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 Bureau of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 19 March 2014, in the following composition: Sunil Gulati (USA), Deputy Chairman Geoff Thompson (England), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Luis Bedoya (Colombia), member Pare Salmon (Tahiti), member on the claim presented by the club Club S, from country J as “Claimant” against the club Club M, from country B as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player D

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 Bureau of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 19 March 2014, in the following composition: Sunil Gulati (USA), Deputy Chairman Geoff Thompson (England), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Luis Bedoya (Colombia), member Pare Salmon (Tahiti), member on the claim presented by the club Club S, from country J as “Claimant” against the club Club M, from country B as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player D I. Facts of the case 1. On 30 August 2012, Club S, from country J (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the Club M, from country B (hereinafter: Respondent) concluded a loan agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) concerning the loan of the player D (hereinafter: the player) from the Claimant to the Respondent for the period from 1 September 2012 until 30 July 2013. The original agreement was drafted in Arabic and signed by both parties and the player. Two slightly different translations into English were also provided by the parties: in the Claimant’s translation, the agreement was entitled ”Professional Player Agreement” while the translation provided by the Respondent was simply entitled “Club M”. 2. Article 3.1 of the translation provided by the Claimant stipulated the following: “The first party [i.e. the Respondent] pays the second party [i.e. the Claimant] a contract advancement of a total of thirty thousand American dollars (USD 30,000), to be transferred to the club’s account following the arrival of the latter to the kingdom of country B and as soon as the player receives his international transfer certificate ITC” while the translation of the Respondent stated as follows: “The First Party [i.e. the Respondent] shall pay an amount of thirty five thousand United States Dollar as an advance to the Second Party [i.e. the Claimant]. Such amount will be transferred to its account upon the arrival of the football player in the Kingdom of country B and receiving his international Card [i.e. ITC]”. 3. Furthermore, article 16 of the contract’s translation provided by the Claimant stipulated as follows: “If the player doesn’t successfully pass the medical test at the Sport Medical Center in the Kingdom of country B, the agreement is considered void”. The Respondent provided its own translation of said article as follows: “If the player does not pass the medical examination by the Sports Medical Center in the Kingdom of country B, the contract shall become null and void”. 4. On 30 October 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent for an alleged breach of contract in relation to the agreement signed between the parties. In this respect, the Claimant alleged that on 8 September 2012 the player had joined the Respondent but that the later had subsequently failed to fulfil its obligation as per the agreement. In this context, the Claimant explained that the Respondent “did not follow up TMS data entry upon FIFA regulations to conclude the loan procedures, therefore it proves that they are breach the obligations of the contract [i.e. the agreement] and FIFA regulations”. 5. Consequently, the Claimant claimed from the Respondent the amount of USD 30,000 according to article 3.1. of the agreement. 6. In its response to the claim dated 8 April 2013, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim. In this respect, the Respondent on the one hand confirmed that the player had arrived in country B on 8 September 2012 but on the other hand stated that on the same day the player had not passed the medical examinations since the player “was already injured when he arrived in country B”. In support of its allegations, the Respondent provided a copy of a medical report which stipulated as follows: “This patient [i.e. the player] presented first to me on 08. 09. 2012 for assessing his right knee. He had pain, swelling and severe tenderness over the medial joint line with positive Mc-Murray’s test. His Lachman’s test, anterior drawer test and pivot shift were all negative. (…) He was diagnosed as a posterior horn tear of the right medial meniscus and arthroscopic surgery was recommended”. 7. Consequently, and in view of article 16 of the agreement, the Respondent deemed that the agreement was thus “null and void”. In this respect, the Respondent explained that the player “after failing the medical examination and noticing that his medical condition did not allow him to train or play, the Player agreed to renounce to play for Club M and returned to country J” and that therefore “the player was never registered with the country B Football Association and went back to Club S [i.e. the Claimant] where he is still currently playing”. In support of its allegations, the Respondent provided a letter from the country B Football Association dated 11 March 2013 confirming the aforementioned allegations. 8. Notwithstanding the above, the Respondent added that it was aware of the content of art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the regulations), in accordance with which a “contract between a professional player and a club may not be made subject to a successful medical examination”, but also stated that said provision “only applies to the employment relationship between players and their football clubs” and that therefore clubs may not rely on it. 9. In view of all of the above, the Respondent was of the opinion that “Club S [i.e. the Claimant] did not transfer the Player and can therefore not claim for a transfer fee when the Player continued to provide his professional services to Club S”. 10. On 20 June 2013, in response to the comments submitted by the Respondent, the Claimant rejected the Respondent’s conclusion, reiterating its request of USD 30,000 on the basis of the agreement signed by the parties. In particular, the Claimant emphasised that “obviously Club M club agreed that this contract is an employment contract, other reason Art. “Sixteen” of the contract is null and void“. 11. The Claimant further alleged that the Respondent had not provided any evidence regarding its allegation that “the player renounce to play”. 12. On 23 July 2013, the Respondent reiterated its previous statement arguing that art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations “only relates to the employment contract between a club and a player” and that therefore article 16 of the agreement is “a fully binding and enforceable condition of the contract [i.e. the agreement]”. 