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 15 January 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club B, from country G as Claimant against the club Club A, from country T as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player S

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 15 January 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club B, from country G as Claimant against the club Club A, from country T as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player S I. Facts of the case 1. On 6 August 2010, Club G, from country G (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club A, from country T (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded a loan agreement for the temporary transfer of the player, Player S (hereinafter: the player), from the Claimant to the Respondent for a loan fee of EUR 600,000. 2. On 5 September 2011, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the Respondent had to pay to the Claimant the outstanding loan fee in the amount of EUR 600,000, as well as interest. 3. On 24 May 2011, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded a transfer agreement for the permanent transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent. The aforesaid transfer agreement, which had not been made available to the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee prior to passing his decision on 5 September 2011, stipulated, inter alia, that: “2. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE REGARDING LOAN AGREEMENT 2.1 In order to fulfil its obligation under the Loan Agreement and to settle the Parties’ dispute in relation to the FIFA proceeding, [the Respondent] will pay a lump sum of net EUR 750,000 to [the Claimant] (“Settlement Fee”). The Settlement Fee shall cover the loan compensation under the Loan Agreement, the respective interest rates due to non-payment of each instalment as well as any further costs of [the Claimant] in connection with the Loan Agreement and the FIFA Proceeding, including, but without limitation, any procedural costs and costs for legal advice. [the Respondent] will bear all its own costs in any connection with the Loan Agreement and the FIFA Proceeding. 2.2 The Settlement Fee is payable as follows: (a) EUR 525,000 on 15 June 2011 at the latest, (b) EUR 225,000 on 30 September 2011 at the latest. (…) 3.2 [the Respondent] shall pay [the Claimant] a compensation for the definite transfer of the Player in the amount of net EUR 2,150,000 (“Transfer Compensation”). The Transfer Compensation is payable as follows: (a) EUR 250,000 on 30 September 2011 at the latest; (b) EUR 475,000 on 30 December 2011 at the latest; (c) EUR 475,000 on 30 March 2012 at the latest; (d) EUR 475,000 on 30 June 2012 at the latest; (e) EUR 475,000 on 30 September 2012 at the latest.” 4. On 24 January 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract indicating that the Respondent had failed to pay part of the settlement fee as well as the first two instalments of the transfer compensation. The Claimant explained that the Respondent had only paid the first instalment of the settlement fee in the amount of EUR 525,000. Therefore, the Claimant requested the amount of “EUR 2,375,000” plus 5% interest, as well as currency of country H 5,000 for procedural costs in connection with the previous dispute in front of FIFA plus 5% interest as of 6 October 2011, from the Respondent. 5. On 23 July 2013, the Respondent replied to the claim lodged against it and stated that it had paid an amount of EUR 10,000 to the Claimant on 15 July 2013. 6. On 7 August 2013, the Claimant explained in its replica that negotiations had taken in place in order to find an amicable settlement for the matter at hand. According to the Claimant, the parties signed a “Protocol” on 27 March 2013, containing some non-exhaustive aspects, which was non-binding and only served as a basis for a settlement agreement. However, the settlement agreement was drafted but never signed. The protocol stipulated the following: 1. Gesamtanspruch des [Claimant] gegenüber [the Respondent] Euro 2.375.000,- 2. Zahlung von Euro 50.000,- am 03. April 2013 3. Ab Mai 2013 zu jedem ersten Werktag eines Monats Zahlung von Euro 20.000,- 4. Bei Aufstieg von [the Respondent] in die Süper Lig ist innerhalb von 3 Monaten der vollständige Restbetrag zur Zahlung fällig. 5. Reduktion des Gesamtanspruches auf Euro 2.000.000,-, sofern dieser Betrag bis zum 30. Juni 2018 gezahlt wird. 7. In English: 1. The total claim of [the Claimant] against [the Respondent] amounts to Euro 2.375.000,- 2. The amount of Euro 50.000,- has to be paid on 3 April 2013 3. As of May 2013, the amount of Euro 20.000,- has to be paid on every first working day of the month 4. Upon promotion of [the Respondent] to the Süper Lig, the full remaining amount becomes payable within 3 months 5. The outstanding amount will be reduced to Euro 2.000.000,-, in the event said amount is paid before 30 June 2018. 8. The Claimant explained that the Respondent had, until 7 August 2013, only made the following payments: EUR 50,000 on 5 April 2013, EUR 5,000 on 17 May 2013, EUR 10,000 on 18 June 2013 and EUR 10,000 on 18 July 2013, therewith repeatedly breaching clause 3 of the protocol. Consequently, the Claimant upheld its initial claim for the (amended) outstanding amount of EUR 2,300,000. 9. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to provide its final position regarding the matter at hand, the Respondent did not make any further statements during the course of the investigation. 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 24 January 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 24 January 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. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. First of all, the Single Judge acknowledged that it was undisputed between the parties that, on 24 May 2011, a transfer agreement was concluded relating to the permanent transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent and that, according to said agreement which also included the settlement fee for the loan, the Respondent had to pay to the Claimant the total amount of EUR 2,900,000. 6. Furthermore, the Single Judge observed that the Claimant indicated that, after having paid a total amount of EUR 600,000, the Respondent still owed the Claimant the amount of EUR 2,300,000. 7. Equally, the Single Judge noted that the parties had signed a “Protocol”, which, according to the Claimant, was merely a draft for a settlement agreement, the latter agreement however never having been signed by the parties. 8. Moreover, the Single Judge took note that, in its reply, the Respondent did not dispute that the aforementioned debt existed towards the Claimant. What is more, and although having been asked to do so, the Respondent did not provide its final position and thus did not contest the allegations of the Claimant in relation to the “Protocol”. As a consequence, the Single Judge decided to accept the Claimant’s statements in this respect. 9. As a result, the Single Judge ruled that the Respondent did not provide any valid argument which would justify the non-payment of the agreed transfer compensation and that, thus, the Respondent had failed to respect the terms of the transfer agreement it had entered into with the Claimant on 24 May 2011. 10. Consequently, the Single Judge held that, in accordance with the basic legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Respondent has to fulfill its contractual obligations towards the Claimant. Therefore, the Single Judge held that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 2,300,000 plus default interest of 5% p.a. on said amount as of 7 August 2013 until the date of effective payment. 11. Furthermore, the Single Judge decided to reject the Claimant’s claim for “costs of the proceedings” in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, which stipulates that in proceedings of the Players’ Status Committee no procedural compensation shall be awarded. 12. 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 currency of country H 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). 13. 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. 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. On that basis, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 2,300,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 15. In conclusion, taking into account the particularities of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 20,000. 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 currency of country H 20,000 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 B, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club A, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 2,300,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 7 August 2013 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 currency of country H 20,000 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 currency of country H 15,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 5.2. The amount of currency of country H 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 points 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