F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2014-2015) – controversie tra società – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2014-2015) – 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 20 November 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, from country D as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the Player E

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2014-2015) – controversie tra società – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2014-2015) – 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 20 November 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, from country D as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the Player E I. Facts of the case 1. On 11 July 2013, the club from country B, Club A (hereafter: the Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereafter: the Respondent), concluded a transfer agreement for the transfer of the Player E (hereinafter: the player) from the Claimant to the Respondent. 2. In accordance with the transfer agreement, the Claimant would pay the Respondent the total amount of EUR 2,750,000 as follows: - EUR 1,500,000 on 20 July 2013; - EUR 750,000 on 30 December 2013; - EUR 500,000 on 30 June 2014. 3. Art. 2.1 of the transfer agreement reads as follows: “The aforementioned instalments amounts shall be paid by means of bank transfer into the following account: (…) Under such payment context, Club A shall submit to Club C, in advance to the above-listed payment instalments, a valid invoice for all sums payable under this agreement.” 4. Art. 2.3 of the transfer agreement stipulates that: “In case Club C fails to duly comply on time with the payment obligations referred on clause 2.1, Club A shall be entitled to receive from Club C, as a fine for such contractual non-compliance, an extra amount of EUR 10,000 per each day of payment’s delay (without any limit or amount), being the payment of such fine not subject/dependent on the issuance of any notice placing Club C into contractual default. The aforementioned daily fine foreseen in the present clause is mutually agreed and was negotiated and reached upon the parties’ sole responsibility and free conscious, being considered as fair and proportionate, also taking into consideration the fact that the PLAYER’s ITC shall be issued before any payment being made.” 5. On 6 August 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, indicating that the latter had failed to pay the third instalment of the transfer compensation which fell due on 30 June 2014. As a result, the Claimant requested payment of the amount of EUR 500,000 plus a fine of EUR 10,000 per each day “of the transfer fee payment delay as from 30 June 2014.” 6. The Claimant indicated that by means of an email dated 7 July 2014 it drew the Respondent’s attention to the lack or payment and that a financial penalty would be applied. 7. In reply to the claim lodged against it, the Respondent stated that it had paid the first two instalments to the Claimant, but that the latter had failed to send the invoice “of the last batch which deserved on 30 July 2014 after deducted the amount of solidarity contribution.” In this respect, the Respondent stressed that the email sent on 7 July 2014 did not include an invoice and that such email was only sent after the payment had already matured. Finally, the Respondent held that the Claimant “must provide respondent with invoice of last batch after deducting the amount of solidarity contribution in order to let the claimant to meet the payment of the amount.” 8. In its replica, the Claimant stressed that it had provided the Respondent on 29 July 2013 with an invoice for the total transfer compensation and submitted an invoice dated 20 July 2013 for the total amount of EUR 2,750,000. The Claimant held that the Respondent is acting in bad faith since it paid the first two instalments on the basis of such invoice and now refused to pay the third instalment on the basis of “the false inexistence of an invoice.” 9. Furthermore, the Claimant indicated that in the meantime the Respondent had paid the amount of EUR 150,000 on 5 September 2014. 10. Although having been granted the opportunity to reply to the replica of the Claimant, the Respondent did not provide any further statements. 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 edition of the Procedural Rules were applicable to the matter at 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 2014) as well as to the fact that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 6 August 2014. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the 2014 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: 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 is 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 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and, on the other hand, once again to the fact that the claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 6 August 2014. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2014 edition of the 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 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. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. First of all, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant initially maintained that it was entitled to receive EUR 500,000 from the Respondent, indicating that the Respondent had not yet paid the instalment of the transfer compensation that fell due on 30 June 2014 in full. However, during the procedures, the Claimant recognised having received an additional amount of EUR 150,000 on 5 September 2014. 6. Equally, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant deemed that, in accordance with art. 2.3 of the transfer agreement, it was entitled to a fine corresponding to EUR 10,000 per day as from 30 June 2014. 7. Moreover, the Single Judge observed that, in its reply, the Respondent did not dispute that a debt existed towards the Claimant, but that, contrary to that established in art. 2.1 of the contract, the Claimant had not sent it an invoice regarding the instalment that fell due on 30 June 2014. Equally, the Respondent deemed that the corresponding solidarity contribution needed to be deducted from the relevant instalment. 8. Having duly examined the argumentation and documentation put forward by both parties, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent did not dispute that it still owed the Claimant part of the 3rd instalment of the transfer compensation. However, the Respondent indicated that it wished to deduct solidarity contribution from the amount of EUR 500,000, later on reduced to EUR 350,000. 9. In this respect, the Single Judge pointed out that, as established in art. 21 in connection with art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, if a professional 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 distributed by the new club as a solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in his training and education over the years. 10. In continuation, the Single Judge referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which stipulates that any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof and noted that the Respondent had not provided any documentary evidence that it had indeed distributed 5% of the transfer compensation it had agreed upon with the Claimant to the club(s) involved in the player’s training and education over the years. In this context, the Single Judge considered that it is clearly not the purpose of the provisions regarding solidarity contribution that the new club, i.e. the Respondent, can simply retain 5% of the transfer compensation without distributing said 5% to the clubs involved in the training and education of the player. Taking into account all the foregoing, the Single Judge considered that the Respondent could not enrich itself by retaining 5% of the transfer compensation without first distributing such percentage as solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in the training and education of the player. 11. In view of the above, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent could not provide any evidence that it had in fact distributed the 5% of the relevant transfer compensation to the club(s) involved in the player’s training and education and decided to reject this argument of the Respondent. 12. Consequently, the Single Judge held that, 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 Respondent has to fulfill its contractual obligations towards the Claimant. Therefore, the Single Judge held that the Respondent has to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 350,000, which after the payment of the EUR 150,000 on 5 September 2014, corresponded to the outstanding part of the 3rd installment of the transfer fee. 13. In continuation, the Single Judge addressed the remaining request of the Claimant, namely, its request that the Respondent is condemned to pay a fine corresponding to EUR 10,000 per day. In this regard, the Single Judge firstly reiterated that art. 2.1 of the transfer agreement reads as follows: “The aforementioned instalments amounts shall be paid by means of bank transfer into the following account: (…) Under such payment context, Club A shall submit to Club C, in advance to the above-listed payment instalments, a valid invoice for all sums payable under this agreement.” 14. In this context, the Single Judge ruled that the Claimant’s request for the fine was to be rejected in view of the content of art. 2.1 of the agreement in combination with the fact that the Claimant had not provided the Respondent with an invoice for the 3rd instalment prior to 30 June 2014. In the opinion of the Single Judge, art. 2.1 of the transfer agreement dictated the Claimant to provide the Respondent with a separate invoice for every single payment. Since the Claimant failed to provide such invoice, the Single Judge was of the opinion that the fine corresponding to EUR 10,000 per day could not be applied. 15. 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 CHF 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). 16. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant is only partially accepted, the Single Judge concluded that both parties have to bear a part of the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 17. 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 EUR 500,000 plus the fine of EUR 10,000 per day. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 18. In conclusion, and considering the particularities of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 20,000. Furthermore, and in line with his aforementioned considerations and taking into account the degree of success, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid by the Claimant and the amount of CHF 15,000 by the Respondent. ***** 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 C, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 350,000, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned number 2. is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will apply as of the expiry of the stipulated time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The final costs of the proceedings, amounting to CHF 20,000, are to be paid within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1. The amount of CHF 15,000 has to be paid by the Respondent to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no.: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 5.2. The amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of CHF 5,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant does not have to pay any additional amount as costs of the proceedings. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent directly and immediately of the account number to which the remittance is to be made in accordance with the above point 2. and to notify the Single Judge of 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