13. On account of the above, the Respondent alleged once again that a transfer “never took place” and that the player had “returned to country J and renounced to play in country B when it appeared that he was unable to play for the Respondent due to his medical condition”. 14. In addition, the Respondent emphasised that since “the player is currently playing for the Claimant, so there has been no loss suffered by the club [i.e. the Claimant]”. 15. According to the player passport provided by the country J Football Association, the player was registered with the Claimant for the 2012/2013 season and does not appear to have ever been registered with the Respondent. II. Considerations of the Bureau of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Bureau of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter also referred to as: the Bureau) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter in hand. In this respect, it 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 30 October 2012, thus before the aforementioned rules entered into force (1 December 2012), the Bureau 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 Bureau confirmed that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 and art. 22 f) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, as well as art. 34 par. 6 of the FIFA Statutes, it was competent to deal with the present matter since it concerned a dispute between two clubs affiliated to different associations. 3. Subsequently, the Bureau 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, it 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 30 October 2012. In view of the foregoing, the Bureau 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. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Bureau 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 Bureau noted that the parties had signed a loan agreement on 30 August 2012, according to which the player would be transferred on a loan basis from the Claimant to the Respondent for the period from 1 September 2012 until 30 July 2013. 6. Furthermore and for the sake of good order, the Bureau also remarked that, concerning the amount of the agreed loan fee, the parties in their respective translations had provided two different amounts. However, the Bureau concluded that it was not necessary to establish which of the two amounts mentioned was the correct one since the claimed amount corresponded to the lower one (i.e. USD 30,000). 7. In continuation, the Bureau noted that, based on the information received from the Claimant during the course of the present investigation, the Respondent had not registered the player and that such an allegation had never been questioned by any of the parties. 8. Furthermore, the Bureau acknowledged that according to the information received from the country J Football Association, it could be established that the player had continuously been registered with the Claimant during the 2012/2013 season. 9. In continuation, the Bureau deemed appropriate to underline that since the player had always been registered with the Claimant during the period in question, the latter had always been able to use the services of the player. In view of the foregoing, the Bureau concluded that during the originally agreed and predetermined loan period, which was supposed to last from 1 September 2012 until 30 July 2013, the player had continuously been registered with the Claimant. 10. In continuation, the Bureau took note 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 USD 30,000 as outstanding loan fee, and, on the other hand, based on the information received from the country J Football Association as well as the documents provided by the Respondent, it could be established that the player had never been registered with the Respondent, but always with the Claimant. 11. Based on the above-mentioned considerations and taking into account the documentation available on file, the Bureau held that the main question to be addressed in relation to the aforementioned claimed amount of USD 30,000 was whether the player had been transferred to the Respondent and, in particular, whether the Claimant should be entitled to receive any compensation for the loan of the player to the Respondent. 12. In this context, the Bureau 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 club 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. Furthermore, the Bureau held that such an amount has always to be proportionate to the time the player had effectively spent with another club and that it has to be paid to the previous club as compensation for the period the player had effectively not been registered with the latter one. 13. In this respect, the Bureau recalled that the loan period which was originally supposed to last from 1 September 2012 until 30 July 2013 was effectively never started as the player had always been registered with the Claimant and that the latter had still been able to use the services of the player. In view of this, and taking into account that the amount for a loan fee has to be proportionate to the time the player had effectively spent with the Respondent as well as to the period the player had effectively not been registered with the Claimant, the Bureau concluded that the relevant pro rata proportion does not amount to anything at all. 14. As a consequence and considering that the player had always been registered with the Claimant, the Bureau held that no loan compensation was ever due by the Respondent to the Claimant. 15. In view of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Bureau concluded that the Claimant should not be entitled to any amount and consequently, decided to reject the claim of the Claimant in its entirety. 16. Finally, the Bureau 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, 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 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 Bureau 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 Bureau held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings was USD 30,000. Consequently, the Bureau concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 5,000. 18. In conclusion, and in view of the circumstances of the present matter, the Bureau determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 3,000. Consequently, the Bureau of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of currency of country H 3,000 has to be paid by the Claimant in order to cover the costs of the present procedure. III. Decision of the Bureau of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club S, is rejected. 2. The costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 3,000 are to be paid by the Claimant, Club S. Given that the latter has already paid the amount of currency of country H 1,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, Club S has to pay the amount of currency of country H 2,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision to the following bank account, with reference to case nr.: ***** 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 Players’ Status Committee: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives