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 28 August 2013, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club A, from country U as “Claimant” against the club Club B, from country I as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the player H.

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 28 August 2013, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club A, from country U as “Claimant” against the club Club B, from country I as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the player H. I. Facts of the case 1. On 29 August 2009, Club A, from country U (hereinafter: “the Claimant”) and Club B, from country I (hereinafter: “the Respondent”) concluded a transfer agreement “on a loan basis” (hereinafter: “the loan agreement”) for the transfer of the player H (hereinafter: “the player”) from the Claimant to the Respondent, with an option to acquire the services of the player on a definitive basis. 2. Point B of the loan agreement established that the loan of the player was valid for the 2009/2010 season and in case the Respondent would exercise the abovementioned option, the definitive transfer of the player would be valid as from 30 June 2010. 3. Point 2.4 of the loan agreement established that the Respondent would pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 300,000 as loan compensation. 4. Point 3 of the loan agreement established that in case the Respondent would exercise the abovementioned option, it should communicate it in writing to the Claimant before 31 August 2010 and it would have to pay the amount of EUR 2,400,000 under terms to be agreed between the parties. 5. The Claimant and the Respondent also concluded an undated agreement (hereinafter: “the undated agreement”) which stipulated that the Respondent would pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 2,400,000 for having exercised the option of the definitive transfer of the player as follows: EUR 400,000 on 31 July 2010, EUR 1,000,000 on 31 October 2010 and EUR 1,000,000 on 31 October 2011. 6. On 29 March 2011, the Respondent sent a letter to the Claimant (hereinafter: “the letter”) proposing to pay the total amount of EUR 3,000,000 “for the transfer of the player” in three equal instalments of EUR 1,000,000 on the following dates: 30 April 2011, 31 May 2011 and 31 October 2011. 7. On the same date, the Claimant responded to the Respondent´s letter and accepted the terms of the new payment plan. 8. On 15 July 2011, the Claimant lodged a complaint with FIFA against the Respondent requesting the payment of EUR 3,000,000, plus interests as from each due date and costs. In this respect, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent had expressly recognised owing the amounts mentioned in the letter. 9. On 21 December 2011, the Claimant informed FIFA that the Respondent had made two payments of EUR 475,000 each and thus the amount of EUR 950,000 should be deducted from the aforementioned claimed amount. 10. On 30 March 2012, the Respondent provided FIFA with its position in relation to the present matter and stated that after their exchange of letters on 29 March 2011, both clubs had agreed on new conditions for payment. Moreover, the Respondent added that all the payments agreed with the Claimant for the definitive transfer of the player included the proportion of the solidarity contribution. 11. The Respondent alleged that both clubs had reached a new verbal agreement and that in a letter dated 30 November 2011 addressed to the Claimant, it had proposed the following payment plan: EUR 500,000 on 15 December 2011, EUR 500,000 on 28 February 2012, EUR 500,000 on 30 April 2012 and EUR 1,000,000 on a date to be confirmed at a later stage. 12. Furthermore, the Respondent claimed to have already made the following payments to the Claimant: Amount agreed: Amount paid: Paid on: Remarks: EUR 500,000 (minus EUR 475,000 31 October 2011 1st payment as stated solidarity in the letter with contribution) due date on 30 April 2011 EUR 500,000 (minus EUR 475,000 15 December 2011 This payment was solidarity made based on the contribution) alleged new verbal agreement. 13. On 18 December 2012, the Claimant reacted to the Respondent´s position and confirmed that both clubs had tried to settle the present matter amicably. However, the Claimant denied having reached a new verbal agreement with the Respondent establishing a new payment plan as alleged by the latter. Therefore, the Claimant argued that the payment plan established in the letter was the one that had to be taken into account. 14. Moreover, the Claimant rejected the claim of the Respondent that solidarity contribution should be deducted from the amount of transfer compensation on the basis that the Claimant was also one of the training clubs of the player. In this respect, the Claimant stated that in accordance with the player passport issued by country U Football Association, the player was registered with the Claimant from 16 February 2007 until 1 July 2007 and from 17 August 2007 until 11 September 2009. Consequently, the Claimant alleged that it should be entitled to receive the amount of EUR 36,300 as solidarity contribution and which represented 1,21% of the transfer amount of EUR 3,000,000 mentioned by the Respondent in the letter. 15. In view of all the above, the Claimant claimed from the Respondent the total amount of EUR 2,036,300, representing EUR 2,000,000 as outstanding transfer compensation and EUR 36,300 as solidarity contribution. 16. On 29 March 2013, the Respondent presented its final position and reiterated its previous allegations. In addition, the Respondent stated that, on the basis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the 5% solidarity contribution should be deducted from the total transfer fee and distributed by the new club, i.e. the Respondent, to the clubs involved in the training of the players. In this respect, the Respondent stated that taking into account the player passport submitted by the Claimant, the latter was only entitled to receive 1.18% of EUR 3,000,000, i.e. EUR 35,400. 17. Finally, the Respondent stated that the net outstanding amount in favour of the Claimant should only be EUR 1,935,400, i.e. EUR 2,000,000 - EUR 100,000 (5% solidarity contribution) = EUR 1,900,000 + EUR 35,400. 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, the Single Judge confirmed that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 of the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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, he was competent to deal with the matter at stake which concerns a dispute between two clubs affiliated to different associations. 2. Furthermore, the Single Judge analysed which Procedural Rules are applicable to the matter in hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 15 July 2011, the Single Judge 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 in hand. 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 edition 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 15 July 2011. 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. Having established his competence, the Single Judge turned his attention to the substance of the present matter and carefully considered and analysed the arguments and documents presented by the parties during the investigation. 5. First and foremost, the Single Judge started by taking note that on 29 August 2009, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded a loan agreement with an option in favour of the Respondent to acquire the services of the player on a definitive basis. 