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 Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club A, from country B as “Claimant / Counter-Respondent” against the club Club M, from country P as “Respondent / Counter-Claimant” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and 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 23 April 2013, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club A, from country B as “Claimant / Counter-Respondent” against the club Club M, from country P as “Respondent / Counter-Claimant” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the player K. I. Facts of the case 1. On 26 August 2009, Club A, from country B (hereinafter: “the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent”) and Club M, from country P (hereinafter: “the Respondent/Counter-Claimant”) signed a loan agreement (hereinafter: “the agreement”) for the temporary transfer of the player K (hereinafter: “the player”) from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for the period from 25 August 2009 until 30 June 2010. 2. Clause one of the agreement stated that the loan of the player was “free of charge” and clause 3 of the agreement further stipulated that “For the present temporary assignment, Club M [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] shall pay nothing to Club A [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent]”. 3. Clause 4 of the agreement stated that “considering that Club A [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] is holder of 100% (one hundred per cent) of the Athletes’ Economic Rights, and in the event of chargeable permanent assignment of the Athletes’ economic rights made by Club A [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent], until January thirty-first two thousand eleven, Club M [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] shall receive 20% of the settlement amount, over 100% of the Athletes’ Economic Rights belonging to Club A [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent]”. 4. Clause 9 of the agreement stipulated that: a) “After 30/06/2010, Club A [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] has the exclusive right to assign and negotiate the federative and economic rights of the Club A [the player] with third parties interested in acquiring all or part of the federative and/or economic rights for permanent transfer, not being allowed to Club M [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] to lend or reassign, by any means whatsoever, the sporting rights of the Club A [the player] without the express consent of Club A [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent]. b) In case of transfer of the athlete [the player] after 30/05/2010, Club M [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] undertakes the obligation to immediately release the ATHLETE [the player] to Club A [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] or to whom it indicates, within 10 (ten) days after formal notification, subject to penalty of paying compensation to Club A [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] on the amount equivalent to the value of the “transfer negotiation” that Club A [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] intended to conclude, increased by 10% (ten percent), frustrated due to the noncompliance of Club M [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant]. c) In case of “transfer” of the ATHLETE [the player] to another club due to the permanent transfer (sale) with his “release” and the consequent premature rescission of this contract, after 30/06/2010, there shall be no burden between the parties. d) Club A [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] concedes to Club M [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] the preference right for the acquisition of the federative and economic rights of the ATHLETE [the player], until the thirty first of January of two thousand and eleven. e) If a third party submits a proposal to acquire all or part of the federative and/or economic rights of the ATHLETE [the player] for permanent transfer, Club A[the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] shall inform Club M [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] all essentials conditions to the business (v.g. complete identification of the acquirer, complete and discriminated identification of business object, price, payment conditions, etc.) granting Club M [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] an eight-day period to exercise their preference right of acquisition under the same terms. f) Due to the non-compliance of the two preceding paragraphs Club A [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] shall pay to Club M [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] an indemnification that the parties already set as penalty clause on the amount of One million Euros [EUR 1,000,000]”. 5. On 2 January 2010, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant concluded an amendment to the agreement (hereinafter: “the amendment”), by means of which the parties agreed to extend the duration of the agreement from the date of its signature until 30 June 2011. 6. Clause 2 of the amendment stated that “all other CONTRACT terms and conditions remain in force and unaffected”. 7. According to the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 29 July 2011, the player was registered with the Club B, from country P (hereinafter: “Club B”), involving a transfer amount of EUR 1,680,000, payable in two equal instalments of EUR 840,000 due on 5 July 2011 and 31 December 2011. 8. On 12 August 2010, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged a complaint with FIFA against the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stating that the latter breached clause 9 b) of the agreement by not releasing the player within 10 days after the formal notification for the definitive transfer of the player to Club B. In this respect, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claimed from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant the amount of EUR 2,530,000 as compensation, calculated on the basis of clause 9 b) of the agreement, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 17 July 2010 and procedural costs. 9. In particular, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stated that: a) on 24 June 2010, it received an offer from Club B for the permanent transfer of the player for an amount of EUR 2,300,000, payable in four equal instalments; b) on 28 June 2010, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent formally notified the Respondent/Counter-Claimant about the offer received from Club B and granted it eight-day deadline (cf. clause 9 d) and e) of the agreement) in order for the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to exercise its “preference right” to acquire the player under the same conditions; c) several letters were exchanged between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, which showed no intention of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to perform its “preference right” but only to obtain a higher compensation from Club B; d) the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not exercise its “preference right” during the deadline agreed and did not release the player within 10 days after formal notification. As a consequence, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant breached clause 9 b) of the agreement and became liable to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the penalty clause agreed upon, i.e. EUR 2,300,000 (transfer amount intended to be concluded with Club B) increased by 10% (EUR 230,000), in total EUR 2,530,000. 10. On 12 November 2010, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant rejected the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim and stated, in particular, that: a) by concluding the agreement both parties agreed to a “preference right” in favour of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and also the Respondent/Counter-Claimant´s right to receive 20% of a future transfer amount. By concluding the amendment, the parties extended the period of loan of the player until 30 June 2011. Upon the end of the loan period both clubs foresaw that the player would return to his club of origin, unless a third party or the Respondent/Counter-Claimant - by exercising its “preference right”- had agreed on a final transfer. Such transfer was never agreed, and consequently the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had no right to terminate the loan prematurely; b) the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the player had a valid employment contract until 30 June 2011; c) in the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s formal notification of Club B’s offer, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant noticed that such proposal was to acquire the “federative rights” of the player and 50% of his “economic rights”, for an amount of EUR 2,300,000. Accordingly, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant requested clarification of the content of the offer, in particular because according to clause 4 of the agreement, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent declared to hold 100% of the players’ economic rights and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant would be entitled to receive 20% out of 100% of the amount agreed for the subsequent transfer of the player; d) since the financial terms and conditions proposed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not correspond to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s expectation, it decided to further fulfil its agreement both with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the player until its agreed expiry date, i.e. 30 June 2011; e) the Claimant/Counter-Respondent induced the player to refuse to attend the training sessions and to breach his employment contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. Consequently, the player left the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for almost two months and signed an employment contract with Club B in the meantime; f) the Claimant/Counter-Respondent tried to fabricate a “fictive case of breach of employment contract of the player with Club M [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant]”, as it wrote a letter on behalf of the player claiming that he was entitled to terminate his employment contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant with immediate effect because of failure to pay his salary; g) after almost two months, the player returned to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and stated that he left the Respondent/Counter-Claimant because he “received guidance to leave the premises of Club M [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] and travelled directly from the city of Club M to the city of Club B”. the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not violate any provisions of the agreement and employment contract. 11. In addition, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant lodged a counter-claim against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claiming payment of the total amount of EUR 1,960,000, composed as follows: (1) EUR 500,000 as compensation for inducing the player to breach the employment contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant; (2) EUR 1,460,000 compensation for violation of clauses four, nine d) and e) of the agreement (i.e. failing to distribute 20% share of the amount negotiated with Club B, i.e. EUR 460,000, plus EUR 1,000,000 as penalty agreed upon clause 9 f) of the agreement); (3) plus an interest of 5% p.a. from 25 June 2010 until the effective date of payment, disciplinary sanctions and procedural costs. 12. On 15 February 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent rejected the counter-claim lodged against it and further stated that: a) by concluding the amendment, the parties agreed to extend the loan period until 30 June 2011. However, as explicitly agreed in its clause 2, the parties agreed that any terms and conditions, other than the duration of the loan, would remain in force and unaffected; b) according to clause 9 c) of the agreement, it could have been prematurely terminated after 30 June 2010, in order to implement a possible transfer of the player; c) the player has been permanently registered with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant since his transfer in 2009, so neither his registration nor his employment contract has ever been terminated; d) it is wrong to affirm that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and Club B induced the player to terminate his employment contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant since the player still holds a valid employment contract with it. However, it is true that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent tried in vain to enforce the contract obligations provided in the agreement with regard to its right to transfer the player to a third club as of 30 June 2010 and to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s obligation to release the player in case of a transfer opportunity; e) according to clause 9 e) of the agreement, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is obliged to inform the Respondent/Counter-Claimant of any proposal for the definitive transfer of the player. Therefore the sale of the players’ economic rights without the transfer of the player to another club does not fall under the scope of this provision; f) the event that would have triggered the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s entitlement to receive EUR 460,000 (share of 20% of EUR 2,300,000) never occurred, because of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s obstruction; g) the player provided a written statement affirming that he did not receive any instruction from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent or Club P to abandon the training sessions and to go to country P and country B. Furthermore, the player declared that he was induced by the Executive Committee of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to execute the “Auto de Declarações” (Statements) dated 6 September 2010. 13. On 20 May 2011, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant submitted a translation of a correspondence that was originally sent by the country P Football Federation to FIFA on 15 February 2011. The aforementioned correspondence stated that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant made a deposit on 15 February 2011 in the amount of EUR 506,000 to the country P Football Federation, in order to exercise its “preference right” regarding the offer made by the Club S (hereinafter: “Club S”) for the definitive acquisition of the player. In this respect, it declared that: a) On 30 January 2011, Club S sent to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent (with copy to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant) a proposal for the federative rights and 50% of the players’ economic rights in the amount of EUR 2,530,000, payable in four equal instalments respectively on 15 February 2011, 30 July 2011, 30 December 2012 and 30 June 2012; b) On 31 January 2011, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant sent a letter to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stating that, according to clause 9 d) and e) of the agreement, it would like to exercise its “preference right” under the same conditions proposed by Club S. In this respect, it attached a copy of a cheque for an amount of EUR 506,000 (first instalment), which was entrusted to the country P Football Federation. 14. On 17 June 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent provided FIFA with its response and stated that: a) Clauses nine d) and e) of the agreement provides for a “preference right” to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant until 31 January 2011. Yet, this right is subject to a third party´s proposal and to the acceptance of it by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, which according to clause 9 a) of the agreement, retains the exclusive right to negotiate the player’s transfer; b) the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not breach the agreement when it sold the “player´s rights” without informing the Respondent/Counter-Claimant since the obligation to inform cf. its clause 9 e) was only applicable in case of a permanent transfer; c) the proposal of Club S was refused by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, according to a letter dated 31 January 2011. Therefore, there was no offer upon which the Respondent/Counter-Claimant could have exercised its “preference right”, neither with regard to Club B’s offer, which did not exist anymore, nor with regard to Club S’s proposal, which was declined by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent; d) the country P Football Federation has no authority over the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and is not entitled to receive any compensation on behalf of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 15. On 19 August 2011, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant provided FIFA with its position stating that even though the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had not complied with its obligations to inform the Respondent/Counter-Claimant of the valid offer made by Club S, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant received a copy of such offer by Club S itself and therefore, it exercised its “preference right” under the same conditions offered by Club S. 16. Moreover, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stated that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent granted the “preference right” to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant until 31 January 2011, i.e. six months after the expiry of the loan. Therefore, after the extension of the loan, the amendment shall be interpreted that the expiry date of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant ´s “preference right” is 31 January 2012, i.e. six months after the expiry of the amendment. 17. Furthermore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stated that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s allegations that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant´s “preference right” was only applicable in case of a permanent transfer of the player are not in line with the wording of clause 9 e) of the agreement, thus, the penalty clause must apply. 18. In addition, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stated that in July 2011 the player was finally transferred to Club B. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant was never informed about Club B’s new offer, thus the Claimant/Counter-Respondent prevented the Respondent/Counter-Claimant from exercising its “preference right” and it violated once again its rights. Therefore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent must pay a second penalty of EUR 1,000,000 for this new breach of the agreement and amendment. 19. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent instead of accepting the offer made by Club S through the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, transferred the player to Club B for a lower compensation and once again breached the agreement and induced the player to breach his employment contract. 20. In view of the above, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant amended its original petition and claimed that the compensation for the inducement by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent should be no less than EUR 1,976,000. In this respect, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s stated that in May 2011, it was approached by the Club Q, from country P (hereinafter: “Club Q”) with another offer. Club Q agreed with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant that if it would be able to execute its “preference right”, thus transferring the player from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for EUR 2,530,000, Club Q would, in turn, pay the Respondent/Counter-Claimant EUR 4,000,000. 