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 2 June 2016, by Mr Sunil Gulati (USA) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, A, country E represented by xxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country T as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties in connection with overdue payables I.

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 2 June 2016, by Mr Sunil Gulati (USA) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, A, country E represented by xxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country T as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties in connection with overdue payables I. Facts of the case 1. On 10 August 2015, the club from country E, A (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the club from country T, B (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed a transfer agreement regarding the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent. 2. In accordance with the transfer agreement, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant a transfer fee in the amount of EUR 3,150,000 payable in two instalments as follows: - EUR 1,050,000 upon the player’s registration with the Respondent; - EUR 1,050,000 on 31 January 2016; - EUR 1,050,000 on 1 June 2016. 3. By correspondence dated 17 March 2016, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the second instalment in the amount of EUR 1,050,000 setting a 10 days’ time limit in order to remedy the default. 4. On 15 March 2016, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA asking that the Respondent be ordered to pay to it overdue payables in the amount of EUR 1,050,000 corresponding to the second instalment of the agreed transfer compensation. 5. The Claimant further asked to be awarded interest of 5% p.a. from 1 February 2016 and that the Respondent be ordered to pay procedural costs. 6. In its reply, the Respondent stated that it was going through financial difficulties and tried to agree on a new payment plan with the Claimant without success. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Player’s 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 matter at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 15 March 2016. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015; hereinafter: 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 2016) 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 15 March 2016, the 2015 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: 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 a transfer agreement, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, inter alia, the total amount of EUR 3,150,000 payable in 3 instalments (cf. point I. 2) 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 EUR 1,050,000 corresponding to the second instalment of the agreed transfer compensation. 7. In this context, the Single Judge took particular note of the fact that, on 17 March 2016, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the second instalment of the agreed transfer compensation in the amount of EUR 1,050,000, setting a time limit of 10 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, held that it was going through financial difficulties and tried to agree on a new payment plan with the Claimant without success. 10. In this regard, the Single Judge considered that the answer sent by the Respondent, which was received after expiry of the deadline only, cannot be considered a valid reason for non-payment of the monies claimed by the Claimant, in order words, the reasons brought forward by the Respondent in its defence do not exempt the Respondent from its obligation to fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant. 11. Consequently, the Single Judge decided to reject the argumentation put forward by the Respondent in its defence. 12. Having said this, the Single Judge acknowledged that, in accordance with the transfer agreement, the Respondent was obliged to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 3,150,000 payable in 3 instalments, each in the amount of EUR 1,050,000. 13. 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. 14. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the Single Judge established that the Respondent failed to remit the amount of EUR 1,050,000 payable to the Claimant and corresponding to the second instalment established in the transfer agreement. 15. 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. 16. 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 EUR 1,050,000. 17. 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 the outstanding amount in the amount of EUR 1,050,000 as from 1 February 2016 until the date of effective payment. 18. Furthermore, as regards the claimed procedural costs, the Single Judge referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to the long-standing and well-established jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee, in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Players’ Status Committee. Consequently, the Single Judge decided to reject the Claimant’s request relating to procedural costs. 19. In continuation, taking into account the consideration under number II./15. 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. 20. The Single Judge established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations he has competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. Bearing in mind that the Respondent replied to the claim of the Claimant, albeit late, the Single Judge decided to impose a warning on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations. 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. Taking into account that the responsibility of the failure to comply with the payment of the amounts as agreed in the transfer agreement can entirely be attributed to the Respondent, 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 EUR 1,050,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 24. Considering the particular circumstances of the present matter, bearing in mind the degree of success of the Claimant as well as that the Respondent answered after expiry of the deadline only, 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 B, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, overdue payables in the amount EUR 1,050,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 1 February 2016 until the date of effective payment. 3. If the aforementioned amount 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. 4. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 25,000 is to be paid by the Respondent, within 30 days as from the notification of the present decision, as follows: a) The amount of CHF 5,000 by the Respondent to the Claimant. b) The amount of CHF 20,000 to FIFA to the following bank account of with reference to case no.: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under point 2. and 4.a) are to be made and to notify the Single Judge of every payment received. 6. A warning is imposed on the Respondent. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to article 58 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 Deputy Secretary General Encl: CAS directives