR [the Claimant] grants priority to the ASSIGNEE [the Respondent] to acquire 50% (fifty percent) of the professional soccer athlete player K at the amount of EUR 1,000,000, free of taxes or any other commission, by June 2nd, 2004, according to the signed contract with Club M on July 6th, 2001, forth clause (contract attached).” 10. Clause one paragraph three of the transfer agreement stated that: “The ASSIGNEE [the Respondent] obtaining the 50% from the ASSIGNOR [the Claimant], shall settle the remaining 50% with Club M, according to the contract signed on 06/07/01, provided that, the value won´t reach an amount higher than EUR 1,000,000 (one million euros) of the 50% (fifty per cent) of the Economic Rights.” 11. Clause three of the transfer agreement stated that: “Note that 100% of the federative rights of the athlete belong to the ASSIGNOR [the Claimant] and that Club M has the athlete as a free loan until June 30th 2006, at the country P Federation and country B Football Federation, and the Club M shall only receive the 50% (fifty per cent) in case of a sale during the period in which the athlete is loaned (Contract attached to this pre-agreement).” 12. Clause four of the transfer agreement stated that: “It is herein established as a contractual fine for the Party which does not fulfil any of the provisions of this pre-agreement, the value of EUR 2,000,000.00 (two million euros), besides the obligation to make the payment of the amount agreed in the first clause of this pre-agreement.” 13. On 2 June 2004, the Claimant represented by its President Mr B (hereinafter: “the President”) and by Mr A (hereinafter: “Mr A”) issued a document named declaration (hereinafter: “the declaration”) which expressly stated: “Club S… certifies and recognizes to Club F, concerning the third paragraph of the First Clause of the “PRE AGREEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CERTIFICATE PURCHASE OF THE ATHLETE Player K, executed between Club S and Club F, on June 2nd 2004, and that the amount of E 1,000,000.00 (one million euros), established by both parties at the above referred paragraph, has as its only purpose the limitation of the maximum amount in cash that Club F may pay to Club M, for the acquisition of the remaining 50% of the International Certificate of the player K, neither limits nor hinders additional trade-offs by Club F to Club M, such as assignments of athletes or a percentage for an eventual future transfer of the mentioned athlete. As per these additional trade-offs, Club S waives any claim/compensation against Club F.” 14. On the same date, the Claimant represented by Mr A “entitled to act as established at the power of attorney granted by Club S on 28th May 2001, and whose copy is attached to this instrument” issued another document named “declaration” with the same content than the declaration mentioned in point 13 above. 15. On 16 July 2004, a certified notary extended a copy of an undated document called “Revocation of a Private Document regarding partnership, loan and other agreements regarding federation rights of the professional player K” concluded by the Claimant, Club M and the player by means of which it was established that the employment contact between Club M and the player was rescinded on 30 May 2004 and that the loan of the player was terminated by mutual agreement on 15 July 2004. 16. On 25 February 2008, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent for breach of the transfer agreement requesting the payment of the total amount of EUR 6,500,000 composed as follows: EUR 4,500,000 (15% of the alleged transfer fee of the player from the Respondent to the Club R hereinafter: “Club R”), plus EUR 2,000,000 as a penalty (cf. clause four of the transfer agreement) and an interest of 10% p.a. over the total amount due as from the date of the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Club R and disciplinary sanctions. 17. In this respect, the Claimant stated that: a) through media reports it had learned that in addition to the amount of EUR 1,000,000 established in the transfer agreement, the Respondent had also assigned to Club M 15% of the “economic rights” in case of a future transfer of the player and since the player was transferred in July 2007 from the Respondent to Club R for an amount of EUR 30,000,000, Club M would receive 15 % of that amount, i.e. EUR 4,500,000, in breach of clause one paragraph three of the transfer agreement; b) on 31 August 2007, the Claimant had sent a letter to the Respondent requesting information in this respect. On 27 September 2007, the Respondent answered and acknowledged that besides assigning to Club M a sell-on-fee in case of a future transfer of the player, it had also loaned to the same club another three players. In addition, the Respondent enclosed a declaration allegedly signed on the same day of the transfer agreement according to which Mr A on behalf of the Claimant had waived the Respondent from any obligation towards it related to the matter at hand; c) the Respondent in its answer dated 27 September 2007, justified its behaviour by alleging that the abovementioned additional benefit was negotiated with Club M as an effort to obtain the immediate release of the player. However, the Claimant alleged that on the basis of clause four paragraph one of the loan agreement, Club M assumed the obligation to release the player immediately. 18. On 20 April 2009, the Respondent rejected the Claimant´s claim and alleged that said claim was based on an erroneous interpretation of clause four of the loan agreement and in a deficient articulation between the loan agreement and the transfer agreement. 19. In particular, the Respondent stated that: a) The Claimant´s argumentation lies in the assumption that Club M was obliged to release the player in case of a proposal equal or higher than EUR 2,000,000. This would mean that any additional amount paid by the Respondent to Club M would still be a benefit in return for the terms of the transfer agreement. The accomplishment and the execution of the transfer agreement was dependent on the cooperation of Club M, the latter even had the option (clause four paragraph two of the loan agreement) to have the “rights” of the player; b) In view of the above, the Respondent had offered Club M a 15% share of the subsequent transfer of the player. The objective of the sell-on-fee was to persuade Club M not to exercise its option right (cf. clause four paragraph two of the loan agreement) and to convince it to immediately release the player to the Respondent. Club M and the player had a valid employment contract until 30 June 2006 and, therefore, it was necessary that both parties terminated the cited employment contract. On 16 June 2004, Club M and the player rescinded the employment contract, making it possible to register the player with the Respondent in July 2004; c) The Respondent had paid exactly the same amount to Club M and to the Claimant for the 100% of the player´s “economic rights” (cf. clause one paragraph three of the transfer agreement). A clause that would prevent the Respondent from negotiating with Club M the transfer of the player would go against the spirit and purpose of the transfer agreement and was also invalid as it restricted the freedom of negotiation of both parties; d) Mr A had been for many years the liaison officer of the Claimant between the latter and the Respondent and had represented the Claimant in many transactions such as the transfer of the players E, F, S, as well as in the present matter; e) Mr A had a valid power of attorney dated 28 May 2001 written on the Claimant´s letterhead and signed by its President; f) The declaration was written on the Claimant´s letterhead, signed by Mr A and with the Claimant´s stamp and authorised the Respondent to grant to Club M additional benefits; g) The amounts claimed by the Claimant did not add up. The Respondent alleged that if it had breached the transfer agreement, it should only be liable to pay the penal clause and not the amount that the Claimant illogically requests in its claim. 20. On 21 September 2009, the Respondent sent to FIFA an additional document with the same date and content of the declaration but signed not only by Mr A but also by the president. 21. On 18 July 2011, the Claimant presented its reaction to the Respondent´s position and stated that: a) In the transfer agreement, the Claimant and the Respondent had agreed that Club M and the Claimant would receive the same economic compensation for the transfer of the player. This clause was in line with the terms established in the loan agreement which provided that Club M and the Claimant should receive the same amount in case of a definitive transfer of the player to a third club. The Respondent was fully aware of the terms of the loan agreement since it was annexed to the transfer agreement; b) The player was registered with the Claimant until 14 June 2007 and was on loan with Club M until 30 June 2006. The whole project built by the Claimant around the player, the fact of accepting him on loan for free for several years was done with the aim of equally sharing with Club M the economic benefits eventually deriving from such operation; c) The Respondent had breached the transfer agreement because Club M had not only received EUR 1,000,000 but also 15% of the transfer of the player to Real Madrid and the definitive transfer of the players T, E and F and therefore was liable for damages; d) The Respondent had failed to bring any evidence proving that Club M was interested in equalising the Respondent´s offer and acquiring the player´s “rights”. 22. With regard to the declaration, the Claimant alleged that it did not have any legal validity for the following reasons: a) Mr A did not have any power to give such declaration representing the Claimant. The power of attorney dated 28 May 2001 did not entitle him to waive rights on behalf of the Claimant. He had only signed documents for the Claimant as “witness” and was never a member of the board of directors; b) It was absurd to conclude that the transfer agreement and the declaration were allegedly signed on the same date with different and contradictory conditions; c) On 2 June 2004, the President was in country B while Mr A was in country P. The President signed the transfer agreement in country B and sent the original version by courier to country P where the Respondent´s President and Mr A signed it as witnesses; d) Mr A and the Respondent´s President were indicted in country P for bribery and corruption. In this context, many transfers negotiated by Mr A on behalf of the Claimant were never allowed by the latter. 23. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that the Respondent should be liable to compensate the Claimant for the damages caused by the breach of the transfer agreement in an amount of EUR 8,333,333.33, as follows: i. EUR 4,500,000 as 15% of the transfer of the player to Club R; ii. EUR 500,000 as estimated transfer fee of the player T to Club M; iii. EUR 3,333,333 as estimated transfer of the player E to Club M; iv. USD 800,000 estimated transfer fee of the player F to Club M. 24. In view of all the above, the Claimant requested the Respondent to pay the following amounts: a) EUR 8,333,333.33 and USD 800,000 as compensation for damages since both clubs should receive the same “economic compensation”; b) subsidiarily, EUR 4,166,666.66 and USD 400,000 as compensation for damages in view that the Claimant was entitled to receive 50% of the “economic compensation”; c) in any case, EUR 2,000,000 as penalty clause (cf. clause four of the transfer agreement); d) interest of 10% p.a. over the amount due for the transfer of the players T; E y F from the Respondent to Club M, as well as for the amount of EUR 2,000,000 as from the date of the signature of the contract between the Respondent and Club M; e) interest of 10% p.a. over the amount due for the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Club R, i.e. 15% as from the date of the relevant transfer; f) disciplinary sanctions; g) all arbitration and legal costs incurred by the Claimant. 