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 23 September 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club O, from country F as Claimant against the club, Club P, from country I as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the player B

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 23 September 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club O, from country F as Claimant against the club, Club P, from country I as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the player B I. Facts of the case 1. On 29 June 2012, Club O, from country F (hereinafter: the Claimant) and Club P, from country I (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded a transfer agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) for the transfer of the player B (hereinafter: the player), from the Claimant to the Respondent against payment of transfer compensation in the amount of EUR 2,500,000. 2. The agreement inter alia provided for a “sell-on-clause”, stipulating the following: “(…) 3.4. [The Claimant] will receive an incentive of 20% (…) of the amount of any compensation benefiting to [the Respondent] relating to: - Any financial arrangements resulting from the signature of a temporary transfer to another club. - Any departure of the [player] before the expiration of his employment contract with [the Respondent]. - Furthermore, if [the Respondent] completes a final transfer of the [player], [the Claimant] will receive 20% earn out on the capital gain on sales arising from the transfer, defined as follow: the profit is the sum resulting from the difference between the permanent transfer amount and additional variable amounts eventually paid to [the Claimant] by [the Respondent] and the amount specified in the transfer agreement signed between [the Respondent] and the new acquiring club. In additional, it is clearly specified that [the Claimant] will receive 20% earn out on any additional variable amount subsequently received by the [the Respondent] from the acquiring club after the permanent transfer has occurred. In this regard, it is clearly understood that [the Respondent] commits to provide [the Claimant] with a copy of any contractual agreements relating to the [player]. (…) Moreover, the agreement stipulated the following “penalty clause”. “(…) 3.5. In case of disrespect of the above obligations mentioned in article 3.3 and in article 3.4, no matter if it would have been caused by any justifiable fact, fact of right or case of force majeure, [the Respondent] will pay penalties to [the Claimant] consisting in both legal penalties defined below and a lump sum of 10% of the total due variable amount after more than 7 calendar days of payment delay. (...) In addition, the agreement stipulated the following clause: “(…) Article 7 - Disputes Disputes arising from this Agreement shall be subject to the court of competent jurisdiction.” 3. On 5 July 2013, the Respondent and the Club M, from country I (hereinafter: Club M), concluded an agreement (hereinafter: second agreement) regarding the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Club M. Said second agreement bears the letterhead of the Serie A, is titled “Change of Registration form”, indicates “permanent with co-ownership agreement” and stipulates the following: “(…) Total amount of the transaction: € 11,500,000” - Payment: triennial Sportive season 2013/2014: € 3,800,000 Sportive season 2014/2015: € 3,900,000 Sportive season 2015/2016: € 3,800,000 (…)” 4. Also on 5 July 2013, Club M and the Respondent signed a “co-ownership agreement” which also bears the letterhead of the Serie A and stipulates the following: “The Club [Club M], holder of the rights to the sporting services of [the player] following the permanent transfer of the contract duly stipulated with [the Respondent] acknowledges to the latter club, which accepts, a right of co-ownership, at the rate of 50%, in the property effects resulting from the ownership of this contract. The consideration for the transfer of the co-ownership right is fixed at the total sum of: € 5,750,000 (…) which the club [the Respondent] undertakes to pay, through the appropriate League, at the required deadlines in yearly instalment (…): 2013-2014 € 1,900,000 2014/2015 € 1,950,000 2015/2016 € 1,900,000 (…)” 5. Also on 5 July 2013, the Respondent and Club M concluded a loan agreement regarding the player C from the Respondent to Club M. Said loan agreement bears the letterhead of the Serie A and indicates that no compensation is due. 6. On 8 January 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim at FIFA, requesting from the Respondent the payment of the following amounts: - EUR 1,800,000 based on art. 3.4 of the agreement; - EUR 180,000 based on art. 3.5 of the agreement; - interest at a rate of 5% p.a. on the abovementioned amounts as of 6 September 2013. Furthermore, the Claimant requests from the Respondent the payment of the following additional amounts: - EUR 700,000 based on art. 3.4 of the agreement; - EUR 70,000 based on art. 3.5 of the agreement; - interest at a rate of 5% p.a. on the abovementioned amounts as of the date of the claim. 7. In support of its claim, the Claimant stated that on 5 July 2013, the player was transferred from the Respondent to Club M against the payment of transfer compensation in the amount of EUR 11,500,000. Consequently, the Claimant held that based on art. 3.4 of the agreement, the Respondent is obliged to pay the amount of EUR 1,800,000 ([EUR 11,500,000 - EUR 2,500,000] * 20%) to the Claimant. 