6. Moreover, the Single Judge took note that by means of an additional undated agreement (i.e. the undated agreement) the Claimant and the Respondent agreed on the definitive transfer of the player to the Respondent for an amount of EUR 2,400,000 payable in three instalments as follows: EUR 400,000 on 31 July 2010, EUR 1,000,000 on 31 October 2010 and EUR 1,000,000 on 31 October 2011. 7. Furthermore, the Single Judge acknowledged that on 29 March 2011, the Respondent proposed in writing to the Claimant the payment of EUR 3,000,000 in three equal instalments of EUR 1,000,000 on the following dates: 30 April 2011, 31 May 2011 and 31 October 2011 and that such a proposal was accepted by the Claimant on the same date. 8. At this stage, the Single Judge noted that although the Respondent alleged having agreed upon a new payment schedule with the Claimant, the latter had rejected this allegation and the Respondent had failed to submit documentary evidence in this respect. In view of this and while referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which provides that “Any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”, the Single Judge held that it had to be assumed that no new payment schedule related to the transfer compensation had been agreed between the parties. 9. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the payment plan and the amounts proposed by the Respondent in the letter on 29 March 2011 and accepted by the Claimant on the same day was binding between the parties. In this context, the Single Judge took note that it was uncontested by both parties that the Respondent had already paid a total amount of EUR 950,000 to the Claimant in the form of two payments of EUR 475,000 on 31 October 2011 and 15 December 2011 respectively. 10. In continuation, the Single Judge acknowledged the Respondent´s allegation that the transfer compensation agreed with the Claimant included the proportion of the solidarity contribution and that in light of the Regulations, 5% of the cited amount should be deducted from the transfer compensation in question. In addition, the Single Judge underlined that the Claimant had amended its claim during the present proceedings and requested the following amounts: EUR 2,000,000 as outstanding transfer compensation plus EUR 36,300 as its proportion of solidarity contribution for having been one of the training clubs of the player. 11. In this respect, the Single Judge pointed out that if the Claimant deemed that it was entitled to claim solidarity contribution from the Respondent, it should have lodged a claim in front of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) which was the competent deciding body for such disputes in accordance with the art. 24 par. 1 of the Regulations. 12. Furthermore and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge referred to the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC, according to which, as a general rule, if two parties conclude a transfer agreement for a specific amount as transfer compensation, solidarity contribution is considered to be included in the relevant transfer compensation. Furthermore, said jurisprudence also establishes the principle that if the parties wish to stipulate the contrary to the aforementioned, i.e. solidarity contribution is due in addition to the agreed transfer compensation, they need to explicitly stipulate it in the transfer agreement. 13. In this respect, the Single Judge focussed his attention on the content of the loan agreement, the undated agreement as well as the letter and emphasised that the Claimant and the Respondent had not made any stipulation in this regard. 14. In view of the above, the Single Judge rejected the Claimant´s request for solidarity contribution in the amount of EUR 36,300. 15. In continuation, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent acknowledged owing the amount of EUR 2,000,000 to the Claimant but claimed that the 5% as solidarity contribution (i.e. EUR 100,000) should be deducted from said amount. 16. In this context, the Single Judge was keen to emphasise that as a general rule, only amounts which were already paid as solidarity contribution by the new club, i.e. the Respondent, to the training clubs of the player can be deducted from the amount of transfer compensation due to the Claimant. 17. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that, during the course of the present proceedings, the Respondent had not provided any evidence demonstrating that it had paid any amount as solidarity contribution to the training clubs of the player. 18. However, the Single Judge took note that within the frame of a solidarity contribution case in front of the DRC, the Respondent had provided evidence that it had paid a total amount of EUR 51,920 to the following training clubs of the player: Club C, Club D. 19. In view of all the above, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent should therefore be entitled to deduct the amount of EUR 51,920 already paid to the training clubs as solidarity contribution from the outstanding transfer compensation of EUR 2,000,000. Therefore, the Single Judge held that the claim of the Claimant should be partially accepted and that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the total amount of EUR 1,948,080 (i.e. EUR 2,000,000 minus EUR 51,920). 20. 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. 21. In this regard, the Single Judge reiterated that the Claimant’s request was partially accepted. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that both parties have to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 22. 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 of EUR 2,036,300. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 23. Considering that the case at hand allowed to be dealt with following a reasonable procedure and that the matter did show particular factual difficulty, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 15,000. 24. In conclusion, and in line with the aforementioned, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant must pay the amount of currency of country H 3,000 and the Respondent must pay the amount of currency of country H 12,000 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, Club A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club B, has to pay to the Claimant, Club A, the amount of EUR 1,948,080, 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 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. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Club A, are rejected. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 15,000 are to be paid within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1 The amount of currency of country H 3,000 has to be paid by the Claimant, Club A. Given that the latter already paid an advance of costs in the amount of currency of country H 5,000 at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant is exempted from paying the above-mentioned costs of the proceedings. 5.2 The amount of currency of country H 10,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, Club B, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XX-XXXXX: 5.3 The amount of currency of country H 2,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, Club B, directly to the Claimant, Club A. 6. Club A, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club B, directly and immediately of the account number to which the remittance under points 2 and 5.3 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