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 21 May 2015, by Johan van Gaalen (South Africa) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, 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 21 May 2015, by Johan van Gaalen (South Africa) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the Player E I. Facts of the case 1. On 19 July 2012, the club from country B, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club from country F, Club G (hereinafter: Club G), concluded a transfer agreement for the transfer of the player, Player E (hereinafter: the player), from Club G to the Claimant for a transfer compensation of EUR 4,000,000. 2. Also on 19 July 2012, the Claimant and the player signed an employment contract which, inter alia, stipulated the following: “9. The player has the right to unilaterally terminate the present contract without the need to invoke just cause (…) under the following conditions: a) Termination may only take place during the periods understood to be between the 15th of May and the 15th of June of each sports season (…) b) Upon making this communication, an immediate payment of EUR 30,000,000 should be made to [the Claimant].” 3. On 23 August 2012, the Claimant signed an “Economic Rights Participation Agreement” with company H (hereinafter: company H), according to which company H “purchased 75% of the player’s economic rights for the amount of EUR 3,000,000”. 4. Furthermore, on 19 August 2014, the Claimant and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded a transfer agreement for the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent for a transfer compensation of EUR 20,000,000. 5. On 2 September 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for breach of rules of contractual stability and good faith requesting damages in the amount of EUR 9,000,000 as well as a fine and a transfer ban to be imposed on “Club I”. 6. The Claimant explained that company H had pressured and threatened the club to transfer the player to one of the clubs that were interested in the services of the player, among which were Club I and the Respondent. According to the Claimant, on 8 August 2014, it received an offer from the Respondent amounting to EUR 20,000,000 for the transfer of the player. The email containing the offer was sent in copy to company H which, according to the Claimant, implies that the Respondent was negotiating the transfer of the player with company H, therewith violating “every possible rule on player’s contractual stability and good faith”. Also on 8 August 2014, the Claimant scheduled a meeting with representatives from company H, during which it warned company H that its behaviour was causing serious harm to the Claimant since company H was inducing the player to be transferred for a much lower amount than his actual market value. Subsequently, according to the Claimant, company H continued pressuring and threatening the Claimant. In this respect, the Claimant argued that the Respondent had influenced company H “to provoke the instability, so as to induce the player’s breach of contract and so incite the transfer for a much lower amount”. 7. The Claimant explained that, due to the alleged pressure and threats, “the player ended up being transferred to [the Respondent], for 2/3rd (20M) of its termination clause (30M), as per clause 9 in the sports labor contract”. As a consequence, the Claimant suffered damages amounting to EUR 9,000,000 (EUR 8,000,000 for the player’s transfer below market value and EUR 1,000,000 for damages to its image). 8. In reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent firstly stated that “[the Claimant’s] claim in respect of alleged breaches of the FIFA Disciplinary Code is directed at Club I”, and should therefore be inadmissible and rejected. Furthermore, the Respondent pointed out that the Players’ Status Committee is not competent to hear a request for disciplinary sanctions. 9. As to the substance, the Respondent argued that it has already settled, on a full and final legally binding basis, any and all claims that the Claimant had against the Respondent. In this respect, the Respondent referred to clause 7(e) of the transfer agreement, which stipulates that the Respondent would pay the sum of EUR 20,000,000 “in full and final settlement of any and all claims it […] may have in respect of the Player’s registration with [the Respondent]”. The Respondent held that the Claimant consciously agreed to accept the terms of the transfer agreement and, by lodging its claim against the Respondent, is violating the principle of pacta sunt servanda. 10. Furthermore, the Respondent denied having induced the player to breach his employment contract with the Claimant and, in this respect, referred again to the transfer agreement that was freely concluded between the parties. In the event the Players’ Status Committee would find that the Respondent acted in breach of art. 17 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Respondent argued that the Claimant failed to provide any evidence of the alleged loss or damages suffered. 11. Finally, the Respondent argued that clause 9 of the player’s employment contract with the Claimant contained a liquidated damages clause to be payable in case of unilateral termination of the contract by the player, which is not indicative for his market value as alleged by the Claimant. In any case, no unilateral or unjust termination occurred since the parties agreed mutually on the player’s transfer. 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 (editions 2014 and 2015) as well as to the fact that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 2 September 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 and 2015 editions 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 2 September 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 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. 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 acknowledged that it was undisputed between the parties that, on 23 August 2012, the Claimant signed an “Economic Rights Participation Agreement” with company H, according to which company H “purchased 75% of the player’s economic rights for the amount of EUR 3,000,000”. 6. Equally, the Single Judge acknowledged that it was undisputed between the parties that, on 19 August 2014, a transfer agreement was concluded between them concerning the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent for the amount of EUR 20,000,000. 7. Having established the above, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant maintained that it was entitled to damages in the amount of EUR 9,000,000, indicating that it had been pressured and threatened by company H, influenced by the Respondent, which resulted in the acceptance by the Claimant of a lower transfer compensation for the transfer of the player than the actual market value of the player. 8. Equally, the Single Judge took note of the Respondent’s submission that the Claimant has freely concluded the transfer agreement for the transfer of the player with the Respondent. Furthermore, the Single Judge duly noted the Respondent’s argument that the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of the alleged loss or damages suffered. 9. After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, the Single Judge started by highlighting that, as a general principle, a contract is concluded because the parties, acting with free will and intent to be bound, reach agreement on the terms of their relationship. 10. In this respect, the Single Judge observed that negotiations took place between the Claimant and the Respondent, with the aim of finding an agreement in order to transfer the player from the Claimant to the Respondent. Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that, on 8 August 2014, the Respondent had sent an email to the Claimant containing an offer in the amount of EUR 20,000,000 for the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent. 11. The Single Judge was eager to point out that, at this point in time, the Claimant could have simply rejected the aforementioned offer from the Respondent in case it deemed the player’s market value higher than EUR 20,000,000. 12. The Single Judge recalled that, on the contrary, on 19 August 2014, the Claimant accepted the offer from the Respondent and the parties freely concluded a transfer agreement for the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent for a transfer compensation of EUR 20,000,000. 13. At this point, the Single Judge turned his attention to the allegation of the Claimant that the Respondent had influenced company H “to provoke the instability, so as to induce the player’s breach of contract and so incite the transfer for a much lower amount”. In this respect, the Single Judge referred to the principle of the burden of proof explicitly stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, and stressed that the Claimant had not submitted any convincing evidence in this respect, nor that the Respondent had acted in bad faith. 14. Equally, and with regard to the Claimant’s claim for damages amounting to EUR 9,000,000, the Single Judge referred to the aforementioned principle of the burden of proof and held that the Claimant had not submitted any evidence in this respect. 15. In view of all the foregoing, the Single Judge decided to reject the Claimant’s claim. 16. 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). 17. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the Claimant is the unsuccessful party in the present proceedings, the Single Judge concluded that the procedural costs are to be borne by the Claimant. 18. 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 9,000,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 19. As a result, taking into account the particularities of the present matter as well as that the claim of the Claimant has been rejected, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 25,000, which shall be borne by the Claimant. ***** III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 25,000 are to be paid by the Claimant within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, 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 amount of CHF 20,000 is to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XXXX: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A ***** 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