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 in Zurich, Switzerland, on 11 August 2015, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club A, country F as “Claimant” against the club B, country U as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player C. I.

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 in Zurich, Switzerland, on 11 August 2015, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club A, country F as “Claimant” against the club B, country U as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player C. I. Facts of the case 1. On 24 July 2013, the club from F, A, (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the club from U, B (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed a transfer agreement (hereinafter: the agreement), according to which the Respondent accepted to pay to the Claimant a transfer compensation of EUR 4,000,000 for the definitive transfer of the player C (hereinafter: the player) as follows: i. EUR 1,500,000 “the day when all the conditions required for it coming to force are fulfilled and in any case upon delivery of the international transfer certificate” ; ii. EUR 1,250,000 on 1 April 2014 ; iii. EUR 1,250,000 on 31 August 2014. 2. Article 3.2 of the agreement established that “B [i.e. the Respondent] obliges to deliver to A [i.e. the Claimant] within 30 (thirty) days of signature of the Agreement as first demand bank guarantee issued by a first rate local bank in favour of A to cover the due performance of B obligations to pay pursuant to the transfer agreement dated 24/07/2013 [i.e. the agreement] the second and third instalments described in article 3.1 […] In case of disrespect of this guarantee delivery obligation, after more than 1 (one) calendar day of delivery of such bank guarantee delay, without prejudice of application of the article 3.3, B will pay penalties to A consisting in a lump sum of EUR 50,000 per delay payment day as from the first delay delivery of such bank guarantee day after the expiration of the delay of 1 day”. 3. On 4 December 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent with FIFA explaining that, although the latter club had paid the sum of EUR 356,223.95, it had not yet paid the rest of the first instalment stipulated in the agreement amounting to EUR 1,143,776.05. The Claimant further explained that the Respondent had not complied with article 3.2 of the agreement and should therefore pay compensation to the Claimant in the total amount of EUR 5,300,000 at the date of 25 November 2013, i.e. EUR 50,000 per day until the date of decision. 4. On 12 December 2013, the Claimant confirmed having received another payment from the Respondent on 5 December 2013 amounting to EUR 1,134,400 concerning the transfer of the player and, therefore, amended its initial claim. Consequently, the Claimant requested the sum of EUR 9,376.05, which corresponded to the rest of the first instalment stipulated in the agreement, as well as the amount of EUR 5,300,000 as per its initial request. 5. In its reply to the claim lodged against it, the Respondent stated that the parties eventually managed to settle the matter at hand amicably. 6. On 11 April 2014, the Claimant informed FIFA that the Respondent had made another payment of EUR 9,376.05 on 1 April 2014 and that the first instalment amounting to EUR 1,500,000 was therefore duly paid. However and since the full payment of such amount was made late, A requested interests as follows: b. 5% per year on the amount of EUR 1,500,000 from 25 August 2013 to 28 October 2013 c. 5% per year on the amount of EUR 1,143,776.05 from 29 October 2013 to 5 December 2013 d. 5% per year on the amount of EUR 9,376.05 from 6 December 2013 to 31 March 2014. 7. The Claimant further requested the amount of EUR 11,600,000 relating to the payment of penalty for non-compliance with art. 3.2 of the agreement. 8. On 5 May 2014, the Respondent argued to have fulfilled its contractual obligations by paying the first and the second instalment. With regard to the third instalment stipulated in the agreement, the Respondent “undertakes and guarantees to pay the due amount on time”. 9. Regarding the interests claimed by the Claimant, the Respondent was of the opinion that the parties did not include in the agreement any provision with regard to possible interests to be paid for late payment. 10. Finally, with regard to the amount of EUR 11,600,000 requested by the Claimant “as penalty of the bank guarantee”, the Respondent explained that art. 3.2 of the agreement was supposed to guarantee the payments of the second and the third instalments. In this respect, since the Respondent had paid the second instalment on time and will pay the third payment as agreed upon in the agreement, it deemed that it should not pay anything to the Claimant in accordance with art. 3.2 of the agreement. 11. On 12 October 2014, the Respondent informed FIFA that it had paid the third instalment of EUR 1,250,000 to the Claimant. 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 at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 4 December 2013. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, with regard to his competence, the Single Judge confirmed that on the basis of 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 2015 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns a dispute between two football clubs affiliated to two different associations. 3. Furthermore, 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, the Single Judge acknowledged that the claim was lodged with FIFA on 4 December 2013. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 edition of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance. 