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 Z, from country B as Claimant against the club Club P, from country G as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player E

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 Z, from country B as Claimant against the club Club P, from country G as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player E I. Facts of the case 1. On 30 December 2009, Club Z, from country B (hereinafter: the Claimant) and Club P, from country G (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded a transfer agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) for the transfer of the player E (hereinafter: the player), from the Claimant to the Respondent. 2. According to the Claimant, the agreement contained i.a. the following clause: “2.3. If, during the term specifically defined in the above-mentioned contract between [the Respondent] and the Player, the Player is transferred to another team and, as a result, [the Respondent] receives a transfer fee, [the Respondent] shall pay to [the Claimant] fifteen per cent (15%) of such gross transfer fee within 30 calendar days as from its actual receipt from such Player’s new team.” 3. Neither the Claimant nor the Respondent provided a copy of the transfer agreement duly bearing the signatures of both parties. The Claimant stressed that it sent a signed version to the Respondent without ever receiving in return an answer or a countersigned copy. The Respondent stated that it does not have a signed copy of the agreement, pointing to a change in the administration of the club, with the former administration not transmitting a copy of such agreement with the Claimant to the new administration. In his respect, the Claimant provided FIFA with an unsigned copy of the relevant agreement. 4. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 19 January 2012 the player was transferred from the Respondent to the Club M, from country I, for an amount of EUR 350,000. 5. On 18 July 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim at FIFA and requested payment of an amount of EUR 52,500 (15% of EUR 350,000) plus 5% interest on said amount as of 1 March 2012. 6. In its reply to the claim of the Claimant, the Respondent stated that, since it is not in possession of a duly signed agreement, it could not verify if a sell-on- clause with a percentage of 15% had actually been contained in the agreement at the time. 7. In addition, the Respondent stated that the burden of proof with regard to the content of the agreement lies on the Claimant. Since only a duly signed agreement could be the basis of a claim before FIFA and given that the Claimant had failed to provide a signed version of such agreement, the Claimant had not provided sufficient proof that such sell-on-percentage was actually agreed upon between the parties. Therefore, the Claimant’s claim should be rejected as non- substantiated. 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 are 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 (edition 2012). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 18 July 2013, thus after 1 December 2012. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 edition of the Procedural Rules (hereinafter: 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 was 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 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and, on the other hand, to the fact that the claim was lodged with FIFA on 18 July 2013. In view of this, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 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. 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. 5. In this respect and first of all, the Single Judge established that it was undisputed between the parties that they concluded, on 30 December 2009, an agreement regarding the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent. 6. Additionally, the Single Judge noted that neither the Claimant nor the Respondent could provide FIFA with a copy of the agreement duly signed by both parties. 7. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that according to the Claimant, the agreement in art. 2.3 contained a sell-on-clause, stipulating that in case of the subsequent transfer of the player, 15% of the relevant transfer compensation should be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. Based on the relevant sell-on- clause, the Claimant is claiming 15% of the amount of EUR 350,000, i.e. the amount of 52,500 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 1 March 2012. 8. In connection with the above, the Single Judge also acknowledged that in accordance with the information entered by the duly concerned in the Transfer Matching System, the player was transferred on 19 January 2012, from the Respondent to Club M, from country I against payment of transfer compensation in the amount of EUR 350,000. 9. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent stressed that since it is not in possession of a duly signed agreement, it could not verify if the sell-on- clause with a percentage of 15% was actually contained in the agreement at the time of its conclusion. 10. In addition, the Single Judge took note of the Respondent’s argument which stated that the burden of proof with regard to the content of the agreement lies on the Claimant. Since only a duly signed agreement could be the basis of a claim before FIFA and given that the Claimant could not provide a signed version of such agreement, the Claimant could not provide sufficient proof that such sell-on-percentage was actually agreed upon between the parties. 11. In this respect, the Single Judge observed that the Claimant had provided FIFA only with an unsigned copy of the relevant agreement and, thus, did not provide any documentary evidence corroborating that such sell-on-clause as alleged by the Claimant was actually included in the agreement. In view of this, the Single Judge was keen to underline that the burden of proof always lies on the party making a particular assertion (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules), and that, in casu, it was clearly the responsibility of the Claimant to provide evidence in support of its assertion that the aforementioned sell-on-clause was actually part of the agreement. Consequently, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Single Judge had no other option but to conclude that the Claimant had failed to substantiate its claim. 12. In view of all the above, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant’s claim had to be rejected. 13. 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). 14. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant was rejected, the Single Judge concluded that the procedural costs are to be borne by the Claimant. 15. According to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the bases of the amount in dispute. 16. On that basis, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 52,500 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 10,000 (cf. table in Annexe A.) 17. Considering that the case at hand did not pose particular factual difficulty and that it was adjudicated upon by the Single Judge and not the Players’ Status Committee in corpore, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 5,000. ** III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club Z, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 5,000 are to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA, of which currency of country H 2,000 have already been paid by the Claimant as advance of costs at the start of the proceedings. Consequently, the amount of currency of country H 3,000 has to be paid by the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no.: ** 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: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives