F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2013-2014) – controversie tra società – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2013-2014) – club vs. club disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of theSingle Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 October 2013, by Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club M, from country S, as Claimant against the club, Club D, from country X, as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player U

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2013-2014) – controversie tra società – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2013-2014) – club vs. club disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of theSingle Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 October 2013, by Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club M, from country S, as Claimant against the club, Club D, from country X, as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player U I. Facts of the case 1. On 20 June 2011, the Club M from country S (hereinafter: “Claimant”) and the Club D from country X (hereinafter: “Respondent”) signed a transfer agreement (hereinafter: “Transfer Agreement”) for the transfer of the player U (hereinafter: “the player”), from the Claimant to the Respondent, for a transfer compensation of EUR 1,500,000. 2. Article 1.3 of the Transfer Agreement reads as follows: “The Parties have also agreed that in case of the qualification of [the Respondent] to the group stage of the UEFA Champions League in the seasons of 2012/13, 2013/14, 2014/15, 2015/16, [the Respondent] shall be obliged to pay to the [Claimant] an additional conditional transfer compensation in the amount and subject to the conditions stipulated in the art. 3 of the present Contract”. 3. Article 3 of the Transfer Agreement reads as follows: “In addition to the above mentioned fixed transfer compensation, the Parties have agreed that [the Respondent] shall pay an additional conditional transfer compensation in amount of 500,000 (five hundred thousand) Euros, subject to the conditions that due to the results of performance in the Football Championship of country X [the Respondent] qualifies to the group stage of the UEFA Champions League in the seasons of 2012/13, 2013/14, 2014/15, 2015/16 (per each such qualification), and the Player still has valid employment contract with [the Respondent] on the end of the season in which [the Respondent] obtains the qualification to participate in the UEFA Champions League for the next season”. 4. On 6 June 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent requesting the payment of the conditional transfer compensation in the amount of EUR 500,000 as well as the payment of EUR 10,000 as compensation for “abusive resistance” to the payment of the aforementioned conditional transfer compensation, plus an interest of 5% p.a.. 5. In this regard, the Claimant stated that, pursuant to art. 1.3 and art. 3 of the Transfer Agreement, the Respondent is obliged to pay a conditional transfer compensation amounting to EUR 500,000 to the Claimant every time the Respondent qualifies for the UEFA Champions League (hereinafter: “UCL”) during the 2012/2013, 2013/2014, 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 season, if the player still has a valid employment contract with said club. 6. In addition, the Claimant assessed that, according to the Respondent’s correspondence dated 18 October 2012, said club is of the opinion that the conditional transfer compensation is not due since the qualification for the UCL was not due to the performance in the Football Championship of country X but that, on the contrary, they were the runner-up and, therefore, they had to play four additional qualifying matches. 7. In this respect, the Claimant underlined that the parties agreed upon the qualification for the group stage of the UCL, regardless of the way this happened, since the intention of the parties was to reward the former club of the player who helped to reach the group stage of the UCL. 8. In addition, the Claimant also pointed that any other interpretation would go against the real will of the parties and would be random since the direct qualification for the UCL does not only depend on the performance of the Respondent but also on the categorization of country X for UEFA. 9. Furthermore, it is uncontested that the player, during the 2012/2013 season, had a valid employment contract with the Respondent. 10. On 29 July 2013, the Respondent confirmed that it indeed qualified for the group stage of the UCL, but that it had to play additional qualifying matches. As a result, it contested the Claimant’s allegations and insisted on the fact that the triggering element (i.e. qualifying for the group stage of the UCL due to the results of performance of the Respondent in the Football Championship of country X) had not happened. 11. The Respondent ended its reply by assuring that “in case of fulfilment of the agreed contractual condition in the next seasons, such payment will be executed in due course”. ***** 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 are 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 2012, hereinafter: the Procedural Rules). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 6 June 2013, thus after 1 December 2012. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 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 is 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 Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the claim was lodged before FIFA on 6 June 2013. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 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 2 of the Procedural Rules in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 as well as art. 22 lit. f) of the Regulations, he was competent to deal with the present claim since it concerned a dispute between two clubs affiliated to two different associations. 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 and the documentation submitted by the parties. 