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 theBureau 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 H. Bedoya (Colombia), member Pare Salmon (Tahiti), member on the matter between the clubs Club L, from country G and Club D, from country C and Club J, from country I regarding a dispute arisen between the parties and relating to the transfer of the player V.

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 theBureau 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 H. Bedoya (Colombia), member Pare Salmon (Tahiti), member on the matter between the clubs Club L, from country G and Club D, from country C and Club J, from country I regarding a dispute arisen between the parties and relating to the transfer of the player V. I. Facts of the case 1. On 27 April 2007, Club L, from country G (hereinafter: Club L) and Club D, from country C (hereinafter: Club D) signed a transfer agreement (hereinafter: the transfer agreement) regarding the transfer of the player V (hereinafter: the player) to Club L for the amount of EUR 5,200,000. 2. Clause 2 b) of the transfer agreement states the following: “In case the Player V will be transferred to another club during the time he is employed by Club L, Club D is entitled to receive from Club L 30% of the transfer sum which will be paid to Club L by the third club for the transfer of the Player to such club”. 3. On an undetermined date but sometime in 2011, Club L and Club D concluded an “Addendum to the Transfer Agreement” (hereinafter: the addendum) in connection with the transfer of the player from Club L to Club J, from country I, by means of which the parties agreed that “Club D’s right according to § 2 b) of the Transfer Agreement amounts to EUR 2,75 million cash. With the payment of EUR 2,75 million cash by Club L to Club D has fully complied with its obligation pursuant to § 2 b) of the Transfer Agreement and Club D has no further claim arising out of the Transfer Agreement” (cf. clause 2 of the addendum). 4. On 20 July 2011, Club L and Club J concluded an agreement concerning the transfer of the player to Club J for the amount of EUR 10,500,000 (hereinafter: the transfer fee) payable as follows: EUR 5,000,000 “on receiving the ITC” (hereinafter: the first instalment); EUR 3,000,000 on 30 June 2012 (hereinafter: the second instalment) and EUR 2,500,000 on 31 December 2012 (hereinafter: the third instalment). 5. In addition and in case the player would play “in mandatory games of Juventus during his employment agreement with Club J, Club L (...) will receive for the first 125 mandatory games (…) as an additional compensation, a special payment [hereinafter: the special payment] in the amount of EUR 16.000.- for each mandatory game. The special payment is limited to the overall and global sum of EUR 2.000.000 (...), - sum that shall not in any case be exceeded irrespective the number of mandatory games played by the player during the sportive term of his agreement, and will be accounted at the end of every season on 30.06. and is payable directly thereafter before the issuance of the proper invoice and fiscal documentation.” 6. Finally and in case Juventus FC qualified for the “group stage of the UEFA Champions League (hereinafter: “UCL”) during the period of the employment contract with Player V by Club J, Club L (..) is entitled to receive: EUR 75.000.—for the first time Club J will qualify for the group stage of UCL and EUR 50.000.—for the second time Club J will qualify for the group stage of UCL. (...).” 7. According to the player passport of the player issued by the country C Football Federation, the player was born in May 1987 and was registered with the following country C clubs: - from 1 January until 31 December 1999 with Club R; - from 18 April until 21 December 2000 with Club M; - from 3 March until 20 December 2001 with Club M; - from 8 May until 28 December 2002 with Club D; - from 8 February until 21 December 2003 with Club D; - from 6 February until 19 December 2004 with Club D; - from 21 January until 22 December 2005 with Club D; - from 27 January until 23 December 2006 with Club D; - from 27 January until 2 August 2007 with Club D. 8. The season in country C follows the calendar year, i.e. it starts in January and ends in December of the same year. 9. On 6 March 2012, Club L lodged a claim with FIFA against Club D and, in the alternative, against Club J, requesting the payment of EUR 125,000, corresponding to the solidarity contribution allegedly paid by Club J to Club D in connection with the transfer of the player from Club L to Club J, plus 5% interest on the latter amount. In addition, Club L asked FIFA to establish that it was entitled to receive from Club J “the remaining solidarity contribution (…) which is attributable to the period, the player was under contract” with Club D. 10. In this respect, Club L explained that, in accordance with the addendum, the amount of EUR 2,750,000 was “the total participation” of Club D “in the transfer sum agreed between Claimant [i.e. Club L] and a third club” and Club D was therefore “not entitled to receive more (or less) than that.” Hence, Club L deemed that Club D should not have received from Club J the sum of EUR 125,000, allegedly corresponding to 50% of the solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player from Club L to Club J. According to Club L, Club D had also co-signed on 8 August 2011, a letter dated 5 August 2011 (hereinafter: the confirmation) which inter alia stated that “With the payment of the above mentioned amount, all claims by Club D resulting from the transfer of Player V to Club J including Training Compensation and Solidarity Contribution shall be fulfilled”. 