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 B, from country A as “Claimant” against the club Club G, from country Y as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties and relating to the player P

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 B, from country A as “Claimant” against the club Club G, from country Y as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties and relating to the player P I. Facts of the case 1. On 24 July 2009, Club B, from country A (hereinafter: the Claimant) and Club G, from country Y (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded a transfer contract (hereinafter: the contract) for the definitive transfer of the player P (hereinafter: the player) from the Claimant to the Respondent. 2. Article 4 of the contract provided that a transfer compensation of EUR 2,510,000 had to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant for the transfer of the player, as follows: - EUR 510,000 “within five days of signing the present agreement”; - EUR 350,000 for a previous amount owed between the parties; - EUR 1,650,000 “in three instalments whose amounts and due dates are the following:” - a) EUR 250,000 on 1 January 2011; - b) EUR 650,000 on 1 July 2011; - c) EUR 750,000 on 1 December 2011. 3. Article 4 of the contract also stated that an interest of 0,2% for late payment would apply on any of the instalments due “from the due date of the instalment until the date of effective payment”. 4. Furthermore, article 6 of the contract provided that “in case of a future sale of the sporting and patrimonial services of the player P to any national and/or international club which exceeds the sum of EUR 4,500,000, Club G [i.e. the Respondent] recognises to Club B [i.e. the Claimant] a percentage of 10% to be calculated on the surplus amount exceeding EUR 4,500,000”. 5. On 12 March 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent in relation to the contract. In this respect, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent had not entirely complied with its obligations under article 4 of the contract in that it had only paid the amount of EUR 250,000 out of the last instalment of EUR 750,000 due on 1 December 2011 (cf. article 4 c) of the contract). 6. Consequently, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the amount of EUR 500,000 “together with the legal interest on the said amount since the due date”. 7. On 12 July 2012, the Claimant amended its original claim and stated that in addition to the amount of EUR 500,000 that the Respondent had allegedly not paid under article 4 of the contract, the latter had also failed to pay the additional amount agreed upon in article 6 of the contract. In this respect and on the basis of “news reports”, the Claimant claimed that the player was transferred from the Respondent to the Club M, from country I in June 2012 for a total transfer compensation of EUR 11,000,000. 8. In view of the above, the Claimant requested from the Respondent an additional amount of EUR 650,000 on the basis of article 6 of the contract, an amount corresponding to 10% of the difference between EUR 4,500,000 and EUR 11,000,000, “plus interests until the date of payment as well as costs”. 9. Although the Respondent was invited by FIFA to provide its response to the claim and informed that in the absence of a reply a decision would be taken on the basis of the allegations and documents provided by the Claimant, it did not submit any comments in response to the claim. 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 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 12 March 2012, the Single Judge concluded that 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 present matter. 2. Furthermore, the Single Judge 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 2012 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 to art. 26 par. 1 of the 2012 and 2010 editions of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and again to the fact that the claim was lodged with FIFA on 12 March 2012. In view of this, the Single Judge concluded that the 2010 edition of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter as to the substance. 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so and first of all, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent had not submitted any comments in response to the claim lodged against it by the Claimant despite having been asked to do so by FIFA. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that in this way the Respondent had renounced to its right of defence and thus it had to be assumed that it had accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 5. Bearing in mind the aforementioned, the Single Judge referred to art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and pointed out that in the present matter a decision shall be taken upon the basis of the documents on file, in other words upon the allegations and documents provided by the Claimant. 6. In this respect, and first of all, the Single Judge noted that the parties had concluded on 24 July 2009 a contract for the definitive transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent, according to which the latter would pay the amount of EUR 2,510,000 to the former in different instalments in exchange for the acquisition of the services of the player (cf. article 4 of the contract). In addition, the contract also provided that “in case of a future sale of the sporting and patrimonial services of the player P to any national and/or international club which exceeds the sum of EUR 4,500,000”, the Respondent would pay to the Claimant “a percentage of 10% to be calculated on the surplus amount exceeding EUR 4,500,000” (cf. article 6 of the contract). 7. In continuation, and based on the allegations of the Claimant, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent had failed to pay the amount of EUR 500,000, which represented part of the last instalment due on 1 December 2011 under article 4 of the contract and that therefore such an amount was still outstanding. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of EUR 500,000 should thus be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. 8. Furthermore, and as to the interest requested by the Claimant on the abovementioned amount “since the due date”, the Single Judge referred to article 4 of the contract which specifically provided that an interest of 0,2% would apply in case of late payment of any of the instalments “from the due date of the instalment until the date of effective payment” and held that the Respondent should also pay an interest at a rate of 0,2% per year on the outstanding amount of EUR 500,000 as from 2 December 2011. 9. With regard to the amount of EUR 650,000 claimed by the Claimant under article 6 of the contact, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant had alleged that the player was transferred from the Respondent to the Club M, from country I for an amount of EUR 11,000,000 in June 2012. In this respect, in view of the fact that this allegation had remained unchallenged by the Respondent and on the basis of the wording of article 6 of the contract, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant was indeed entitled to an additional amount of EUR 650,000 which represented 10% of the “surplus amount exceeding EUR 4,500,000” and which had become due as a result of the subsequent transfer of the player from the Respondent to Club M. 10. In addition, and in view of the Claimant’s request to be awarded interest on the amount of EUR 650,000, the Single Judge, taking into account his usual jurisprudence in this regard, ruled that an interest of 5% per year should also apply on the amount in question as from 12 July 2012, i.e. as from the date said amount was requested by the Claimant at FIFA. 11. In view of all of the above, the Single Judge decided to fully accept the Claimant’s claim and held that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the amounts of EUR 500,000 and EUR 650,000, plus interest as previously established. 12. 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 and which states that 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. 13. In respect of the above and taking into account that the responsibility of the failure to comply with the full payment of the transfer compensation can entirely be attributed to the Respondent and that the claim of the Claimant has been fully accepted, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 14. 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. Considering the particular circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 18,000 and concluded that said amount has to be paid by the Respondent in order 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 B, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club G, has to pay to the Claimant, Club B, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 500,000, together with an interest of 0,2% per year from 2 December 2011 until the date of effective payment, as well as the amount of EUR 650,000, together with an interest of 5% per year from 12 July 2012 until the date of effective payment. 3. If the aforementioned amounts of EUR 500,000 and EUR 650,000, plus interest as previously mentioned, are 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. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 18,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club G, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 4.1 The amount of currency of country H 13,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 4.2 The amount of currency of country H 5,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant, Club B. 5. The Claimant, Club B, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club G, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2 and 4.2 above are 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