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the present matter, the Single Judge started by acknowledging the above mentioned facts of the dispute, the arguments of the parties as well as the documentation contained in the file. 5. In doing so and to start with, the Single Judge noted that, on 24 July 2013, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded a transfer agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) which provided for the Claimant to receive from the Respondent a total transfer compensation of EUR 4,000,000 as follows: EUR 1,500,000 “the day when all the conditions required for it coming into force are fulfilled and in any case upon delivery of the international transfer certificate”, EUR 1,250,000 on 1 April 2014 and EUR 1,250,000 on 31 August 2014. 6. The Single Judge also acknowledged that the parties had contractually agreed upon a specific “bank guarantee” clause (i.e. article 3.2 of the agreement) which provided for the Respondent the obligation to deliver to the Claimant “within 30 (thirty) days of signature of the Agreement as first demand bank guarantee issued by a first rate local bank in favour of A [i.e. the Claimant] to cover the due performance of B [i.e. the Respondent] obligations to pay pursuant to the transfer agreement dated 24/07/2013 [i.e. the agreement] the second and third instalments described in article 3.1 […] In case of disrespect of this guarantee delivery obligation, after more than 1 (one) calendar day of delivery of such bank guarantee delay, without prejudice of application of the article 3.3., B will pay penalties to A consisting in a lump sum of EUR 50,000 per delay payment day as from the first delay delivery of such bank guarantee day after the expiration of the delay of 1 day”. 7. In continuation, the Single Judge acknowledged that, in its amended claim to FIFA, the Claimant had requested from the Respondent the payment of interest at a rate of 5% per annum on the first instalment of EUR 1,500,000, which the Respondent paid to the Claimant late and in several instalments, as well as the sum of EUR 11,600,000 as penalty, arguing that the Respondent had not complied with article 3.2 of the agreement. 8. Equally, the Single Judge observed that, for its part, the Respondent had first of all confirmed having paid the three instalments stipulated in the agreement and thus deemed having complied with its obligations as per the agreement. Furthermore, the Single Judge remarked that the Respondent had contested the Claimant’s request for the payment of a penalty arguing that article 3.2 of the agreement was supposed to guarantee the payments of the second and third instalments; however such payments were paid on time. Equally, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s request for the payment of interest on the first instalment of EUR 1,500,000 arguing that the agreement does not contain any clause whatsoever related to the possible payment of interest in case of late payment. 9. With the aforementioned considerations in mind, the Single Judge first of all held that it is uncontested that the Respondent had complied with its contractual obligations by paying to the Claimant the total transfer compensation as agreed upon in the agreement. 10. Bearing in mind the above-mentioned, the Single Judge went to address the Claimant’s request relating to the payment of interest over the first instalment of EUR 1,500,000 as such amount was paid late in different instalments by the Respondent. 11. In doing so, the Single Judge thoroughly analysed the wording of the agreement and came to the conclusion that, since the said agreement does not contain any clause whatsoever related to the payment of interest in case of late payment and since the first instalment amounting to EUR 1,500,000 had been eventually paid fully by the Respondent to the Claimant, such part of the claim has to be rejected. 12. Having said this, the Single Judge went on to assess the Claimant’s requested related to the payment of a penalty based on article 3.2 of the agreement. 13. In view of the divergent opinions of the parties as to the correct interpretation to be given to article 3.2 of the agreement, the Single Judge carefully analysed the content of said article and concluded that the bank guarantee established in such article was supposed to cover the payments of the second and the third instalments. 14. As a consequence, taking into account that the second and the third instalments stipulated in the agreement had uncontestedly been duly paid by the Respondent and that, correlatively the Claimant did not have any further claims regarding such instalments, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that such part of the claim is also rejected. 15. In view of all of the above, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is rejected. 16. 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 the proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee, including the Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. 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). 17. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is rejected. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant has to bear the entire costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 18. 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. Consequently and taking into account that the total amount at dispute in the present matter is above CHF 200,001, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 19. In conclusion, and considering that the present case did not show particular factual difficulties or specific legal complexities, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 15,000. 20. Consequently, the Respondent has to pay the amount of CHF 15,000 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, A, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 15,000 are to be paid by the Claimant, Olympique Lyonnais, to FIFA. Given that the latter has already paid the amount of CHF 5,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant, Olympique Lyonnais, has to pay the amount of CHF 10,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision to the following bank account with reference to case no. 14-00083/lde: 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 Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives