F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2015-2016) – debiti scaduti – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2015-2016) – overdue payables – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed on 16 November 2015 by Mr 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 in connection with overdue payables

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2015-2016) – debiti scaduti – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players’ Status Committee (2015-2016) – overdue payables – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed on 16 November 2015 by Mr 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 in connection with overdue payables I. Facts of the case 1. On 29 July 2014, the Club of Country B, Club A (hereinafter: “the Claimant”), and the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent”) signed a transfer agreement (hereinafter: “the agreement”) regarding the Player E (hereinafter: “the player”) from the Claimant to the Respondent. 2. In accordance with the agreement, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant the total amount of USD 350,000, payable in the following dates: a. USD 100,000 by 31 August 2014; b. USD 100,000 by 30 December 2014; c. USD 150,000 by 30 May 2015. 3. On 21 September 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA explaining to have already received from the latter the first instalment amounting to USD 100,000 and asking that the Respondent be ordered to pay overdue payables in the amount of USD 250,000, corresponding to USD 100,000 due on 30 December 2014 and to USD 150,000 due on 30 May 2015 as well as legal expenses. 4. Furthermore, the Claimant explained having put the Respondent in default of payment for a sum of EUR 250,000 by means of a correspondence dated 25 September 2015 which was received by the latter on 29 September 2015, setting a time limit of 10 days in order to remedy the default. 5. Finally, the Claimant asked to be awarded interest of 5% p.a. as of the relevant due dates of the respective instalments, i.e. as from 31 December 2014 and 1 June 2015 respectively until the dates of effective payment. 6. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not reply to the claim. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Player’s Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Player’s Status Committee (hereinafter: “the Single Judge”) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 21 September 2015. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015; hereinafter: “the Procedural Rules”) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 and par. 3 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. f of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015) he is competent to deal with the present matter, which concerns a dispute between two clubs affiliated to different associations. 3. Furthermore, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 21 September 2015, the 2015 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: ”the Regulations”) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the Single Judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Single Judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. 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. Having said this, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed the agreement, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, inter alia, the total amount of USD 350,000, payable in the following dates: a) USD 100,000 by 31 August 2014; b) USD 100,000 by 30 December 2014; c) USD 150,000 by 30 May 2015. 6. The Single Judge further acknowledged that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, maintaining that the Respondent has overdue payables towards it in the total amount of USD 250,000, corresponding to the instalments amounting to USD 100,000 and USD 150,000 due on 30 December 2014 and 30 May 2015 respectively. 7. In this context, the Single Judge took particular note of the fact that, on 29 September 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the aforementioned amounts, setting a time limit of ten days in order to remedy the default. 8. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant had duly proceeded in accordance with art. 12bis par. 3 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the creditor (player or club) must have put the debtor club in default in writing and have granted a deadline of at least ten days for the debtor club to comply with its financial obligations. 9. Subsequently, the Single Judge took into account that the Respondent, for its part, failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so. In this way, the Single Judge considered that the Respondent renounced its right to defence and thus accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 10. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the Single Judge concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules he shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 11. In continuation, the Single Judge acknowledged that, in accordance with the agreement provided by the Claimant, the Respondent was obliged to pay to the Claimant the rest of the compensation agreed, thus the amount of USD 250,000 in two instalments, i.e. USD 100,000 on 30 December 2014 at the latest as well as USD 150,000 on 30 May 2015. 12. Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of its petition, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant had substantiated its claim pertaining to overdue payables with sufficient documentary evidence. 13. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the Single Judge established that the Respondent failed to remit total amount of USD 250,000 payable to the Claimant. 14. In addition, the Single Judge established that the Respondent had delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis. 15. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant overdue payables in the total amount of USD 250,000. 16. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Players’ Status Committee, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. over each of the instalments amounting to USD 100,000 and USD 150,000 as from 31 December 2014 and 1 June 2015, respectively, until the dates of effective payment. 17. As to the Claimant’s request for legal costs, the Single Judge rejected such request in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, which stipulates that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of FIFA’s decisionmaking bodies. 18. In continuation, taking into account the consideration under number II./14 above, the Single Judge referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations which stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations. 19. The Single Judge established that in virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations he has competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. Bearing in mind that the Respondent did not reply to the claim of the Claimant and that the Respondent has previously been found to have neglected its contractual obligations, the Single Judge decided to impose a fine on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. c) of the Regulations. Furthermore, taking into consideration the amount due of USD 250,000, the Single Judge regarded a fine amounting to CHF 45,000 as appropriate and hence decided to impose said fine on the Respondent. 20. In this connection, the Single Judge wished to highlight that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty in accordance with art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations. 21. Finally, 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 and which states that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and are normally to be paid by the unsuccessful party. 22. Taking into account that the responsibility of the failure to comply with the payment of the amounts as agreed in the agreement can entirely be attributed to the Respondent and that the Claimant has been the successful party, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 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 250,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 23. Considering the particular circumstances of the present matter, bearing in mind that the Respondent did not reply to the claim of the Claimant, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 25,000 and concluded that said amount has to be paid by the Respondent in order 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 A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, Club A, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, overdue payables in the amount of USD 250,000, plus interest as follows: • 5% p.a. over the amount of USD 100,000 from 31 December 2014 until the date of effective payment; • 5% p.a. over the amount of USD 150,000 from 1 June 2015 until the date of effective payment. 3. If the aforementioned sums, plus interest, are not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Club A, are rejected. 5. The Respondent, Club C, is ordered to pay a fine in the amount of CHF 45,000, within 30 days as from the notification of the present decision to FIFA. 6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 25,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club C, within 30 days as from the notification of the present decision, as follows: 6.1 The amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid to the Claimant, Club A. 6.2 The amount of CHF 20,000 to FIFA. 7. The abovementioned amounts under points 5. and 6.2 are to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 8. The Claimant, Club A, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club C, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under point 2. and 6.1 are to be made and to notify 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: Marco Villiger Acting Deputy Secretary General Encl: CAS directives