25. Finally, the Respondent reiterated all its previous allegations and, in particular, highlighted the content of the declaration dated 2 June 2004 issued by the Claimant in its letterhead, stamped and signed by its President and Mr A, allowing the Respondent to give other additional benefits to Club M and exempting the Respondent from any further payments to the Claimant besides the ones made on the occasion of the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent. 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 whether he was competent to deal with the case in hand. In this respect, the Single Judge confirmed that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 of the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 as well as art. 22 lit. f) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he was competent to deal with the matter at stake which concerns a dispute between two clubs affiliated to different associations. 2. Furthermore, the Single Judge analysed which Procedural Rules are applicable to the matter in hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the 2012 and 2008 editions of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 25 February 2008, the Single Judge concluded that the 2005 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 in hand. 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 2012, 2010 and 2009 editions of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged with FIFA on 25 February 2008. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2008 edition of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance. 4. Having established his competence, the Single Judge turned his attention to the substance of the present matter and carefully considered and analysed the arguments and documents presented by the parties during the investigation. 5. In this respect, the Single Judge started by taking note that on 6 July 2001, the Claimant and Club M concluded the loan agreement for the player for one season and that on 14 June 2002, both clubs agreed to extend the said loan for four more years, i.e. for the period from 3 July 2002 until 30 June 2006. Furthermore, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Claimant and Club M had agreed that no loan fee was to be paid for any of the aforementioned loan periods. 6. Moreover, the Single Judge noted that clause four of the loan agreement provided that Club M was entitled to receive part of the transfer compensation in case of a future definitive transfer of the player as well as contained an option in favour of Club M in case of disagreement with regard to the possible proposal for a transfer made by a third club. 7. In continuation, the Single Judge acknowledged that on 2 June 2004, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded the transfer agreement for the player which specifically referred to the terms of the loan agreement previously concluded between the Claimant and Club M and, in particular, to the possible entitled of Club M to a share of the transfer fee in case of a subsequent definitive transfer of the player. 8. In addition, the Single Judge noted that based on the documentary evidence at disposal, the player and Club M rescinded their employment contract on 30 May 2004 and that on 15 July 2004, the loan of the player was terminated by mutual agreement. Subsequently, the Single Judge acknowledged the fact that the player was registered with the Respondent. Furthermore, the Single Judge took note that in July 2007, the player was transferred from the Respondent to Club R for a transfer amount of EUR 30,000,000. 9. At this stage, the Single Judge pointed out that the Claimant had lodged the present claim at FIFA alleging that the Respondent had breached the transfer agreement since it had not paid the same financial compensation to Club M and to the Claimant. On the other hand, the Single Judge stated that the Respondent deemed that it had not breached the transfer agreement mainly because it was authorised by the Claimant through the declaration to negotiate “extra benefits” with Club M in order to release the player. 10. In this respect, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant contested the legal validity of the declaration alleging that Mr A had not been authorised to sign such document on its behalf and that its President was not in country P on the day of the signature of the declaration, i.e. on 2 June 2004. 11. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge went on to analyse the content of the declaration as well as the content of the other declaration provided by the Respondent during the course of the present investigation and which was signed by both Mr A and the President of the Respondent. 12. In this respect, the Single Judge pointed out that the two declarations mentioned above read, in their translated versions, the following: “ Club S […] certifies and recognizes to Club F, concerning the third paragraph of the First Clause of the “PRE AGREEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CERTIFICATE PURCHASE OF THE ATHLETE Player K, executed between Club S and Club F, on June 2nd 2004, and that the amount of E 1,000,000.00 (one million euros), established by both parties at the above referred paragraph, has as its only purpose the limitation of the maximum amount in cash that Club F may pay to Club M, for the acquisition of the remaining 50% of the International Certificate of the Athlete Player K, neither limits nor hinders additional trade-offs by Club F to Club M, such as assignments of athletes or a percentage for an eventual future transfer of the mentioned athlete. As per these additional trade-offs, Club S waives any claim/compensation against Club F.” 13. Having taken into account the content of the declarations, the Single Judge was eager to underline that both declarations were written on paper with the Claimant´s letter head, were duly signed and had identical date and content. 14. Furthermore, the Single Judge stressed that both declarations were very clear and specific when stating that the transfer agreement concluded between the Claimant and the Respondent did not limit the latter to agree upon additional “benefits” with Club M. In particular, the Single Judge acknowledged that even the words in the original version “não limita”, i.e. does not limit, was even underlined. Moreover, the Single Judge stated that both declarations even stated which additional benefits the Respondent could grant to Club M, namely the transfer of other players or a sell-on-fee in case of a subsequent transfer of the player. 15. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant, by means of the two declarations that it had signed, had expressly waived its right to lodge any claim for compensation against the Respondent concerning any additional benefits in connection with the subsequent transfer of the player. 16. Moreover, the Single Judge took note of the Claimant´s allegation that its President was in country B and not in country P on the date of the signature of the declaration and that, consequently, he could not have signed the declaration. 17. In this respect, the Single Judge pointed out that the transfer agreement and the declarations had the same date, i.e. 2 June 2004, and, except for one of the declarations, were signed by both the President of the Claimant and by Mr A. In this context, the Single Judge pointed out that the Claimant expressly stated that on 2 June 2004, the President was in country B while Mr A was in country P and that the President signed the transfer agreement in country B and sent the original version by courier to country P where the Respondent´s President and Mr A included their signatures. 18. At this stage, the Single Judge concluded that the President of the Claimant did not have to be physically in country P in order to sign the transfer agreement and the declaration as both documents could have easily been faxed or mailed to the other signatories. 19. In addition and for the sake of good order, the Single Judge underlined that during the course of the investigation in the matter at stake, the Claimant had never contested the authenticity of the signatures of both of its representatives, i.e. its President and Mr A. 20. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge was keen to emphasise that the power of attorney granted by the Claimant in favour of Mr. A on 28 May 2001 expressly authorised the latter “[…] to trade athletes […] sign sportive contracts, terms and commitments, receive, give quittance, conclude agreements, take responsibility, act in behalf of the club [the Claimant] in any circumstances and before any organisation, being also empowered with the powers granted by the clause “ad negotia” […]” 21. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the declarations signed by the President and Mr A on behalf of the Claimant were valid documents which were legal and binding between the Claimant and the Respondent. 22. In light of all the above, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent did not breach the transfer agreement and thus decided to reject the Claimant´s claim in its entirety. 23. Finally, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 15 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which in the 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 costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties´ degree of success in the proceedings and are normally to be paid by the unsuccessful party. 24. In this regard, the Single Judge reiterated that the Claimant’s request was rejected. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant has to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 25. According to Annex A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is of EUR 8,333,333.33 plus USD 800,000. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 26. Considering the amount of submissions that had to be analysed and in view of the fact that the matter did show particular factual difficulties, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceeding to the amount of currency of country H 25,000. 27. In conclusion, the Single Judge decided that the amount of currency of country H 25,000 has to be paid by the Claimant to cover the costs of the present proceedings. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players´ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club S, is rejected. 2. The costs of the proceedings amounting to currency of country H 25,000 are to be paid by the Claimant, Club S, to FIFA within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision to the following bank account, with reference to case nr. XX-XXXX: ** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 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