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 20 November 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club Z, from country B as Claimant against the club Club V, from country C, as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the player A I. Facts of the case 1.

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 20 November 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club Z, from country B as Claimant against the club Club V, from country C, as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the player A I. Facts of the case 1. On 28 June 2011, the country B club, Club Z (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the country C club, Club V (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded a transfer agreement for the transfer of the player, A (hereinafter: the player). 2. Article 4 of the transfer agreement stipulated that, for the definitive transfer of the player the Respondent had to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 1,000,000, payable in two instalments as follows: - EUR 600,000 at least on 5th July 2011 after receiving an invoice from the Claimant; - EUR 400,000 at least on 31st January 2012 after receiving an invoice from the Claimant. 3. Furthermore, article 5 of the transfer agreement reads as follows: “[The Claimant] confirms that the fee agreed in the above Article 4 completely include all the amounts due to all entitled Clubs as Training Compensation, provide for by F.I.FA. Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players, come into force on 1st July 2005 (ref. Article 20 and Annex 4). Moreover the fee mentioned in Article 4 also include any amount due to all entitled Clubs as Solidarity Mechanism, pursuant to Article 21 and Annex 5 of the F.I.FA. Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players.” 4. On 14 March 2012, the Claimant and the Respondent agreed upon the reschedule of the second instalment of the transfer fee as follows: “The second payment (400,000 EUR) will be paid as follows: - 250,000 EUR payable immediately; - 150,000 EUR payable on the 1st September 2012” 5. On 15 November 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent requesting EUR 50,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 2 September 2012 as well as that the Respondent bears all the costs of the proceedings. 6. In this respect, the Claimant acknowledged receipt of the amount of EUR 950,000 and stated that the Respondent refused to pay the remaining EUR 50,000 on the basis of the solidarity contribution as per FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations). In particular, the Claimant enclosed a copy of the Respondent’s e-mail dated 8 November 2012, which reads as follows: “As responding to your letter (…) I can confirm that we paid now the total transfer amount minus the 5% solidarity contribution cfr. The FIFA Regulations (1,000,000 EUR x 5% = 50,000 EUR)”. 7. In this context, the Claimant referred to article 5 of the transfer agreement and rejected the Respondent’s interpretation of the Regulations. 8. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to do so, the Respondent did not reply to the claim lodged by the Claimant, although it was informed that, in absence of a reply, the Players’ Status Committee would take a decision on the basis of the information and evidence at disposal. 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 whether he was competent to deal with the matter in hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 of the 2012 and 2014 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 15 November 2013, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) was applicable to the present matter. 2. Furthermore, the Single Judge confirmed that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 as well as art. 22 f) of the 2014 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he was competent to deal with the present matter since it concerned a dispute between two clubs affiliated to different associations. 3. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he referred to art. 26 par. 1 of the 2012 and 2014 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and again to the fact that the claim was lodged with FIFA on 15 November 2013. In view of this, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 edition of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) was applicable to the matter as to the substance. 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so and first of all, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent had not submitted any comments in response to the claim lodged against it by the Claimant despite having been asked to do so by FIFA. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that in this way the Respondent had renounced to its right of defence and thus it had to be assumed that it had accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 5. Bearing in mind the aforementioned, the Single Judge referred to art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and pointed out that in the present matter a decision shall be taken upon the basis of the documents on file, in other words, upon the allegations and documents provided by the Claimant. 6. In this respect, and first of all, the Single Judge noted that the parties had concluded on 28 June 2011 a transfer agreement for the definitive transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent, according to which the latter would pay to the former the amount of USD 1,000,000 in two instalments. In this regard, the Single Judge further noted that, on 14 March 2012, the parties had agreed upon the reschedule of the second instalment. 7. The Single Judge then reverted to the allegations of the Claimant and noted that it had claimed that, although the Respondent had paid EUR 950,000 to the Claimant, the amount of EUR 50,000 remained outstanding on the basis of art. 21 and Annexe 5 of the Regulations related to solidarity contribution. 8. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 21 of the Regulations in combination with art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, if a professional moves during the course of a contract, 5% of any compensation, not including training compensation paid to his former club, shall be deducted from the total amount of this compensation and be distributed by the new club as a solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in the training and education of the player in proportion of the number of years the player has been registered with the relevant club(s) between the seasons of his 12th and 23rd birthday. 9. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that, in the matter at hand, the new club, i.e. the Respondent, would have to deduct 5% from the total amount of the transfer compensation and, subsequently, distribute said proportion to the club(s) involved in the training and education of the player. 10. At this point, the Single Judge highlighted that the solidarity mechanism is a principle wellestablished in the Regulations, from which the parties signing a transfer contract cannot derogate through the contents of a contract. In other words, the obligation to distribute solidarity contribution cannot be set aside by means of a contract concluded between the clubs involved in a player’s transfer. What is more, as for the distribution of the solidarity contribution, the amount to be taken into account when calculating the solidarity contribution payments due to the club(s) involved in the player’s training and education, is the amount actually agreed upon as the compensation payable by the new club to the former club, regardless of any provision to the contrary stipulated in the transfer or loan agreement. 11. In continuation, the Single Judge took into account that the Claimant has requested the payment of the amount of EUR 50,000 regarding the transfer compensation agreed between the parties. 12. In this regard, the Single Judge then pointed that, in the present matter, it appears the Respondent had deducted 5% of the transfer compensation but failed to provide evidences regarding its distribution amongst the club(s) involved in the training and education of the player. 13. In this context, the Single Judge considered that it is clearly not the purpose of the provisions regarding solidarity contribution that the new club, i.e. the Respondent, can simply retain 5% of the transfer compensation without distributing said 5% to the clubs involved in the training and education of the player. Equally, the Single Judge recalled that the Respondent had not proven having distributed the solidarity contribution to any training club. Taking into account all the foregoing, the Single Judge considered that the Respondent could not enrich itself by retaining 5% of the transfer compensation without distributing such percentage as solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in the training and education of the player. 14. Consequently, and since it is undisputed that the parties agreed upon a transfer compensation in the amount of EUR 1,000,000 as well as that EUR 950,000 were effectively paid to the Claimant, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of EUR 50,000 was still outstanding and should, therefore be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant in compliance with the contract. Equally, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to pay 5% default interest on the amount of EUR 150,000 as from 2 September 2012 until the date of effective payment. 15. As to the Claimant’s request for procedural compensation, the Single Judge decided to reject such request in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules. 16. 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. 17. In respect of the above and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been partially accepted, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 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 was between CHF 50,000 and CHF 100,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000. 18. In conclusion, and in view of the circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 8,000. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club Z, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club V, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 50,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 2 September 2012 until the date of effective payment. 3. If the aforementioned sum 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. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 8,000 is to be paid by the Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1 The amount of CHF 6,000 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 5.2 The amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2 and 5.2. above are to be made 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 Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives