F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2015-2016) – controversie tra società – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2015-2016) – club vs. club disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed on 10 November 2015, by Sunil Gulati (USA) 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 (2015-2016) – controversie tra società – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players’ Status Committee (2015-2016) – club vs. club disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed on 10 November 2015, by Sunil Gulati (USA) 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 20 June 2012, the club from country B, Club A (hereafter: Club A or the Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereafter: Club C or the Respondent), concluded a transfer agreement for the transfer of Player E from the Claimant to the Respondent. 2. Art. 3.3 of the transfer agreement stipulates: “Should the player be sold by Club C to another club then Club A shall receive 20% of any transfer fee received (including guaranteed sums and contingent fees). Club C agrees to disclose full details of any sale to Club A upon such occurring.” 3. On 7 July 2015, the player was transferred from the Respondent to the club from country F, Club G, for a transfer compensation of EUR 9,000,000 payable within “seven days of receiving the invoice.” 4. On 17 July 2015, the Claimant lodged a complaint in front of FIFA against the Respondent requesting payment of an amount equal to 20% of the transfer fee received by the Respondent from Club G. The Claimant explained that despite several reminders, the Respondent failed to reply to their communications and failed to make the relevant payment. 5. In reply to the claim, the Respondent confirmed that a transfer agreement had been concluded with Club G for a transfer compensation of EUR 9,000,000. However, the Respondent indicated that the transfer compensation of EUR 9,000,000 included the solidarity contribution, which would be distributed by the Respondent. Equally, the Respondent indicated that the transfer was concluded by an “Intermediary with a remuneration of EUR 270,000 (3% of the transfer fee) and has been paid by Club C to the intermediary.” In this respect, the Respondent provided an “Intermediation Agreement” dated 6 July 2015, which establishes that the relevant intermediary was entitled to “the total remuneration” of EUR 270,000. 6. Therefore, according to the Respondent, the following amounts should be deducted from the net transfer compensation of EUR 9,000,000: - EUR 270,000 concerning the intermediary’s remuneration, and - EUR 450,000 concerning the 5% solidarity contribution. 7. On account of all the above, the Respondent argued that the Claimant is only entitled to 20% of EUR 8,280,000, which equals the amount of EUR 1,656,000. 8. The Respondent further stated that the Claimant had not given it the opportunity to provide the above-mentioned calculation and, in addition, requested to pay the relevant amount in 4 instalments. 9. In its replica, the Claimant denied that it had never given the Respondent the possibility to discuss a settlement as it had contacted the Respondent numerous times, but to no avail. The Claimant further rejected the Respondent’s proposal to make the payment in 4 instalments as the Respondent had clearly received the EUR 9,000,000 from Club G in one instalment. 10. As to the method of calculation of the sell-on fee, the Claimant argued that the payments made by the Respondent following receipt of the transfer compensation are of no relevance. 11. Although having been requested to do so, no further submissions as to the substance of the matter were received from the Respondent. 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 Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) were applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 of the Procedural Rules as well as to the fact that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 17 July 2015. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the 2015 edition of the 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 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 17 July 2015. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2015 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand. 3. Furthermore, the Single Judge confirmed that, based on art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 as well as art. 22 lit. f) of the Regulations, he was competent to deal with the present matter since it concerns 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 that 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 a sell-on fee in the amount of EUR 1,800,000, which corresponds to 20% of the transfer fee paid by Club G to the Respondent for the transfer of the player. 6. Equally, the Single Judge observed that, in its reply, the Respondent did not dispute that in accordance with art. 3.3 of the transfer agreement, a sum of money is due to the Claimant. In fact, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent solely disputed the amount that should be considered as the basis on which the sell-on fee is calculated. In particular, the Respondent deemed that prior to calculating the sell-on fee, one should deduct the total amount of EUR 720,000 from the transfer compensation of EUR 9,000,000, namely: i) EUR 270,000 in relation to a payment made to an intermediary, and ii) EUR 450,000 in relation to the distribution of the solidarity contribution. 7. Having recalled the aforementioned, the Single Judge first wished to emphasise that it remained undisputed by the Respondent that it received the full amount of EUR 9,000,000 from Club G. 8. In this context, the Single Judge referred to the wording of art. 3.3 of the transfer agreement which stipulates: “Should the player be sold by Club C to another club then Club A shall receive 20% of any transfer fee received (including guaranteed sums and contingent fees). Club C agrees to disclose full details of any sale to Club A upon such occurring.” (emphasis added) 9. The Single Judge finds that the content of art. 3.3 of the transfer agreement is clear; it states that the Claimant shall receive 20% of “any transfer fee received”. Said article does not contain any references to possible deductions prior to the calculation of the sell-on fee. The Single Judge observes that the Respondent received EUR 9,000,000 for the transfer of the player and does not see any reason why an alleged payment made by the Respondent to an intermediary should be deducted from the transfer compensation, prior to making the calculation regarding the sell-on fee. What is more, the Single Judge fails to understand why the Respondent, as the player’s former club in the transfer of the player to Club G, is claiming that it has to distribute any amounts relating to the solidarity mechanism. 10. On account of the above, and referring once more to the clear content of art. 3.3 of the transfer agreement, the Single Judge is of the opinion that the sellon fee shall be calculated on the basis of a transfer compensation of EUR 9,000,000. 11. As a consequence of the aforementioned and 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 Single Judge finds that the Respondent has to fulfill its contractual obligations towards the Claimant. Therefore, the Single Judge concludes that the Respondent has to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 1,800,000, corresponding to 20% of the transfer compensation paid by Club G to the Respondent. 12. 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). 13. 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. 14. 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 1,800,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 15. In conclusion, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee determined the costs of the proceedings to the amount of CHF 15,000, 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 C, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 1,800,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant in accordance with the abovementioned 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. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 15,000 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 CHF 10,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 4.2. The amount of CHF 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: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS directives