11. In addition to the above, Club L alleged having shown the confirmation to Club J and having requested the latter not to deduct the solidarity contribution payable to Club D from the transfer fee. In this respect, Club L provided FIFA with several emails apparently exchanged with Club J between August and October 2011. 12. In view of all the above, Club L deemed being entitled to receive the claimed amount from Club D or alternatively from Club J, plus 5% interest “from the date of receipt”. 13. In its response dated 17 September 2012, Club J rejected Club L’s claim in its entirety and requested FIFA to condemn the latter to refund the legal expenses incurred “to be quantified in a minimum amount at least equal to a 10% of the total value of the case, or in the different sum to be awarded by this Honorable Chamber”. 14. In this respect, Club J stressed that it was not a party to the addendum nor to the confirmation and that, consequently, none of those documents were binding upon it. Furthermore and in the same context, Club J emphasized that because it had not concluded any contract with Club L or Club D relating to the payment of solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player, it had no obligations whatsoever towards them in this sense. Equally, Club J pointed out that by paying EUR 125,000 as solidarity contribution to Club D, it had complied with FIFA’s regulations and provided FIFA with a copy of the relevant payment receipt dated 21 October 2011. 15. Notwithstanding the above and in case FIFA would rule in favour of Club L and establish that the relevant amount of solidarity contribution had to be paid to the latter, Club J requested preventively the reimbursement of EUR 125,000 from Club D, plus 5% interest “from the date of payment of such amount.” 16. On 22 February and 27 March 2013, Club L amended its claim arguing that, in the meantime, Club D had received the following payments of solidarity contribution from Club J: - EUR 75,000, corresponding to the solidarity contribution due in connection with the payment of the second instalment; - EUR 62,500, corresponding to the solidarity contribution due in connection with the payment of the third instalment; - EUR 14,675, corresponding to the solidarity contribution due in connection with the payment of special payments (cf. point 5. above) in the amount of EUR 512,000 as well as in connection with the payment of EUR 75,000 for Club J first time qualification for the group stage of the UEFA Champions League (cf. point 6. above). 17. Consequently, Club L requested from Club D and, in the alternative from Club J, the payment of the total amount of EUR 277,175 plus 5% interest “from the date, Club D has received the respective amount as solidarity contribution from (…) Club J.” 18. In its response to the amended claim on 2 and 19 April 2013 respectively, Club J reiterated the content of its first submission to FIFA. In addition, Club J admitted having paid the following additional amounts of solidarity contribution to Club D and provided FIFA with the relevant payments receipts: - EUR 89,675 on 28 June 2012, “that includes the amount of EUR 75.000 as Solidarity Contribution due by Club J with respect to the payment of the second instalment paid for the transfer of the Player pursuant to Art. 21 of the FIFA Regulations” and EUR 14,675, corresponding to the solidarity contribution due in connection with the payment of special payments amounting to EUR 512,000 (“i.e. (32 x 16.000,00)”) as well as in connection with the payment of EUR 75,000 for Club J’ first time qualification for the group stage of the UEFA Champions League; - EUR 62,500 on 21 January 2013, corresponding to the solidarity contribution due in connection with the payment of the third instalment. 19. Furthermore, Club J pointed out that in accordance with FIFA’s regulations and jurisprudence, the payment of solidarity contribution was mandatory. 20. On 5 June 2013, Club D provided its only statement in the present matter and rejected Club L’s claim. Nevertheless, Club D failed to provide a response with regard to Club J’s request. 21. In this respect and to begin with, Club D pointed out that neither the transfer agreement nor the addendum included “any specific clause about the renounce of Club D for the solidarity contribution regarding the player’s transfer to Club J”. 22. Furthermore, Club D maintained that the person who had signed the confirmation on its behalf, i.e. apparently its “Manager of Administration and Finance” was “not statutorily entitled to sign any document regarding the transfer of Player V”. According to Club D, its manager of administration and finance was not authorized by its statutes to sign any document and did not have a written authorization “or a power of attorney” to do so. In the same context, Club D added that only Club L’s sport manager and lawyer had signed the confirmation. Furthermore, Club D specified that both the transfer agreement and the addendum had been signed by its president as well as by its general manager as required by its statutes and stressed that in accordance with a “commercial general rule that is found in almost the majority of clubs or companies by laws transfer agreements or expensive contracts are only signed by the top executives (..)”. Hence, Club D considered the confirmation to be null “from the statutory perspective of both clubs.” 23. Equally, Club D stressed that FIFA’s regulations relating to the payment of solidarity contribution were mandatory and accused Club L of wanting to “get double compensation for a sole matter.” 24. Finally, Club D held that only Club J could lodge a claim requesting the reimbursement of the solidarity contribution paid. 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 he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, the Bureau 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). Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 6 March 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) is applicable to the matter at hand. 2. Furthermore, the Bureau 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, the Bureau 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 present claim was lodged with FIFA on 6 March 2012. In view of this, the Bureau concluded that the 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 3. Subsequently, the Bureau referred to 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 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and confirmed that it is competent to adjudicate on the present dispute between 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 Bureau started his analysis by acknowledging the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties as well as the documents contained in the file. 5. In doing so and to begin with, the Bureau noted that, on 27 April 2007, Club L and Club D had concluded a transfer agreement which inter alia provided for Club D to receive from Club L a sell-on fee amounting to 30% of the compensation obtained by the latter in case of a subsequent transfer of the player to a third club. 6. Furthermore, the Bureau acknowledged that, on an undetermined date but sometime in 2011, Club L and Club D had concluded an addendum to the transfer agreement in connection with the transfer of the player from Club L to Club J in accordance with which the total amount payable to Club D as sell on-fee would correspond to EUR 2,750,000. In addition, the Bureau remarked that the relevant transfer fee due to Club L from Club J amounted to EUR 10,500,000, whereas Club D had also undertaken to pay to Club L the additional sum of EUR 16,000 for every mandatory game in which the player was fielded as well as different bonus payments depending on Club L’s advancement in the UEFA Champions League. 7. In continuation, the Bureau took note that, in its claim to FIFA, Club L had requested from Club D and, in the alternative from Club J, the payment of the total amount of EUR 277,175, corresponding to the solidarity contribution that Club D had received from Club J in connection with the transfer of the player to the latter club. In this context, the Bureau observed that, in Club L’s opinion, the amount of EUR 2,750,000 paid to Club D as sell-on fee constituted the “total participation” of the latter in connection with the transfer of the player to Club J, so that no further amount should have been received by Club D in this respect. Furthermore, the Bureau noticed that, in support of its allegations, Club L had provided FIFA with a document dated 5 August 2011, co-signed by Mr B (hereinafter: Mr B) of Club D on 8 August 2011, in which the latter club confirmed that after having received the sell-on fee, all its claims “resulting from the transfer of Player V to Club J including Training Compensation and Solidarity Contribution” would be fulfilled. 8. Finally, the Bureau noted that, for its part, Club D had rejected the claim of Club L arguing, in particular, that Mr B as its “Manager of Administration and Finance” was not authorized to sign the confirmation on its behalf and that, therefore, the document in question had to be considered null and void. 9. Equally, the Bureau acknowledged that also Club J had rejected the claim of Club L and had lodged a claim against Club D requesting from the latter the reimbursement of EUR 277,175 in case FIFA would accept the alternative claim of Club L against it. 10. With the aforementioned considerations in mind, the Bureau first of all analysed the content of the addendum and pointed out that, from its point of view, the document in question did not include a clear waiver from Club D concerning the payment of its share of solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player to a third club, in casu, Club J. 11. Furthermore and in the same context, the Bureau was eager to emphasize that Club J was not a party to the addendum and that, therefore, the latter club could not be considered bound by it. What is more, the Bureau found it worthwhile to recall that according to art. 21 in connection with Annexe 5 of the Regulations, if a professional player moves during the course of a contract, 5% of any compensation, not including training compensation paid to his former club, shall be deducted from the total amount of this compensation and be distributed by the new club as solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in the training and education of the player in proportion to the number of years the player has been registered with the relevant clubs between the sporting seasons of his 12th and 23rd birthday. As a consequence, the Bureau emphasized that by paying to Club D its share of solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player from Club L, Club J had acted correctly and in accordance with the Regulations. Hence, the Bureau deemed that any claim of Club L against Club J had to be rejected. 12. Having determined the aforementioned, the Bureau turned its attention to the question of the confirmation’s validity, which had been strongly contested by Club D. 13. In this respect and to begin with, the Bureau pointed out that it was undisputed that the confirmation had been signed by the “Manager of Administration and Finance” of Club D, Mr B. Equally, the Bureau recalled once again that Club D had contested Mr B’s entitlement to sign such a document on its behalf, arguing that only its president and general manager would have been entitled to do so in accordance with its statutes. 14. Considering the aforementioned, the Bureau recalled that, as a general rule and in accordance with the well-established jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee and its Single Judge, the internal proxy rule of one of the party to an agreement cannot have any legal effect on the validity of the contract itself unless the contracting partner has been duly informed of its content. 15. In this regard, the Bureau stressed that Club D had not provided any evidence indicating that Club L would have been informed of the content of its internal proxy rule. Consequently and also bearing in mind the wording of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which stipulates that the burden of proof is be carried by the party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact, the Bureau concluded that it could safely be assumed that, at the time the confirmation was signed, Club L had no knowledge of the Club D’s alleged internal proxy rule. 16. Bearing in mind the aforementioned and considering that the confirmation had been signed by Club D’s finance manager on its behalf, the Bureau considered that the Club L could in good faith assume that this person was duly authorized to act and sign on the latter’s behalf. 17. Taking into account all the above, the Bureau held that the confirmation had been signed by Club L and Club D and was therefore valid and binding upon both parties. 18. In view of the all the above and bearing in mind that by means of the confirmation Club D had waived its right to receive any payment of solidarity contribution pertaining to the player’s move from Club L to Club J, as well taking into account that, ultimately, Club D had undisputedly and all the same received from Club J the sum of EUR 277,175, corresponding to its share of the relevant solidarity contribution, the Bureau ruled that Club D has to pay the sum of EUR 277,175 to Club L. 19. Consequently, the Bureau decided that the claim of Club L is accepted and that Club D has to pay to Club L the amount of EUR 277,175 plus 5% interest as follows: on the amount of EUR 125,000 as from 21 October 2011; on the amount of EUR 89,675 as from 28 June 2012 and on the amount of EUR 62,500 as from 21 January 2013. 20. Having established the aforementioned, the Bureau turned its attention to the claim of Club J and held that, considering the outcome of Club L’s request against Club D, such claim had become obsolete and had to be rejected. 21. Lastly, 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 the proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee, including 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 (cf. art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules). 22. In this respect, the Bureau reiterated that the claim of Club L is accepted and that Club D is the party at fault. Therefore, the Bureau decided that Club D has to bear the entire costs of the current proceedings in front of 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. Consequently and taking into account that the total amount at dispute in the present matter is above currency of country H 200,001, the Bureau concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 24. In conclusion, and considering that the case at hand was adjudicated by the Bureau and that the present case did show some particular factual difficulties and specific legal complexities, the Bureau determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 15,000. 25. Consequently, Club D has to pay currency of country H 15,000 to cover the costs of the present proceedings. III. Decision of the Bureau of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of Club L against Club D is accepted. 2. Club D has to pay to Club L, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 277,175 plus interest on the said amount as follows: - 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 125,000 as from 21 October 2011 until the date of effective payment; - 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 89,675 as from 28 June 2012 until the date of effective payment; - 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 62,500 as from 21 January 2013 until the date of effective payment. 3. Any other requests made by the parties are rejected. 4. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 15,000 are to be paid by Club D within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 4.1. The amount of currency of country H 7,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 4.2. The amount of currency of country H 4,000 has to be paid to Club L. 4.3. The amount of currency of country H 4,000 has to be paid to Club J. 5. Club L, is directed to inform Club D immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 4.2. above are to be made and to notify the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received. 6. Club J is directed to inform Club D immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 4.3. above is to be made and to notify the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received. 7. If the aforementioned sums are not paid within the respective deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. ***** 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 Bureau of the Players’ Status Committee Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives