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 19 September 2012 by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club E, from country G as “Claimant” against the club Club G, from country B as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties concerning the player C.

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2012-2013) – controversie tra società – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2012-2013) – club vs. club disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 19 September 2012 by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club E, from country G as “Claimant” against the club Club G, from country B as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties concerning the player C. I. Facts of the case 1. In January 2008, Club E, from country G (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the Club S, from country B concluded an agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) concerning the transfer of the player C (hereinafter: the player) from Club S to the Claimant, by means of which Club S was entitled to receive from the Claimant EUR 3,500,000 as transfer compensation. 2. Art. 3 of the agreement specified that Club S was “not able to dispose of the proceeds [of the player] without restrictions and has assigned a part of the proceeds to third parties and is entitled to encashment on behalf of said third parties. Hence Club S agrees to satisfy all third parties with the payment done by Club E and to hold Club E harmless from any claims of any third party with regard to the player C. The payment of the transfer remuneration (..) has the effect that Club E is released from any liabilities and obligations vis a vis such third parties”. 3. In continuation, art 7. of the agreement provided for the Claimant to pay the solidarity contribution and distribute it “ to the clubs that have contributed to the training and education of the player (..)”. Furthermore, art. 9 of the agreement stipulated that Club S assigned “all federative and commercial transfer rights for the player (..) to Club E and declares that there are no further claims vis a vis Club E, especially not for training compensation and solidarity contribution for training period of “Player C” [i.e. the player] with Club S. Furthermore Club S declares to be entitled comprehensively by the third parties to assign the rights in the player to Club E as far as they are held by the third parties.” 4. Finally, it was stated in the agreement that, with its conclusion, “any conceivable claims of Club S with regard to the transfer of the player C, known or unknown in any amount and for what ground whatsoever are settled.” 5. On 11 December 2009, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Club G, from country B (hereinafter: the Respondent) as well as, in the alternative, against Club S, requesting the payment of EUR 34,856.15, plus 5% interests as from the date on which the claim was lodged. 6. In this respect and first of all, Club E stated that the amount in question corresponded to the solidarity contribution for the player that it had paid to the Respondent on 29 August 2008. As evidence, the Claimant provided FIFA with a copy of a bank receipt dated 29 August 2008 for the amount of EUR 34,910.44, i.e. EUR 34,856.15 plus expenses in the amount of EUR 54,28. 7. In continuation, the Claimant explained that, after having made the above- mentioned payment, it had discovered that the Respondent, as alleged co-owner of the economic rights of the player, had received from Club S a part of the transfer compensation paid in accordance with the agreement. As to that, the Claimant referred to art. 3 of the agreement and stressed that Club S had undertaken to take over any possible payment request from other co-owners of the player’s economic rights. Besides, the Claimant recalled that in accordance with art. 9 of the agreement, no solidarity contribution or training compensation was supposed to be paid for the period during which the player was registered with Club S. 8. Considering the aforementioned and taking into account that the Respondent had already received from Club S part of the transfer compensation for the player as co-owner of his economic rights, the Claimant pointed out that the latter had not been entitled to receive the amount of EUR 34,856.15 as solidarity contribution. In this context, the Claimant also added that, also in accordance with the jurisprudence of the DRC, a club that has already been paid transfer compensation for the transfer of a player, is not entitled to additionally request the payment of solidarity contribution or training compensation for the same player. 9. On account of all the above, the Claimant was of the opinion that the Respondent should reimburse the amount of EUR 34,856.15. 10. In the alternative, and in case FIFA would reject its claim against the Respondent, Club E reasoned that the amount in question had to be reimbursed by Club S on the basis of art. 3 and 9 of the agreement. 11. In spite of having been asked to do so, both the Respondent and Club S never responded to the claim lodged against them, although they were informed that, in absence of a reply, a decision would be taken on the basis of the information and evidence at disposal. 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 which Procedural Rules are applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the 2008 edition of the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 11 December 2009, thus after 1 July 2008. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the current edition of the Procedural Rules (edition 2008) is applicable to the matter at hand. 2. Subsequently, with regard to his competence, 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 lit. f) of the 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns a dispute between two football clubs affiliated to two different associations. 3. Furthermore, 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 2009 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 with FIFA on 11 December 2009. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2009 edition of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance. 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, 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. Hence and 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, the Single Judge acknowledged that, in January 2008, the Claimant had concluded an agreement with Club S in connection with the transfer of the player from Club S to the Claimant in accordance with which the Claimant had to pay to Club S a transfer compensation in the amount of EUR 3,500,000 (hereinafter: the transfer compensation). Furthermore, the Single Judge remarked that, on 29 August 2008, the Claimant had paid EUR 34,856.16 as solidarity contribution to the Respondent. 7. In continuation, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant had requested from the Respondent the reimbursement of the aforementioned amount of EUR 34,856.16 alleging that the latter, without its knowledge and as co-owner of the “economic rights” of the player, had received from Club S a part of the transfer compensation. Besides, the Single observed that, in the Claimant’s opinion, as a result of the above, the Respondent should have not received any further payment in connection with the transfer of the player from Club S and, in particular, should have not received any payment as solidarity contribution. Likewise, the Single Judge noticed that no evidence had been submitted by the Claimant in support of the alleged co-ownership of the “economic rights” of the player by the Respondent, nor in support of the assertion that the latter would have received a part of the transfer compensation paid to Club S. On top of that, the Single Judge remarked that the Claimant had never contested the Respondent’s entitlement to receive EUR 34,856.16 as solidarity contribution in accordance with Annex 5 of the Regulations and had merely based its request on the allegation that the latter had already received part of the relevant transfer compensation. Finally, the Single Judge recalled that all allegations of the Claimant had not been contested by the Respondent. 8. Bearing in mind all the above, the Single Judge first of all recalled that, in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the burden of proof has to be carried out by the party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact. Furthermore, the Single Judge stressed that, as a general rule and in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, a club that fulfils the requirements of Annex 5 of the Regulations, is entitled to receive its portion of the solidarity contribution due in connection with the transfer of a particular player. Likewise, the Single Judge was eager to emphasize that the aforementioned entitlement of a club to receive such a payment as solidarity contribution also persist in case the club in question, for whatever reason, has already received a part of the transfer compensation concerned. 9. Moreover, the Single Judge considered that the Claimant had failed to provide any evidence in support of the alleged co-ownership of the “economic rights” of the player by the Respondent nor in support of the fact that the latter would have received from Club S part of the transfer compensation that the Claimant had paid to the latter. Equally, the deciding body took into account that it is not disputed that the Respondent was entitled to receive its portion of the solidarity contribution in connection to the transfer of the player from Club S to the Claimant in accordance with Annex 5 of the Regulations. 10. In continuation, the Single Judge underlined that art. 3 and art. 9 of the agreement refer to the relation between Club S and the Claimant. Whereas, art. 7 of the agreement clearly stipulates that the Claimant is responsible for the payment of the solidarity contribution to the clubs that have contributed to the player’s training and education. 11. In view of all the above, the Single Judge concluded that the claim of the Claimant has to be rejected. Hence, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant’s claim against the Respondent is rejected. 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 the proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee and the 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. 13. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is rejected. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant has to bear the entire costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 14. 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. Consequently and taking into account that the total amount at dispute in the present matter is EUR 34,856.15, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 5,000. 15. In conclusion, and considering that the case at hand was adjudicated by the Single Judge and not by the Players’ Status Committee in corpore and that the present case did not show particular factual difficulties or specific legal complexities, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 2,000. 16. Consequently, the amount of currency of country H 2,000 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 E, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 2,000 are to be paid by the Claimant, Club E. Considering that the Claimant, Club E, already paid the amount of currency of country H 1,000 as advance of costs, the latter has to pay the remaining amount of currency of country H 1,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XX-XXXXX 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