8. In addition, the Claimant argued that since the Respondent failed to comply with its contractual obligations, the latter club also has to pay 10% of the outstanding amount of EUR 1,800,000, i.e. the amount of EUR 180,000 to the Claimant, based on the penalty clause as stipulated in art. 3.5 of the agreement. 9. As to its request regarding interest on the abovementioned amounts, the Claimant explained said interest at a rate of 5% p.a. has to be calculated as of the date when the Respondent was put in default via e-mail on 6 September 2013. In this regard, the Claimant provided FIFA with a copy of the relevant e-mail. 10. Moreover, the Claimant argued that the actual value of the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Club M was higher than the amount stipulated in the relevant transfer agreement between the Respondent and Club M. In this context, the Claimant explained that at the same time the abovementioned transfer was executed, the Respondent and Club M concluded a second agreement regarding the loan of the player C from the Respondent to Club M without payment of any compensation whatsoever. In view of the skill, the experience and the former clubs of the player (e.g. Club R., Club A), the Claimant stressed that under no circumstances would the Respondent have loaned the player to another club without receiving any compensation. On the contrary, the Claimant deems that the normal value of such a transaction would have been between EUR 3,000,000 and EUR 4,000,000. Therefore, an additional EUR 3,500,000 has to be added to the actual amount of transfer compensation. Consequently, the additional amount of EUR 700,000 ([EUR 11,500,000 + EUR 3,500,000 - EUR 2,500,000] * 20% - EUR 1,800,000) is payable by the Respondent to the Claimant. 11. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that also for the default in payment of the amount of EUR 700,000, art. 3.5 of the agreement applies. Therefore, the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 70,000 (EUR 700,000 * 10%) pertaining to the aforementioned penalty clause. 12. In its reply, the Respondent contested the competence of the Players’ Status Committee. In this regard, the Respondent pointed to art. 7 of the agreement which stipulates that “disputes arising from this Agreement shall be subject to the court of competent jurisdiction” and stressed that said clause is too vague to constitute the competence of the Players’ Status Committee. 13. Moreover, the Respondent argued that the player was not permanently transferred to Club M, which is why the “sell-on-clause” in article 3.4 of the agreement is not applicable. In this regard, the Respondent argued that it only signed a “co-ownership” or, alternatively, a “permanent transfer with co-ownership agreement” with Club M. Said “co-ownership” should explicitly exclude the possibility of a permanent transfer of the player to Club M. On the contrary, according to art. 102bis of the Internal Organization Rules of the country I Football Federation and the “co-ownership agreement”, both the Respondent and Club M have the possibility to (re-)purchase the 50% “share” of the player to become the sole owner of the player’s sporting rights. Consequently, due to the “co-ownership agreement”, the transfer of the player to Club M cannot be described as permanent since “the fate of the player (re-entry in [Club M] or return to [the Respondent]) and the economic agreements between the clubs in relation to the same would appear to be still very uncertain and/or undefined, being still under discussion and susceptible of change.” 14. Furthermore, as to the transfer compensation paid by Club M to the Respondent based on the second agreement, the latter club argued that the transfer compensation stipulated in the second agreement was payable in three instalments, of which until now only the first two instalments in the total amount of EUR 7,700,000 have fallen due. Moreover, the Respondent held that Club M “has only made a definitive commitment to pay EUR 5,750,000 while the remaining sum of EUR 5,750,000 theoretically owed to [the Respondent] is, at the current time, only a hypothetical possibility.” Therefore, in case that there was a permanent transfer of the player, the Claimant could only claim its share of the amounts the Respondent has already effectively received. Consequently, in case the Players’ Status Committee would decide that there was a definitive transfer triggering the “sell-on-clause” of the agreement, the Respondent would only be obliged to pay the maximum amount of EUR 150,348. However, since the Claimant did not provide any statements as to an alternative reduced claim, the claim of the Claimant should be rejected in its entirety for reasons of ultra petita. 15. As to the loan of the player Player C, the Respondent argued that the transfers of the player and the player C are totally unconnected and separate from each other. Since the Claimant did not provide any evidence or proof for its allegation regarding the connection between the two transactions or any “hidden capital gain”, said allegation should be disregarded. 16. In its replica, the Claimant argued that the Players’ Status Committee is already competent due to art. 22 lit. f) and art. 23 par. 1 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) which stipulates that the Players’ Status Committee is competent to hear disputes between clubs belonging to different associations that do not fall within the cases provided for in art. 22 lit. a), d) and e). Moreover, the Claimant stressed that the Respondent did not indicate under which jurisdiction the dispute at hand should fall, which, according to French and country I law, is obligatory if the incompetence of a judicial body is invoked. 17. Furthermore, the Claimant stressed that the sell-on-clause stipulated in the agreement did not provide for a “permanent transfer” of the player as indicated by the Respondent but for a “final transfer”. Therefore, all arguments by the Respondent pertaining to the alleged requirement of a permanent transfer are based on an erroneous assumption and should be disregarded, 18. Moreover, the Claimant pointed to the wording of the transfer agreement between the Respondent and Club M which contains the indication “permanent with co-ownership agreement”. Therefore, and in view of the fact that the agreement stipulates that the “sell-on-clause” is applicable “to any final transfer” of the player, the fact that the Respondent entered into a “sharing agreement” with Club M thereafter does not affect the applicability of the “sell-on-clause” on the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Club M. 19. Regarding the amount of transfer compensation upon which the sell-on-fee is to be based, the Claimant objected to the statements of the Respondent and argued that art. 3.4 of the agreement stipulates that the sell-on-fee shall be calculated “from the difference between the permanent transfer amount and additional variable amounts eventually paid to [the Claimant] by [the Respondent] and the amount specified in the transfer agreement signed between [the Respondent] and the new acquiring club.” In view of the above, the Claimant held that in order to calculate the sell-on-fee, the relevant amount for the calculation is the amount of transfer compensation indicated in the relevant transfer agreement between the Respondent and Club M, i.e. the amount of EUR 11,500,000. 20. As to the loan of the player C and the relevant additional amount claimed, the Claimant referred to its previous arguments. 21. In its final position, the Respondent reiterated its arguments regarding the lack of competence of the Players’ Status Committee and argued that, in absence of references to any sporting jurisdiction, “the ordinary court must be considered as having jurisdiction”. Therefore, the Players’ Status Committee should declare itself as not competent. 22. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the difference between a “permanent” and a “definitive” transfer derives from the English version of the agreement which, according to art. 6 of said agreement, is the prevalent and exclusive version to be considered binding for the parties. 23. Upon such request for clarification, the country I Football Federation confirmed that following the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent, the player was registered with its affiliated clubs as follows: - the Respondent from 10 August 2012 until 5 July 2013 (permanent) - Club M from 5 July 2013 until 31 January 2014 (permanent) - Club L from 31 January 2014 until 30 June 2014 (loan) - the Respondent from 1 July 2014 until now (return from loan). 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 present matter and noted that the Respondent had argued that FIFA should not hear the present matter as art. 7 of the agreement stipulates that “disputes arising from this Agreement shall be subject to the court of competent jurisdiction” which is why “the ordinary court must be considered as having jurisdiction”. In this respect, the Single Judge referred to art. 68 par. 2 of the FIFA Statutes (2013 edition) where it is stipulated that any recourse to ordinary courts of law is prohibited unless specifically provided for in the FIFA Regulations. Furthermore, the Single Judge confirmed that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 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 f) of the 2014 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. 2. His competence having been established, the Single Judge referred to art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the 2014 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 8 January 2014, 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) is applicable to the present matter. 3. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he referred to art. 26 par. 1 of the 2012 edition of the Regulations and again to the fact that the claim was lodged with FIFA on 8 January 2014. In view of this, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 edition of 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 matter, the Single Judge started by acknowledging the abovementioned facts as well as the arguments provided by the parties and the documentation contained in the file. 5. In this respect, and first of all, the Single Judge noted that on 29 June 2012, the parties concluded a transfer agreement for the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent for an amount of EUR 2,500,000. 6. Moreover, the Single Judge noted that art. 3.4. of the transfer contract further provided that in case the player would be transferred from the Respondent to a third club, the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant 20% of the amount exceeding the amount of EUR 2,500,000. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that said transfer contract further stipulated that “in case of disrespect of the above obligations mentioned in article 3.3 and in article 3.4, no matter if it would have been caused by any justifiable fact, fact of right or case of force majeure, [the Respondent] will pay penalties to [the Claimant] consisting in both legal penalties defined below and a lump sum of 10% of the total due variable amount after more than 7 calendar days of payment delay.” 7. Additionally, the Single Judge took note that it remained undisputed between the parties that on 5 July 2013, the Respondent concluded a contract with Club M according to which the latter would pay the amount of EUR 11,500,000 to the Respondent for the transfer of the player, payable in three instalments of EUR 3,800,000, EUR 3,900,000 and EUR 3,800,000, payable during the sporting seasons 2013/2014, 2014/2015 and 2015/2016, respectively. 8. Subsequently, the Single Judge observed that also on 5 July 2013, the Respondent and Club M signed a “co-ownership agreement” which, inter alia, stipulated the following: “The Club [Club M], holder of the rights to the sporting services of [the player] following the permanent transfer of the contract duly stipulated with the club [Club P] acknowledges to the latter club, which accepts, a right of co-ownership, at the rate of 50%, in the property effects resulting from the ownership of this contract. The consideration for the transfer of the co-ownership right is fixed at the total sum of: € 5,750,000 (…) which the club [Club P] undertakes to pay, through the appropriate League, at the required deadlines in yearly instalment (…): 2013-2014 € 1,900,000 2014/2015 € 1,950,000 2015/2016 € 1,900,000 (…)” 9. Likewise, the Single Judge noted that also on 5 July 2013, the Respondent and Club I concluded a loan agreement regarding the player C from the Respondent to Club M. In this respect, the Single Judge took note of the fact that said loan agreement bears the letterhead of the Serie A and indicates that not compensation is due. 10. Having taking into account the above, the Single Judge reverted to the arguments raised by the parties and noted that the Claimant is first of all requesting 20% of the difference between EUR 11,500,000 and EUR 2,500,000, i.e. the amount of EUR 1,800,000 plus interest at a rate of 5% per year as of 6 September 2013 based on article 3.4. of the agreement. Moreover, the Single Judge also noted that the Claimant is further claiming the amount of EUR 180,000 as a penalty, based on article 3.5. of the agreement. 11. Furthermore, the Single Judge acknowledged the argument of the Claimant, according to which the full amount of EUR 11,500,000 should be taken into account when calculating the amount due from the sell-on-clause since art. 3.4. of the agreement stipulates that the calculation should be based on “the difference between the permanent transfer amount and additional variable amounts eventually paid to [the Claimant] by [the Respondent] and the amount specified in the transfer agreement signed between [the Respondent] and the new acquiring club”. Therefore, and given that the agreement between the Respondent and Club M is titled “permanent [transfer] with co-ownership agreement”, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant firstly emphasized that a permanent transfer of the player as stipulated in art. 3.4. of the agreement had occurred and, secondly, that only the amounts from this agreement should be looked at, regardless of any other additional agreement signed between the Respondent and Club M at the same time or subsequently. 12. Concerning the arguments raised by the Respondent, the Single Judge observed that the latter argued in essence that the player was never actually “transferred” to Club M and that only a “co-ownership agreement” was concluded, this in accordance with art. 102bis of the country I Football Federation. Furthermore, the Single Judge took due note that the Respondent argued that the “permanent transfer with co-ownership agreement” concluded with Club M should explicitly exclude the possibility of a permanent transfer of the player to Club M. On the contrary, according to art. 102bis of the Internal Organization Rules of the country I Football Federation (hereinafter: country I Football Federation) and the “co-ownership agreement”, both the Respondent and Club M should have the possibility to (re-) purchase the 50% “share” of the player to become the sole owner of the player’s sporting rights. Consequently, due to the “co-ownership agreement”, the transfer of the player to Club M cannot be described as permanent since “the fate of the player (re-entry in [Club M] or return to [the Respondent] and the economic agreements between the clubs in relation to the same would appear to be still very uncertain and/or undefined, being still under discussion and susceptible of change.” 13. Furthermore, as to the amount which should be taken into account when calculating a possible “sell-on-fee”, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent alternatively argued that first of all only the first two installments of the agreed compensation between it and Club M in the amount of EUR 7,700,000 have fallen due and that secondly, this amount needs to be reduced by the amounts agreed in the “co-ownership agreement”, i.e. by the amount of EUR 5,750,000 as the Respondent allegedly “only made a definitive commitment to pay EUR 5,750,000 while the remaining sum of EUR 5,750,000 theoretically owed to [the Respondent] is, at the current time, only a hypothetical possibility.” Therefore, in case the Single Judge would consider the “sell-on-clause” as being triggered, only the amount of EUR 150,348 should be payable to the Claimant. 14. This being established, the Single Judge deemed that firstly, it was to be determined whether the sell-on-clause of art. 3.4. of the transfer agreement was actually triggered, i.e. if the player was formally transferred to Club M for an amount exceeding EUR 2,500,000. 15. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that it remained undisputed between the parties that, following the signature of the “Change of Registration form” of the Serie A by the Respondent and Club M, the player was registered on a permanent basis with Club M. Moreover, the Single Judge recalled that according to the information provided by the country I Football Federation, the player, after being registered with Club M on a permanent basis, was loaned to the Club L, form country I on 31 January 2014 before being permanently transferred back to the Respondent on 1 July 2014. 16. Based on the foregoing, the Single Judge was eager to emphasise that, following the signature of the “Change of Registration form” of the Serie A and the signature of the “co-ownership agreement”, the player first played for Club M and only returned to the Respondent on 1 July 2014, i.e. approximately one year after the signing of the aforementioned agreements between the Respondent and Club M. Consequently, and given the fact that the player was registered with Club M on the basis of the transfer agreement concluded with the Respondent and against the payment of transfer compensation, the Single Judge formed the belief that these circumstances clearly indicate that a transfer in the sense of art. 3.4. of the transfer agreement between the Claimant and the Respondent had taken place. In support of this argumentation, the Single Judge recalled the wording of the “co-ownership agreement” in which Club M is called the club “holder of the sporting services of the player following the permanent transfer”, which indicates that the registration was definitively transferred to Club M. With those considerations in mind, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that the “sell-on-clause” of said art. 3.4. of the agreement between the Claimant and the Respondent was triggered insofar as the requirement of the player having been the subject of a definitive transfer from the Respondent to a third club. 17. As a consequence of the above, the Single Judge deemed that, in order to calculate the correct amount of the “sell-on-fee” pertaining to art. 3.4. of the transfer agreement, the value of the transfer, i.e. the relevant transfer compensation needed to be determined. 18. In this context, the Single Judge reverted to art. 3.4. of the transfer agreement which stipulated that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant 20% of the amount exceeding the amount of EUR 2,500,000. 19. Moreover, the Single Judge recalled the arguments of the parties and noted that according to the Claimant, the amount of EUR 11,500,000 should be taken into account when calculating the “sell-on-fee” since said amount had been agreed between the Respondent and Club M in connection with the player’s transfer. Furthermore, the Single Judge acknowledged the argument of the Respondent that only the amount of EUR 150,348 was payable since, firstly, only the amount of EUR 7,700,000 has fallen due yet according to the agreement between it and Club M and that, secondly, the amount of EUR 5,750,000 had to be deducted from the amount at the basis of the calculation because said amount remained a pure “hypothetical possibility”. 20. In this context, and consistently with the aforementioned considerations for having concluded that the “sell-on-clause” has been triggered, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that the player’s registration on a permanent basis in favour of Club M and the repurchase of the 50% share pertaining to the sporting rights of the player by the Respondent as stipulated in the “co-ownership agreement” had to be regarded as two separate transactions reflecting two separate contractual agreements, which have to be regarded independently from each other when determining the value of the actual transfer of the player from the Respondent to Club M. 21. Consequently, the Single Judge deemed that the “co-ownership agreement” was not an integral part of the actual transfer of the player, i.e. only the latter agreement actually triggered the “sell-on-clause” of the transfer agreement. Therefore, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that, consequently, only the amounts stipulated in the “Change of Registration form” of the Serie A should be taken into account. 22. On that basis, and in view of the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Single Judge held that the Respondent must fulfil the obligation it freely entered into with the Claimant by means of the transfer agreement signed between the parties on 29 June 2012, and therefore, in light of art. 3.4. of said transfer agreement, must pay to the Claimant 20% of the amount exceeding the amount of EUR 2,500,000. Given that until now only the first two instalments of said compensation in the total amount of EUR 7,700,000 which were due to be paid as transfer compensation by Club M to the Respondent for the transfer of the player to Club M have fallen due, the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant 20% of EUR 5,200,000 (EUR 7,700,000 minus EUR 2,500,000), i.e. the amount of EUR 1,040,000 plus interest of 5% p.a. as of the date when the Respondent was put in default by the Claimant, i.e. as of 6 September 2014, as requested by the Claimant. 23. Subsequently, the Single Judge recalled that the Claimant was further claiming the amount of EUR 180,000 as a penalty, based on art. 3.5. of the agreement between it and the Respondent, due to the default in payment by the Respondent. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that said penalty clause of the agreement stipulated a “lump sum of 10% of the total due variable amount”. Consequently, given that the total outstanding amount was established in the amount of EUR 1,040,000, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 104,000 as a contractual penalty. Regarding the Claimants request to receive interest at a rate of 5% p.a. on this penalty, the Single Judge referred to the longstanding and well-established jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee, according to which no additional interest can be awarded on payments pertaining to contractual penalties, as this would constitute a double penalty. 24. In a next step, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant deemed that the actual value of the transaction, i.e. of the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Club M should be considered as even higher, given that the player C was loaned from the Respondent to Club M without payment of any loan compensation. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that according to the Claimant, the player C would never have been loaned to Club M without receiving any compensation, given the skills and the alleged “market value” of the player concerned. In this regard, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant deemed that the respective value of the loan of the player C from the Respondent to Club M should be evaluated at an amount between EUR 3,000,000 and EUR 4,000,000 and that therefore an additional amount of EUR 3,500,000 had to be added to the value of the transfer of the player to Club M. In concreto, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant is claiming the additional amount of EUR 700,000 [(EUR 11,500,000 + EUR 3,500,000 - EUR 2,500,000] * 20% - EUR 1,800,000). 25. However, the Single Judge also took note of the argument of the Respondent, according to which there was no link between the loan of the player C to Club M and the transfer of the player to Club M. Given that the Claimant did not provide sufficient proof for its allegations, the Single Judge acknowledged the Respondents argument that no “hidden capital gain” should be included in the calculation of the “sell-on-fee”. 26. After careful consideration of the arguments of both parties, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that he was not in a position to conclude that there was in fact no direct link between the transfer of the player and the loan of the player C from the Respondent to Club M. Consequently, and given that the mere fact that both transfers occurred within a short period of time could neither constitute a certain connection between the two transfers, nor remove the burden of proof from the Claimant regarding its allegations as established in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Single Judge decided to reject this additional claim of the Claimant. Consequently, and in view of the fact that the Claimant was also claiming a 10% contractual penalty regarding the above-mentioned amount of 700,000 and given that the Respondent has no obligation to make such payment of EUR 700,000 as established above (cf. II.25), the Single Judge decided to also reject the Claimants claim for a contractual penalty in the amount of EUR 70,000. 27. In view of all of the above, the Single Judge decided to partially accept the claim of the Claimant and held that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the following amounts: - the amount of EUR 1,040,000, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 6 September 2013, as established above in point II.22; - a contractual penalty of EUR 104,000 as established above in point II.23. 28. 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). 29. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant had been partially accepted, the Single Judge concluded that both the Claimant as well as the Respondent had to bear a part of the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 30. 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 2,750,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 31. In conclusion, and considering that the case at hand did pose some particular factual difficulties, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 25,000. Moreover, 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 currency of country H 12,500 has to be paid by the Claimant and the amount of currency of country H 12,500 by the Respondent 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 O, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. 3. The Respondent, Club P, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 1,040,000 plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 6 September 2013 until the date of effective payment. 4. If the aforementioned amount under point 3. plus interest 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 Respondent has to pay, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the penalty fee of EUR 104,000. 6. If the aforementioned amount under point 5. is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, interest at a 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 FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee, for consideration and a formal decision. 7. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected. 8. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 25,000 is to be paid, within 30 days as from the notification of the present decision, as follows: 8.1. The amount of currency of country H 12,500 by the Respondent to FIFA. 8.2. The amount of currency of country H 12,500 by the Claimant to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of currency of country H 5,000 as advance of costs at the beginning of the present proceedings, only the further amount of currency of country H 7,500 is to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA. 8.3. The abovementioned amounts (cf. points 8.1. and 8.2.) are to be paid to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 9. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 3. and 5. are to be made 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