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 23 April 2014, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club B, from country G as “Claimant/Counter-Respondent” against the club Club R, from country S as “Respondent/Counter-Claimant” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the player A.

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 23 April 2014, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club B, from country G as “Claimant/Counter-Respondent” against the club Club R, from country S as “Respondent/Counter-Claimant” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the player A. I. Facts of the case 1. On 19 August 2010, Club B, from country G (hereinafter referred to as: “the Claimant/Counter-Respondent” or simply as: “the Claimant”) and Club R (hereinafter referred to as: “the Respondent/Counter-Claimant” or simply as: “the Respondent”) signed a transfer agreement (hereinafter: “the agreement”) in connection with the transfer of the player A (hereinafter: “the player”) from the Claimant to the Respondent. 2. Point 1.2 of the agreement established that the parties agreed on a transfer compensation for the player for an amount of EUR 300,000. 3. Point 2.2 of the agreement stipulated that the Respondent would pay the amount of EUR 300,000 in four instalments as follows: (1) EUR 75,000 payable on 15 September 2010; (2) EUR 75,000 payable on 15 January 2011; (3) EUR 75,000 payable on 15 May 2011; (4) EUR 75,000 payable on 15 August 2011. 4. Point 2.2.2 of the agreement established that the Respondent would pay to the Claimant “25% (twenty-five percent) of the future transfer compensation of the player from Club R [i.e. the Respondent] to any third club within 15 days as of receiving of the said compensation”. 5. On 20 March 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent and claimed that the latter had only paid half of the transfer compensation agreed upon between the parties in the agreement as well as had failed to pay the relevant 25% under point 2.2.2 of the agreement following the player’s transfer from the Respondent to Club D, from country C (hereinafter: “Club D”) in January 2012. In view of this, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the following amounts: a) EUR 150,000 as outstanding transfer compensation “less 5% solidarity“; b) USD 550,000 as sell-on-fee, i.e. 25% of the alleged new transfer amount of the player to Club D for an amount of USD 2,200,000. 6. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that on 23 February 2012 it had sent a letter to the Respondent requesting the relevant payments. On 5 March 2012, the Respondent had apologised to the Claimant for the delay in the relevant payments due to financial difficulties and had informed the latter that it expected to repay the entire debt by June. 7. On 5 July 2012, and before the claim of the Claimant was sent to the Respondent for its response, the latter alleged having paid the total transfer amount of EUR 300,000 according to the agreement. 8. In addition, the Respondent claimed to be exempted from the payment of the sell-on fee (25 % of the new transfer) due to the player´s indiscipline and the Claimant´s misconduct and further requested from the Claimant a compensation “for their actions that lead to a drastic decrease in the player´s market value”. 9. On 17 July 2012, FIFA formally requested the position of the Respondent in relation to the claim lodged by the Claimant but the Respondent did not reply to FIFA’s correspondence. 10. On 8 May 2013, the Claimant sent an unsolicited letter to FIFA dated 23 April 2013 by means of which it informed the following: a) having received until 23 April 2013 from the Respondent the total amount of EUR 285,000 as outstanding transfer compensation according to point 1.2 of the agreement; b) that the sell-on fee (cf. point 2.2.2 of the agreement) remained unpaid by the Respondent; c) in sum, the Claimant amended its original claim and requested from the Respondent the total amount of EUR 440,000. 11. On 4 November 2013, the Claimant sent another unsolicited letter to FIFA dated 29 October 2013 by means of which it amended its claim against the Respondent requesting from the latter the payment of the total amount of EUR 403,750 which represented 25% of EUR 1,615,000 (i.e. EUR 1,700,000 – EUR 85,000 [5% as solidarity contribution]). 12. On 13 January 2014, the Respondent presented its position and reiterated all the allegations which had been presented in its previous correspondence dated 5 July 2012. 13. On 16 January 2014, the FIFA administration requested once again the Respondent to specify the amount it requested as “compensation” in its correspondence of 5 July 2012 but did not receive any reply from the latter. 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 whether he was competent to deal with the case in hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 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 20 March 2012, thus before the aforementioned rules entered into force (1 December 2012), the Single Judge concluded that the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution (hereinafter: “the Procedural Rules”) was applicable to the matter in hand. 2. Furthermore, the Single Judge confirmed that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 as well as art. 22 f) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he was competent to deal with the present matter since it concerned a dispute between two clubs affiliated to different associations. 3. Subsequently, the Single Judge 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, he referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the 2014, 2012 and 2010 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 20 March 2012. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2010 edition of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance. 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge entered into the substance of the matter and 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 Single Judge took note that the parties had signed a transfer agreement on 19 August 2010 for the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent for the total amount of EUR 300,000 (cf. point 1.2 of the agreement), to be paid in four instalments. 6. Moreover, the Single Judge further remarked that, according to point 2.2.2 of the agreement, the Claimant was entitled to receive a sell-on fee equivalent to 25% of the subsequent transfer of the player in case the latter would be transferred to a third club. 7. At this stage, the Single Judge acknowledged that, on the one hand, the Claimant had requested from the Respondent the payment of the amount of EUR 403,750 corresponding to the sell-on fee provided in agreement and derived from the transfer of the player from the Respondent to his new club, Club D, whereas, on the other hand, the Respondent had requested to be exempted from paying such amount due to the player’s indiscipline and the Claimant’s misconduct. Furthermore, the Single Judge remarked that the Respondent had lodged a counterclaim and requested compensation from the Claimant for such alleged misconduct. 8. With regard to the counterclaim lodged by the Respondent, the Single Judge noted that, despite FIFA´s request, the Respondent had not specified the amount claimed in its counterclaim as compensation against the Claimant. Moreover, the Single Judge was eager to stress that, according to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which states that “any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”, the Respondent had not provided any clear and convincing documentary evidence which would have indicated that it should be entitled to receive compensation from the Claimant. As a consequence, the Single Judge concluded that the counterclaim lodged by the Respondent is rejected. 9. Bearing the aforementioned in mind, the Single Judge continued his deliberations by acknowledging that, according to the information contained in the transfer matching system (TMS), the player was transferred on a loan basis from the Respondent to Club D for the period from 1 January 2012 until 30 December 2014 for a total amount of EUR 1,700,000. The Single Judge further noticed that such amount was duly paid by Club D to the Respondent on 13 January 2012. 10. At this stage, the Single Judge recalled that the Respondent had claimed in its allegations to be exempted from paying anything to the Claimant as sell-on fee due to the alleged player´s indiscipline and the Claimant ´s misconduct. 11. In this respect, the Single Judge was keen to emphasise that the reasons invoked by the Respondent, i.e. the alleged player’s indiscipline and Claimant’s misconduct, could not anyhow justify the non-payment of the sell-on fee to the Claimant in case of subsequent transfer of the player to a third club as point 2.2.2 of the agreement clearly provided for such payment obligation. 12. Furthermore and 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 Single Judge held that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent a sell-on fee for the subsequent transfer of the player to a third club, i.e. Club D. 13. Having established the aforementioned and taking into account the information at disposal in the TMS as well as the position of the parties during the investigation of the present dispute, the Single Judge pointed out that it was uncontested that the player was transferred from the Respondent to Club D involving the payment of a loan fee of EUR 1,700,000 which was paid by the latter on 13 January 2012. 14. In this respect, the Single Judge remarked that the amount demanded by the Claimant, i.e. the sum of EUR 403,750, was equivalent to 25 % of the loan fee effectively paid by Club D to the Respondent, minus the deduction of 5% corresponding to the solidarity contribution. 15. On account of all of the above, the Single Judge held that the claim of the Claimant is accepted and that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 403,750. 16. Finally, 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 the 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 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, the Single Judge reiterated that the Claimant’s claim is accepted. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 18. 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. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 403,750. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 19. In view of the circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceeding to the amount of currency of country H 20,000. 20. Consequently, and in line with the aforementioned, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of currency of country H 20,000 in order to cover the costs of the present proceedings. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players´ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Club B, is accepted. 2. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club R, has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Club B, the amount of EUR 403,750, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, an interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of the expiry of the fixed time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club R, 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/Counter-Claimant, Club R, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1 Currency of country H 5,000 has to be paid to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Club B. 5.2 Currency of country H 15,000 has to be paid to FIFA. Given that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club R, already paid an advance of costs in the amount of currency of country H 5,000 during the present proceedings, the latter has to pay the remaining amount of currency of country H 10,000 to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 6. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Club B, is directed to inform the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club R, directly and immediately of the account number to which the remittance under points 2 and 5.1 above is to be made and to notify the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received. ***** 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 Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives