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 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 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 I (hereinafter: Company I), according to which Company I “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 H (hereinafter: Club H), concluded a transfer agreement for the transfer of the player from the Claimant to Club H 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 club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), for breach of rules of contractual stability and good faith requesting damages in the amount of EUR 3,000,000 as well as a fine and a transfer ban to be imposed on the Respondent. 6. The Claimant explained that the Respondent, via Company I, 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 the Respondent and Club H. According to the Claimant, on 2 August 2014, it received an offer from the Respondent amounting to EUR 10,000,000 plus bonuses for the transfer of the player. The Claimant explained that the parties agreed to conduct all negotiations directly between the clubs. However, on 7 August 2014, the Claimant was contacted via email by the CEO of Company I who wished to present an improved offer in the amount of EUR 17,000,000 on behalf of the Respondent. 7. The Claimant explained that, due to the alleged pressure and threats, “the player ended up being transferred to Club H, 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 3,000,000 (EUR 2,000,000 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 Players’ Status Committee is not competent to hear a request for disciplinary sanctions. Furthermore, the Respondent emphasized that it was contacted by Company I and not vice versa. In any case, the Respondent argued that there is no regulation which prohibits it from having contact with Company I. In continuation, the Respondent pointed out that it fails to understand how the Claimant has suffered damages caused by the Respondent if it transferred the player to Club H for an amount of EUR 20,000,000, which was significantly higher than the Respondent’s final offer of 7 August 2014 worth EUR 17,000,000. Finally, the Respondent expressed its understanding that the Claimant has mutually agreed upon a transfer with Club H and, therefore, no breach of contract occurred. 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 I, according to which Company I “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 the Claimant and Club H concerning the transfer of the player from the Claimant to Club H 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 3,000,000, indicating that it had been pressured and threatened by the Respondent, via Company I, 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 it fails to understand how the Claimant has suffered damages caused by the Respondent if it transferred the player to Club H for an amount of EUR 20,000,000, which was significantly higher than the Respondent’s final offer worth EUR 17,000,000. 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 2 August 2014 and 7 August 2014, the Respondent had offered EUR 10,000,000 plus bonuses and EUR 17,000,000, respectively, for the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent. 11. However, from the documentation on file, the Single Judge observed that, on 7 August 2014, the Claimant informed the Respondent via email that it rejected the aforementioned offers. Subsequently, the Claimant accepted the offer from Club H and freely concluded a transfer agreement for the transfer of the player from the Claimant to Club H for a transfer compensation of EUR 20,000,000. 12. At this point, the Single Judge turned his attention to the allegation of the Claimant that the Respondent, via Company I, had pressured and threatened the Claimant to transfer the player to one of the clubs that were interested in the services of the player. 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. In addition, the Single Judge failed to understand how those alleged actions of the Respondent were the reason for which the player was transferred to Club H below his alleged market value. 13. Equally, and with regard to the Claimant’s claim for damages amounting to EUR 3,000,000, 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. As a result, the Single Judge finds the allegations of the Claimant completely unfounded. 14. In view of all the foregoing, the Single Judge decided to reject the Claimant’s claim. 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 Claimant is the unsuccessful party in the present proceedings, the Single Judge concluded that the procedural costs are to be borne by the Claimant. 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 3,000,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 18. 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. 3. 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