21. In sum, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant claimed the following amounts: (1) EUR 1,976,000 as compensation for inducement by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to breach the employment contract. The cited amount is composed as follows: EUR 4,000,000 (Club Q´s offer to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant) - EUR 2,530,000 (Club Q´s offer to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent) = EUR 1,470,000 + EUR 506,000 (20% of EUR 2,530,000), plus an interest of 5% p.a. as from 25 June 2010; (2) EUR 2,460,000 (EUR 1,460,000 + EUR 1,000,000) as compensation for violation of clause 9 d); e) and f) of the agreement, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2011 (date of the alleged transfer of the player to Club B); (3) in accordance with clause 4 of the agreement, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent should pay to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant 20% of the amount that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent received from Club B; (4) disciplinary sanctions and procedural costs. 22. On 25 February 2013, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent presented its final position to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant ´s counter-claim stating that all of its claims should be dismissed, reiterating all of its previous allegations and adding that: a) It is obvious that for the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to be allowed to equal a third Club´s offer, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the player should have accepted such proposal. A clause in the agreement is not sufficient for the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to presume the acceptance, in advance, of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the player or to force any transfer to a third club; b) The loan of the player was not dependent on the existence of the “preference right”. Therefore, when the parties concluded the amendment, it was only with the intention of extending the loan but not the other terms of the agreement; c) The entitlement of 20% of the transfer fee (cf. clause 4 of the agreement) was subject to the player´s transfer before 31 January 2011. Since the player was transferred to Club B during the summer 2011, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is no longer entitled to such fee; d) the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not induce the player to terminate the employment contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. The relevant employment contract was never terminated but simply expired at the end of its duration on 30 June 2011. 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 12 August 2010, 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 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 12 August 2010. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2009 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 26 August 2009 the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent-Counter-Claimant concluded the agreement in connection with the loan of the player for one season, i.e. until 30 June 2010 and that on 2 January 2010, both clubs agreed to extend the said loan until 30 June 2011, in both cases without involving the payment of any loan fee. 6. Moreover, the Single Judge acknowledged that clause 4 of the agreement stipulated that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant would be entitled to receive a sell-on fee of 20 % in case of a future definitive transfer of the player until 31 January 2011. 7. Furthermore, the Single Judge acknowledged that by means of clause 9 of the agreement, both parties agreed upon, inter alia, the following points: • the Respondent/Counter Claimant was obliged to immediately release the player in case of a transfer to a third club, subject to a penalty in case of non-compliance (cf. clause 9 b) of the agreement); • the Respondent/Counter Claimant had a “preference right” until 31 January 2011 to exercise an option to acquire the services of the player on a definitive basis (cf. clause 9 d) of the agreement); • in case of a proposal made by a third club, the Respondent/Counter Claimant was entitled to also exercise a “preference right”, within 8 days as from the date of communication of said proposal, in order to acquire the services of the player on a permanent basis under the same conditions proposed by the third club in question (cf. clause 9 e) of the agreement). 8. At this stage, the Single Judge pointed out that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged the present claim with FIFA alleging that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had breached clause 9 b) of the agreement by not releasing the player within the established time frame, i.e. 10 days upon notification of Club B´s proposal to acquire the services of the player. In this respect, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claimed from the Respondent/Counter Claimant a penalty of EUR 2,530,000, plus interest. 9. Moreover, the Single Judge took note that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant lodged a counter-claim against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent requesting a compensation from the latter for having allegedly induced the player to breach the employment contract it had concluded with him and for having breached clauses 4 and 9 d), e) and f) of the agreement. 10. In view of the above and first of all, the Single Judge underlined that it was uncontested by the parties that on 24 June 2010, Club B had made an offer for acquiring, on a permanent basis, the services of the player from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and that on 28 June 2010, the latter had formally communicated Club B´s proposal to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. In this respect, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant alleged to have refused the financial terms and conditions communicated by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and to have thus kept the player on a loan basis with its team. 11. Therefore, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, upon receipt of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent´s communication (i.e. the offer from Club B), had neither exercised its “preference right” as per clause 9 e) of the agreement nor released the player as per clause 9 b) of the agreement. 12. In light of the above, the Single Judge concluded that it was uncontested that the player had not joined Club B in summer 2010 as he was not released by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in accordance with clause 9 b) of the agreement. 13. At this stage, the Single Judge clarified that it was not up to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to negotiate the terms of a potential transfer of the player to a third club and that such a right exclusively remained with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent since it was the holder of the original transfer rights over the player at the time of the relevant loan. 14. Moreover, the Single Judge underlined that clause 9 a) of the agreement explicitly established that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had the exclusive right to “assign and negotiate” the transfer of the player with third parties and reiterated that, according to clause 9 e) of the agreement, any proposal made by a third club to acquire the services of the player on a permanent basis had to be made by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant which had “an eight-day period” to accept said proposal “under the same terms”. 15. In view of all the above, the Single Judge concluded that by failing to exercise its “preference rights” under clause 9 e) of the agreement following the offer made by Club B and by omitting to immediately release the player as per the agreement, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had breached its contractual obligations towards the Claimant/Counter-Respondent as per clause 9 of the agreement. 16. The Single Judge then turned his attention to the consequences of such a breach and pointed out that clause 9 b) of the agreement specifically established that in case the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to release the player “within ten (ten) days after formal notification” of the offer being made, the latter would have to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent an amount “equivalent to the value of the transfer negotiation that Club A [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] intended to conclude, increased by 10%”. 17. Moreover, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, in addition to claiming the relevant “transfer negotiation […] increased by 10%”, also requested from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant default interest of 5% p.a. as from 17 July 2010 over the claimed compensation. In this respect, the Single Judge was keen to emphasise that according to the long standing and well-established jurisprudence of the Players´ Status Committee, a contractually agreed penalty compensation for breach of a transfer agreement cannot be requested together with default interest as both requests aim at compensating the affected party for the damage suffered. 18. Having mentioned the above, the Single Judge added that in order to decide which of the two should apply, i.e. the penalty or the default interest, the will of the parties as expressed in the relevant agreement also needed to be taken into account. While stating that damage compensation has to remain proportionate, the Single Judge held that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant should only be requested to pay the amount of penalty agreed upon between the parties under clause 9 b) of the agreement and therefore the additional default interest of 5% requested by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent cannot be granted. 19. In continuation, the Single Judge took note that it was uncontested that Club B proposed to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent a transfer amount of EUR 2,300,000. Consequently and in view of clause 9 b) of the agreement, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant should be requested to pay the amount of EUR 2,530,000 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent as compensation for the breach of the agreement, i.e. EUR 2,300,000 + EUR 230,000 (10% of EUR 2,300,000). 20. In view of all the above, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent has to be partially accepted and held that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the amount of EUR 2,530,000 as compensation. 21. Secondly, the Single Judge focussed his attention on the counter-claim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 22. In this regard and first of all, the Single Judge took note that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was claiming against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent a compensation amounting to EUR 1,976,000 for having allegedly induced the player to breach his employment contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 23. In this context, the Single Judge clarified that, as a general rule, claims for inducement of breach of an employment contract have to be lodged against the relevant player and his new club in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in the context of an employment-related dispute and cannot be lodged only against the player’s new club. The Single Judge further stated that if the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had the intention to lodge a formal complaint against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in connection with the possible inducement of the player to breach the relevant employment contract, it should have lodged said claim against the player and the relevant club in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. 24. In view of the above, the Single Judge decided to reject the counter-claim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 25. In continuation, the Single Judge took note that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant also requested a compensation of EUR 2,460,000 from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for breach of clauses 4 and 9 d), e) and f) of the agreement. 26. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the amount of EUR 2,460,000 claimed by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant as compensation was connected to two things: 1) the offer made by Club B on 24 June 2010 to acquire the services of the player and 2) the transfer of the player to Club B in July 2011. 27. Moreover, the Single Judge pointed out that the relevant amount of EUR 2,460,000 was composed as follows: • EUR 460,000 representing 20% of the transfer amount (EUR 2,300,000) proposed by Club B in June 2010 (cf. clause 4 of the agreement); • EUR 1,000,000 as penalty in connection with Club B´s offer in June 2010 (cf. clause 9 f) of the agreement); • EUR 1,000,000 as penalty in connection with the transfer of the player to Club B in July 2011 (cf. clause 9 f) of the agreement). 28. With regard to the compensation requested by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in connection with the proposal made by Club B on 24 June 2010, the Single Judge emphasised that it was the Respondent/Counter-Claimant that had failed to comply with clause 9 e) of the agreement and that, consequently, it should therefore not be entitled to any compensation whatsoever in relation to said offer. 29. In continuation, the Single Judge analysed the request of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for the amount of EUR 1,000,000 as penalty in connection to the transfer of the player to Club B in July 2011. 30. In this respect, the Single Judge took note that according to informing contained on the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player was registered with Club B on 29 July 2011 for a transfer compensation of EUR 1,680,000. Moreover, the Single Judge pointed out that clause 9 d) of the agreement clearly established that the “preference right” of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was valid until 31 January 2011. 31. At this stage, the Single Judge took note that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had argued that when both clubs had signed the amendment on 2 January 2010, its “preference right” was extended until 31 January 2012, i.e. six months after the expiry of the new loan term (30 June 2011), and thus the Respondent/Counter-Claimant deemed that at the time of the transfer of the player to Club B, its “preference right” was still in force. 32. In view of this, the Single Judge deemed appropriate to underline the content of clause 2 of the amendment which established that all the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement remained “in force and unaffected”. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that, from the content of the amendment, it could be concluded that both clubs had only changed the date of expiry of the loan and had not explicitly amended anything with regard to the other terms and conditions of the agreement. 33. For the sake of good order, the Single Judge added that if the parties had wanted to extend the validity of said “preference right” or other crucial points of the agreement, such amendments should have been explicitly mentioned in the amendment. 34. In light of the above, the Single Judge held that from the content of the amendment and evidence at disposal, it could not be concluded that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant´s entitlement to exercise its “preference right” was extended until 31 January 2012. 35. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that when the player was transferred to Club B in July 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was no longer under the obligation to inform the Respondent/Counter-Claimant about any transfer proposal or offer made by other clubs in relation to the acquisition of the services of the player. 36. In view of the above, the Single Judge decided that the request for EUR 1,000,000 in connection to the transfer of the player to Club B in July 2011 made by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant should also be rejected. 37. Finally, the Single Judge took note that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant requested a sell-on fee equivalent to 20% of the transfer amount paid by Club B to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in connection with the transfer of the player in July 2011 in accordance with clause 4 of the agreement. In this respect, and while reiterating the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge concluded that since the transfer of the player to Club B occurred after 31 January 2011 (deadline established in clause 4 of the agreement) the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was not entitled to receive any sell-on fee in connection with the aforementioned transfer. 38. On account of all of the above, the Single Judge stated that the counter-claim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to be rejected in its entirety. 39. 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 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. 40. In this regard, the Single Judge reiterated that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s request is partially accepted and that the counter-claim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 41. 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. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is over currency of country H 200,000. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 42. Considering that, in the case at hand, the responsibility of the failure to comply with the contractual obligations can entirely be attributed to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and taking into account the particular circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 25,000 and held that such costs have to be borne by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 43. In conclusion, the Single Judge decided that the amount of currency of country H 25,000 has to be paid by the Respondent/Counter-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 / Counter-Respondent, Club A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club M, has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Club M, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 2,530,000. 3. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, an interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiry of the fixed time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Club A, are rejected. 5. The counter-claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club M, is rejected. 6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 25,000 are to be paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club M, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 6.1. The amount of currency of country H 20,000 has to be paid to FIFA. Considering that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club M, already paid an amount of currency of country H 5,000 as advance of costs, the latter has to pay the amount of currency of country H 15,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 6.2. The amount of currency of country H 5,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Club A. 7. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Club A, is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club M, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under points 2 and 6.2 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 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