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 7 May 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club U, from country T as “Claimant” against the club Club A, from country U as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties and relating to the player J.

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 7 May 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club U, from country T as “Claimant” against the club Club A, from country U as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties and relating to the player J. I. Facts of the case 1. On 10 June 2011, Club U, from country T (hereinafter: the Claimant) and Club A, from country U (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded a transfer agreement entitled “Memorandum of understanding” (hereinafter: the agreement) for the definitive transfer of the player J (hereinafter: the player) from the Claimant to the Respondent for a total transfer compensation of EUR 4,500,000, payable in three instalments. 2. Additionally, article 4.1 of the agreement stipulated that “in case Club A [i.e. the Respondent] transfers the player to a third club then Club A is obliged to pay Club U [i.e. the Claimant] net of 20% (twenty percent) of transfer fee which will be received by Club A. This net of 20% should be paid to Club U on the same day as the transfer is concluded”. 3. On 18 February 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent for having allegedly failed to respect their contractual obligations. 4. In this respect, the Claimant deemed that since the Respondent was obliged, on the basis of article 4.1 of the agreement, to pay 20% of any future transfer compensation, it was therefore entitled to receive a certain amount as sell-on fee, since the player was allegedly transferred from the Respondent to Club M, from country S (hereinafter: Club M) in January 2013. In support of its allegations, the Claimant provided an extract from the Transfer Matching System (TMS), which demonstrated that the player was registered with Club S on 31 January 2013. In this context, the Claimant added that “According to news the transfer fee which is paid to Club A [i.e. the Respondent] is 2,500,000 €”. 5. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that although it had contacted the Respondent and requested information about the amount of transfer compensation paid for the subsequent transfer in order to calculate the amount of the sell-on fee, the latter had never responded to its request. 6. Consequently, the Claimant requested FIFA to disclose the amount of the transfer compensation paid by Club M to the Respondent for the subsequent transfer of the player and to condemn the Respondent to pay the amount still to be determined but corresponding to 20% of the aforementioned transfer compensation, plus interest at the rate of 5% per annum over the requested sum “as from the due date of the transfer fee”. 7. In spite of having been asked to do so, the Respondent never responded to the claim lodged against it, although it was informed that, in absence of a reply, a decision would be taken on the basis of the information and evidence at disposal. 8. According to the information available on TMS, the player was transferred to Club M for the total amount of EUR 2,000,000, payable by no later than 25 January 2013 and was registered with the latter on 31 January 2013. The transfer between the Respondent and Club M was signed on 12 January 2013. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter also referred to as: the Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter in 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 (edition 2012). Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 18 February 2013, thus after the aforementioned rules entered into force (1 December 2012), the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 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 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 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 18 February 2013. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 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. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the present matter, the Single Judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that, the parties had signed a transfer agreement on 10 June 2011, according to which the player would be transferred from the Claimant to the Respondent for the amount of EUR 4,500,000 and that in case the player would be subsequently transferred from the Respondent to a third club, the Claimant would be entitled to “net of 20% (twenty percent) of transfer fee which will be received by Club A [i.e. the Respondent]”, payable to the Claimant “on the same day as the transfer is concluded”. 5. In continuation, the Single Judge turned his attention to the claimed sell-on fee requested by the Claimant and noted that, based on the information received from the latter during the course of the present investigation, the player had been transferred from the Respondent to Club M in January 2013 and that such a fact could also be established based on the information available on the Transfer Matching System (TMS). 6. In addition, the Single Judge reverted to the further allegations of the Claimant and noted that the latter had alleged that “According to news the transfer fee which is paid to Club A [i.e. the Respondent] is 2,500,000 €”. 7. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that, based on the information available on TMS, it could be established that the player had duly been registered with Club M on 31 January 2013 following the signature of a transfer agreement between Club M and the Respondent on 12 January 2013 and according to which a transfer sum of EUR 2,000,000 had been agreed, payable to the Respondent by no later than 25 January 2013. 8. Furthermore, the Single Judge also remarked that the Respondent had not submitted any comments in response to the claim lodged against it by the Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge deemed that, by acting in this way, the Respondent had renounced to its right of defence and it had therefore to be assumed that the Respondent had accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 9. In view of the above and in accordance with the general principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must fulfil the obligation it voluntarily entered into with the Claimant by means of the agreement signed between the parties. 10. Therefore and considering that the Claimant provided documentary evidence establishing that the player was transferred to Club M, as well as the fact that according the information available on TMS, the agreed transfer compensation of the aforementioned transfer to Club M amounted to EUR 2,000,000 and taking into account that such a fact had not been denied by the Respondent, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant should be entitled to receive from the Respondent the amount of EUR 400,000 (i.e. 20% of EUR 2,000,000). Moreover, the Single Judge held that this amount became due “on the same day as the transfer is concluded” i.e. on 12 January 2013. 11. As a consequence of the above and taking into account that the Claimant had not received the claimed sell-on fee from the Respondent and that such a fact had not been denied by the Respondent, the Single Judge concluded that the sell-on fee amounting to EUR 400,000 was still outstanding and should therefore be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. 12. Additionally and with respect to the claimed default interest at the rate of 5% per annum over the requested sum “as from the due date of the transfer fee [i.e. the transfer compensation of the subsequent transfer to Club M]”, the Single Judge recalled that no interest appears to have been contractually agreed between the parties. Therefore and also taking into account the Claimant’s request in this regard as well as the fact that the transfer compensation for the subsequent transfer of the player from the Respondent to Club M was due on 25 January 2013, the Single Judge decided, in accordance with the long standing and well-established jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee concerning the payment of interest, that the Claimant should receive from the Respondent an interest rate of 5% per year as from 25 January 2013 (i.e. the date requested by the Claimant). 13. In view of all of the above, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant’s claim against the Respondent is partially accepted and that, consequently, the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the total amount of EUR 400,000 as sell-on fee agreed upon in article 4.1 of the agreement between the parties on 10 June 2011, plus interest as previously mentioned. 14. 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 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 and are normally to be paid by the unsuccessful party. 15. In respect of the above and taking into account that the responsibility of the failure to comply with the payment of the sell-on fee can entirely be attributed to the Respondent and that the claim of the Claimant has been almost fully accepted, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 16. 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 over currency of country H 200,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 17. In conclusion, and in view of the circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 25,000. Consequently, and in line with the aforementioned considerations, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that said amount has to be paid by the Respondent 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, Club U, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club A, has to pay to the Claimant, Club U, the amount of EUR 400,000 plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. from 25 January 2013 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Club U, are rejected. 4. If the aforementioned amount of EUR 400,000, plus interest as established above, 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. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 25,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club A, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1 The amount of currency of country H 20,000 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, Club U. 6. The Claimant, Club U, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club A, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under points 2 and 5.2 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 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