5. First of all, the Single Judge observed that the Claimant indicated that the Respondent had only paid the transfer fee and that, consequently, the Respondent still owed the conditional transfer compensation in the amount of EUR 500,000, plus 5% interest. In addition, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant also requested EUR 10,000 as compensation for “abusive resistance”. 6. Furthermore, the Single Judge underscored that the Claimant is of the opinion that the intention of the parties was to reward the former club of the player who helped to reach the group stage of the UCL. 7. In continuation, the Single Judge underscored that the Respondent, in its reply, was of the opinion that the conditional transfer compensation was not due since the triggering elements were not met, this is, the Respondent did not directly qualify for the UCL. The Respondent stated that it had not qualified for the group phase of the UCL due to its performance in the Football Championship of country X and that, therefore, it deemed that this condition had not been met. 8. In this respect, the Single Judge referred to the wording of the contract and highlighted that, indeed, two conditions needed to be met in order to trigger the payment of the conditional transfer compensation: firstly, that the player had a valid employment contract with the Respondent at the moment of the qualification and, secondly, that the Respondent qualified due to its performance in the Football Championship of country X. 9. In continuation, the Single Judge stressed that it was undisputed that the player had a valid employment contract with the Respondent during the 2012/2013 season. 10. Equally, the Single Judge noted that it was not contested that the Respondent was the runner-up in the Football Championship of country X and that, therefore, it only qualified for the group stage of the UCL 2012/2013 after playing additional qualifying matches. 11. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that the centre of the present dispute is the question whether or not the additional compensation of EUR 500,000 is due to the Claimant in view of the fact that the Respondent qualified to the group phase of the UCL 2012/2013 via the play-offs and thus not directly. 12. Subsequently, and in relation to the argument of the Claimant that one had to look at the intention of the parties when drafting the agreement, the Single Judge underscored that the wording of the relevant clause was, in itself, clear; one of the conditions for the EUR 500,000 to fall due is that, due to performances of the Respondent in the Football Championship of country X, it would qualify to the group stage of the UCL. 13. In this context, the Single Judge wished to emphasise that it seems that the parties wanted to link the participation of the player in the results of the Respondent in the Football Championship in country X to the direct qualification for the UCL group phase, i.e. in the 2011/2012 season the player should have contributed to the direct qualification to the UCL for the 2012/2013 season, and not to the qualification for the play-offs. 14. As a result, the Single Judge noted that, from the wording of the contract and, in particular, from the link between the performance of the Respondent at a national level and the payment of the conditional transfer compensation, it appears that the parties’ will was to restrict the circumstances in which the conditional transfer compensation would fell due. 15. The Single Judge is comforted in his decision by the wording of art. 1.3 of the transfer agreement. Said article stipulates that an additional amount is due if the Respondent qualifies for the group stage of the UCL, provided that the conditions in art. 3 are met. Thus, art. 1.3. specifies “conditions” which would lead to conclude that there is more than one condition to fulfil in order for the additional compensation to fall due. 16. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the parties agreed to set the direct qualification for the group stage of the UCL as one of the two triggering elements for the payment of the additional amount of compensation. 17. In light of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that not all the conditions stipulated in articles 1.3 and 3 of the Transfer Agreement had been met. 18. On account of the above, the Single Judge decided to reject the Claimant’s claim pertaining to the payment of EUR 500,000 plus 5% interest p.a. for qualifying for the group stage of the UCL 2012/2013. 19. Consequently, the Single Judge did not find it necessary to decide on the Claimant’s request of EUR 10,000 as compensation for “abusive resistance”. 20. 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 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 (cf. art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules). 21. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant had been rejected, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant has to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 22. 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 510,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 23. In conclusion, and considering that the case at hand did not pose any particular factual difficulties and was adjudicated by the Single Judge and not by the Players’ Status Committee in corpore, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 12,000, which shall be borne by the Claimant. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, club M, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 12,000 are to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA, of which CHF 5,000 have already been paid by the Claimant as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings. Consequently, the amount of CHF 7,000 is to be paid by the Claimant, within 30 days of notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. xxxxxxxxx: 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: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives