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 the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 December 2013, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club X, from country F as Claimant against the club Club G, from country T as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player Y

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 the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 December 2013, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club X, from country F as Claimant against the club Club G, from country T as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player Y I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 July 2009, the country F club, club X (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the country T club, club G (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded a transfer agreement for the transfer of the player, Y (hereinafter: the player), from the Claimant to the Respondent. 2. The aforementioned transfer agreement, which is drafted in French, stipulated, inter alia, that: “3/ Indemnité complémentaire: A chaque qualification directe ou indirecte pour la phase de poules de l’UEFA Champions League disputée au cours des saisons 2010/2011, 2011/2012, 2012/2013 et 2013/2014, que le joueur figure ou non à l’effectif, le Club G versera à Club X dans les 15 jours de la date à laquelle la qualification sera acquise, une indemnité de 500 000 € HT(Cinq cent mille Euros). Au titre de cette indemnité complémentaire, club X ne pourra recevoir plus de 1 500 000 € HT (Un million cinq cent mille Euros) et moins de 1 000 000 € HT (Un million d’Euros), quelque soit le nombre de qualification acquise. Si club G se qualifie au plus une fois au cours des quatre saisons sportives sus visées, le solde de l’indemnité minimum revenant à club X sera versé dans les quinze jours suivants le jour du tirage au sort de la phase de poules de l’UEFA Champions League au titre de la saison sportive 2012/2013.” 3. In English: “3/ Additional compensation: For each qualification, direct or indirect, for the group stage of the UEFA Champions League played during the seasons 2010/2011, 2011/2012, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014, whether the player is part of the team roster or not [in French: “que le joueur figure ou non à l’effectif], club G shall pay to club X within 15 days as of the date of qualification, an indemnity of EUR 500,000 (five hundred thousand euros). In respect of this additional compensation, club X cannot receive more than EUR 1,500,000 (one million five hundred thousand euros) and less than EUR 1,000,000 (one million euros), regardless of the number of qualifications. If club G qualifies at most once during the four abovementioned sporting seasons, the remainder of the minimum compensation payable to club X will be paid within 15 days following the date of the draw for the group stage of the UEFA Champions League for the 2012/2013 sporting season.” 3. On 17 July 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract indicating that the Respondent had qualified directly for the 2012/2013 group stage of the UEFA Champions League. Consequently, the Claimant argued that the abovementioned condition had matured and, therefore, requested the amount of EUR 500,000 from the Respondent, as well as legal interest. 4. On 28 September 2012, the Respondent replied to the claim lodged against it and stated that the employment contract of the player was terminated with mutual consent on 6 July 2010 and that the player joined the country Q club, club L, immediately after said termination. Therefore, the Respondent argued that the player was not only “out of the squad” but also no longer registered with the Respondent when it qualified for the UEFA Champions League, i.e. during the 2011/2012 season. Since the player did not contribute to the qualification for the UEFA Champions League, the Respondent concludes that the abovementioned clause cannot apply to the present case. 5. On 28 November 2012, the Claimant amended its claim and requested the amount of EUR 1,000,000 from the Respondent based on the second and the third paragraph of the abovementioned clause, stating that it is entitled to a minimum additional compensation of EUR 1,000,000. 6. On 15 January 2013, the Claimant submitted its response to the Respondent’s reply and reiterated its statements as outlined in its original claim and its amended claim. 7. On 5 February 2013, the Respondent submitted its response to the latest position of the Claimant as well as to the amended claim, and stated that, in order for the abovementioned clause to be applicable, the player should have a valid employment contract with the Respondent during the season of the national league in which the qualification for the UEFA Champions League is achieved; “what is clarified by Article 3 of the transfer agreement is irrelevant if the Player is not in the squad during the Champions League games”. The Respondent argued that the player did not have an employment contract with it for the seasons 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 and, therefore, the abovementioned clause is not applicable. Finally, the Respondent pointed out that the transfer agreement was drafted by the Claimant in the French language. 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 were 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 (editions 2008 and 2012; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) as well as to the fact that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 17 July 2012, thus after 1 July 2008 but before 1 December 2012. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the 2008 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 2010 and 2012 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 17 July 2012. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2010 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 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and par. 3 as well as art. 22 lit. f) of the Regulations, he was competent to deal with the present matter since it concerned a dispute between two clubs affiliated to two different associations. 4. The competence of the Single Judge 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 acknowledged that it was undisputed between the parties that, on 1 July 2009, a transfer agreement was concluded relating to the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent and that said agreement contained a bonus clause as set out above. 6. Equally, the Single Judge observed that it was undisputed between the parties that the Respondent had qualified, during the season 2011/2012, for the group stage of the 2012/2013 edition of the UEFA Champions League. 7. Likewise, the Single Judge acknowledged that it was undisputed between the parties that the player had left the Respondent on 6 July 2010 to join another club. 8. Having established the above, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent stating that the condition for the payment of the bonus fee had been fulfilled since the Respondent had qualified directly for the 2012/2013 group stage of the UEFA Champions League. 9. Furthermore, the Single Judge took note that, in its reply, the Respondent stated that the player had left the club on 6 July 2010 and, therefore, he was not only “out of the squad” but also no longer registered with the Respondent when, during the 2011/2012 season, it qualified for the UEFA Champions League. The Single Judge noted that, according to the Respondent, the bonus clause cannot be applied since the player did not contribute to the Respondent’s qualification for the UEFA Champions League. 10. In continuation, the Single Judge observed that the Claimant amended its claim and requested the amount of EUR 1,000,000 from the Respondent based on the second and the third paragraph of clause 3, stating that it is entitled to a minimum additional compensation of EUR 1,000,000. 11. Likewise, the Single Judge took note of the Respondent’s argument that in order for clause 3 to be applicable, the player should have a valid employment contract with the Respondent during the season of the national league in which the qualification for the UEFA Champions League is achieved; “what is clarified by Article 3 of the transfer agreement is irrelevant if the Player is not in the squad during the Champions League games”. The Respondent argued that the player did not have an employment contract with it for the seasons 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 and, therefore, clause 3 is not applicable. 12. Finally, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent pointed out that the transfer agreement was drafted by the Claimant in the French language. 13. After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, taking into consideration all the aforementioned arguments, the Single Judge observed that the parties, in particular, disputed whether the bonus clause was applicable to the qualification for the indicated seasons of the UEFA Champions League in case the player was no longer registered with the Respondent. 14. In this regard, and after having analyzed the wording of the bonus clause, the Single Judge held that the bonus clause refers to “que le joueur figure ou non à l’effectif”. Therefore, the Single Judge, considering that the relevant clause was clear and unambiguous, concluded that the wording “que le joueur figure ou non à l’effectif” covered both the scenario in which the player was indeed registered with the Respondent when it qualified for the group stage of the UEFA Champions League but did not play, as well as the scenario in which the player was no longer registered with the Respondent when it qualified for the UEFA Champions League. 15. Consequently, and taking into consideration that it was undisputed between the parties that the Respondent had qualified for the group stage of the 2012/2013 edition of the UEFA Champions League, the Single Judge decided that the condition of the bonus clause had been fulfilled, despite the fact that the player left the Respondent on 6 July 2010. 16. Having established the aforementioned, the Single Judge turned his attention to the amount that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant in light of the bonus clause in the transfer agreement. 17. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that the Claimant initially claimed the amount of EUR 500,000, based on the first paragraph of the bonus clause, but that it had later amended its claim to EUR 1,000,000, based on the second and the third paragraph of the bonus clause, arguing that it is entitled to a minimum additional compensation of EUR 1,000,000. 18. Equally, the Single Judge recalled that said paragraphs stipulate that “[the Claimant] ne pourra recevoir plus de 1 500 000 € (…) et moins de 1 000 000 € (…) quelque soit le nombre de qualification acquise”, or in English “[the Claimant] cannot receive more than EUR 1,500,000 (…) or less than EUR 1,000,000 (…) regardless of the number of qualifications” as well as “le solde de l’indemnité minimum revenant à [the Claimant]”, or in English “the remainder of the minimum compensation payable to [the Claimant]”. 19. In this regard, and after having analyzed the wording of the second and third paragraph of the bonus clause, the Single Judge held that the bonus clause refers to a minimum additional compensation of EUR 1,000,000, regardless of the number of qualifications. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to pay the amount of EUR 1,000,000 to the Claimant. Equally, the Respondent has to pay default interest of 5% on the amount of EUR 1,000,000 as of 28 November 2012, i.e. the date on which the Claimant amended its claim to EUR 1,000,000. 20. For the sake of completeness and in relation to the Respondent’s statement that the transfer agreement was drafted by the Claimant in the French language, the Single Judge firstly noted that the Respondent did not further explain why this fact was relevant for the outcome of the present matter. However, should the Respondent imply that it was therefore not able to accurately understand the content of the transfer agreement, the Single Judge emphasised that a party signing a document of legal importance without knowledge of its precise contents does so on its own responsibility. 21. 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). 22. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the Claimant is the successful party in the present proceedings, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the full costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 23. 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 1,000,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 24. In conclusion, taking into account the particularities of the present matter and considering it 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. Furthermore, and in line with his aforementioned considerations and taking into account the degree of success, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of CHF 12,000 has to be paid by the Respondent. ***** III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club X, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club G, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 1,000,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 28 November 2012 until the date of effective payment. 3. If the aforementioned sum plus interest is 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. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 12,000 are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1. The amount of CHF 7,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 5.2. The amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under point 2. and 5.2. above are to be made and to notify the Single Judge of 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