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 26 August 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country J as Claimant against the club, Club N, from country S as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player L

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 26 August 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country J as Claimant against the club, Club N, from country S as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player L I. Facts of the case 1. On 2 July 2013, Club A, from country J (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the Club N, from country S (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded a transfer agreement for the transfer of the player L (hereinafter: the player) from the Claimant to the Respondent. 2. In accordance with the transfer agreement, the Respondent would pay the Claimant the total amount of USD 400,000 as follows: - USD 150,000 on 23 July 2013; - USD 150,000 on 30 October 2013; - USD 100,000 on 26 March 2014. 3. On 20 February 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, indicating that the latter had, so far, only paid the amount of USD 50,000. As a result, the Claimant claimed the total amount of USD 350,000 from the Respondent. 4. On 31 March 2014, the Respondent replied to the claim indicating that it always had “good intentions”, but that there was not enough funds available. As a result, the Respondent has requested the country S Football Federation to deduct an amount of USD 130,000 “from the dues” and to deposit it on the Claimant’s account and offered to pay “the remaining USD 220,000” in two equal instalments of USD 110,000 in May and July 2014. 5. On 7 April 2014, the Claimant informed FIFA that it was not willing to negotiate an amicable solution. 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 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 2012 and 2014) as well as to the fact that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 20 February 2014, thus after 1 December 2012 but before 1 August 2014. Therefore, 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: 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 2012 and 2014 edition 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 20 February 2014. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 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 maintained that it is entitled to receive USD 350,000 from the Respondent, indicating that the Respondent had only paid the amount of USD 50,000 of the transfer compensation agreed upon in the transfer agreement dated 2 July 2013. 6. Moreover, the Single Judge took note that, in its reply, the Respondent did not dispute that a debt existed towards the Claimant, but that, due to its financial situation, it had not yet been able to pay the Claimant. 7. In this respect, the Single Judge ruled that the Respondent did not provide any valid argument which would justify the non-payment of the agreed transfer compensation and that, thus, the Respondent had failed to respect the terms of the transfer agreement it had entered into with the Claimant on 2 July 2013. The Single Judge emphasized that the Claimant’s rights could not be affected by the difficult financial situation of the Respondent. 8. In this context, the Single Judge emphasized once more that the Respondent had not provided any valid argument which would justify the non-payment of the remaining part of the transfer compensation in the amount of USD 350,000. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent had failed to respect the terms of the transfer agreement. 9. 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, and also considering that no documentation had been provided by the Respondent that the amount of USD 130,000 had eventually been paid to the Claimant, the Single Judge held that the Respondent has to pay the Claimant the amount of USD 350,000. 10. 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 C 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). 11. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the Claimant is the successful party in the present proceedings, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the full costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 12. 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 USD 350,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country C 25,000. 13. In conclusion, taking into account the degree of success as well as that the case at hand did not pose any particular factual difficulties, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 7,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent. ***** III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club N, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 350,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum is not paid within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5 % p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned deadline and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 7,000 are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 4.1. The amount of currency of country H 2,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 4.2. The amount of currency of country H 5,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent directly and immediately of the account number to which the remittances are to be made in accordance with the above points 2. and 4.2. 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