F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2012-2013) – controversie tra società – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2012-2013) – club vs. club disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 5 June 2013, by Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club F, from country R as “Claimant” against the club Club B, from country T as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties and relating to the player M.

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2012-2013) – controversie tra società – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2012-2013) – club vs. club disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 5 June 2013, by Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club F, from country R as “Claimant” against the club Club B, from country T as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties and relating to the player M. I. Facts of the case 1. On 22 March 2011, the Club F from country R (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the Club B from country T (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded a loan agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) concerning the loan of the player M (hereinafter: the player) from the Claimant to the Respondent for the period from 21 March 2011 until 30 November 2011 for the amount of EUR 150,000, payable “immediately” to the Claimant, “but not later than 01.04.2011”. 2. On 19 August 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent in relation to the agreement signed between the parties. In this respect, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent, after having paid the amount of USD 139,982 on 8 April 2011, had subsequently failed to pay the remaining amount agreed upon in the agreement. According to the Claimant, the amount of USD 139,982 represented EUR 95,911. The Claimant further explained that it had on several occasions tried to contact and ask the Respondent to pay the remaining amount but apparently to no avail. 3. Consequently, the Claimant claimed from the Respondent the amount of EUR 54,089 (i.e. EUR 150,000 less the EUR 95,911 already received), plus “interests on the name of delay of payment for the period from 01.04.2011 until the day of the final payment”. 4. In addition, the Claimant alleged that “the player has terminated by agreement his employment Contract with Club B [i.e. the Respondent] on the 06.07.2011 but Club B didn’t informed club F [i.e. the Claimant] about it and they also didn’t answer on written demand of club F with proposal of Termination of Loan Agreement for the player”. 5. In its response to the claim dated 22 November 2011, the Respondent accepted the allegations of the Claimant and alleged that the main reason for its failure to pay the entire amount was” currency rate”. In this respect, the Respondent alleged that it had negotiated with the Claimant and “both clubs get satisfied agreement” and that “this case will be closed completely”. 6. On 12 December 2011, in response to the comments submitted by the Respondent, the Claimant rejected its conclusions, reiterating its request of EUR 54,089 on the basis of the agreement signed by the parties. In particular, the Claimant emphasised that “until today anyone from the mentioned club [i.e. the Respondent] didn’t contact us [i.e. the Claimant] either written or by telephone with the proposal for the mutual agreement concerning the solve of this problem”. 7. On 6 January 2012 the Respondent reiterated its previous statement arguing that “our club [i.e. the Respondent] will negotiate to club F [i.e. the Claimant] friendly, both two clubs will get satisfied agreement. After here the club F will notice your FIFA to remove that appeal”. 8. Finally, on 7 March 2013, the Claimant informed FIFA that the amount was still outstanding and requested” the FIFA competent board to make the decision as soon as possible”. Consequently, on 13 March 2013, FIFA informed the parties that the matter would be submitted to the Players’ Status Committee for consideration and decision. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter also referred to as: the Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter in 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 2012). Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 19 August 2011, thus before the aforementioned rules entered into force (1 December 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) was applicable to the matter in hand. 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, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the 2012 and 2010 editions of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and, on the other hand, to the fact that the claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 19 August 2011. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2010 edition of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter as to the substance. 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments provided by the parties and the documentation contained in the file. 5. In this respect, and first of all, the Single Judge noted that the parties had signed a loan agreement on 22 March 2011, according to which the player would be transferred on a loan basis from the Claimant to the Respondent for the period from 21 March 2011 until 30 November 2011 (i.e. for 255 days) for the amount of EUR 150,000, to be paid “immediately” to the Claimant, “but not later than 01.04.2011”. 6. In continuation, the Single Judge noted that, based on the information received from the Claimant during the course of the present investigation, the Respondent had only paid the total amount of USD 139,982 and that such an allegation had never been questioned by the latter. 7. Furthermore, the Single Judge acknowledged that according to the information received from the Football Association of country R, it could be established that the player had terminated his contractual relationship with the Respondent on 5 July 2011 and had gone back to country R to be registered again with the Claimant on 30 August 2011, thus before the loan period had expired. 8. In continuation, the Single Judge deemed appropriate to underline that the Claimant had no obligation to accept the player back after the termination of the relevant employment contract concluded between the player and the Respondent and by accepting the return of the player on 30 August 2011, the Claimant had again been able to use the services of the player. 9. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the period during which the player was not registered with the Claimant had lasted from 21 March 2011 until 29 August 2011 (i.e. for 162 days). 10. In continuation, the Single Judge underlined that, on the one hand, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent had not fulfilled its obligations derived from the loan agreement and as a consequence claimed the amount of EUR 54,089 as outstanding loan fee, and, on the other hand, based on the information received from the Football Association of country R, it could be established that the player had been re-registered with the Claimant on 30 August 2011, thus before the loan period had expired. 11. In this context, the Single Judge was keen to emphasise that according to the long standing and well-established jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee in similar matters, in case a player is transferred from one club to another for a predetermined period, but returns to his previous club prior to the expiry of this period, it is fair and reasonable to reduce the relevant payment obligation to a pro rata proportion of the compensation which had initially been agreed upon. Consequently, the Single Judge held that the overall loan fee of EUR 150,000 should be reduced to an amount which is proportionate to the time the player had effectively spent with the Respondent. 12. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that the loan period which was originally supposed to last from 21 March 2011 until 30 November 2011 was effectively terminated on 30 August 2011 as the player had been registered again with the Claimant. In view of this, and taking into account that out of an original agreed loan period of 255 days the player had remained with the Respondent for a total of 162 days (i.e. from 21 March 2011 until 29 August 2011), the Single Judge concluded that the relevant pro rata proportion amounts to EUR 95,294.10 and that such an amount has to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant as compensation for the period the player had effectively not been registered with the Claimant. 13. Therefore and considering that the Claimant had acknowledged the receipt of a total amount of USD 139,982 from the Respondent, representing EUR 95,911 according to the Claimant’s calculation, the Single Judge held that therefore the pro rata loan fee as established above (i.e. EUR 95,294.10) was already covered. As a consequence, the Single Judge concluded that there was no remaining sum outstanding to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. 14. Furthermore and for the sake of good order, the Single Judge also remarked that, according to his own calculation, the amount of USD 139,982 corresponded in fact to EUR 97,887.50 on 8 April 2011 and not to EUR 95,911 as alleged by the Claimant. However, the Single Judge concluded that it was not necessary to establish which of the two converted amounts was the correct one, since the total amount already received from the Respondent exceeded the pro rata proportion of the compensation (i.e. EUR 95,294.10). 15. In view of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant should not be entitled to any further amount and consequently, decided to reject the claim of the Claimant in its entirety. 16. 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 CHF 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 and are normally to be paid by the unsuccessful party. 17. In respect of the above and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been rejected, the Single Judge concluded that the latter has to bear the entire costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. Furthermore and according to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. On that basis, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings was EUR 54,089. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000. 18. In conclusion, and in view of the circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 8,000. Consequently, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of CHF 8,000 has to be paid by the Claimant in order to cover the costs of the present procedure. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club F, is rejected. 2. The costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 8,000 are to be paid by the Claimant, Club F. Given that the latter has already paid the amount of CHF 2,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, Club F has to pay the amount of CHF 6,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision to the following bank account, with reference to case nr. xxxxxxxxxxx: ***** 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