F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee / Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori – coach disputes / controversie allenatori (2017-2018) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, 10 November 2017

Decision of the Single Judge

of the Players’ Status Committee

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 November 2017,

by

Geoff Thompson (England)

Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee,

on the claim presented by the coach

Coach A, from country A

as “Claimant/Counter-Respondent”

against the club

Club B, from country B

as “Respondent/Counter-Claimant”

regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties.

I. Facts of the case

1. On an unspecified date, the Coach A, from country A (hereinafter: “the Claimant” “the Counter-Respondent”) and the Club B, from country B (hereinafter: “the Respondent” “the Counter-Claimant”) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: “the contract”), valid from 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2016.

2. Article III, point 3 of the contract provided that the Respondent will provide the Claimant with suitable accommodation and a car.

3. Article IV, point 1 of the contract stated that the total value of the contract is USD 526,000 which the Respondent should pay to the Claimant according to the following plan:

a. An amount of USD 113,000 as a first advance payment from the total salaries of the contract on 1 July 2014;

b. An amount of USD 113,000 as a second advance payment from the total salaries of the contract on 1 July 2015;

c. A monthly salary of USD 12,500 during this contract, provided that he has no unexcused absences during the month.

4. Article IV, point 3 of the contract stated that the Claimant shall also pay rewards to the Respondent when winning the following titles:

c) USD 30,000 for winning the country B professional league and

d) USD 10,000 for qualification to the Champions League X.

5. On 30 June 2016, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent requesting that total amount of USD 334,750 composed by the following alleged outstanding remuneration:

(1) USD 113,000 as a first advance payment (cf. art. IV 1.a of the contract) plus an interest at a rate of 5% per year since 2 July 2014 until the date of effective payment;

(2) USD 113,000 as a second advance payment (cf. art. IV 1.b of the contract) plus an interest at a rate of 5% per year since 2 July 2015 until the date of effective payment;

(3) USD 12,500 for the month of February 2015 (cf. art. IV 1.c of the contract) plus an interest at a rate of 5% per year since 1 March 2015 until the date of effective payment;

(4) USD 6,250 for half of the month of February 2016 (cf. art. IV 1.c of the contract) plus an interest at a rate of 5% per year since 1 March 2016 until the date of effective payment;

(5) USD 12,500 for the month of March 2016 (cf. art. IV 1.c of the contract) plus an interest at a rate of 5% per year since 1 April 2016 until the date of effective payment;

(6) USD 12,500 for the month of April 2016 (cf. art. IV 1.c of the contract) plus an interest at a rate of 5% per year since 1 May 2016 until the date of effective payment;

(7) USD 12,500 for the month of May 2016 (cf. art. IV 1.c of the contract) plus an interest at a rate of 5% per year since 1 June 2016 until the date of effective payment;

(8) USD 12,500 for the month of June 2016 (cf. art. IV 1.c of the contract) plus an interest at a rate of 5% per year since 1 July 2016 until the date of effective payment;

(9) USD 30,000 for winning the country B Professional League (cf. art. IV 3.c of the contract) plus an interest at a rate of 5% per year since the submission of the present claim until the date of effective payment and

(10) USD 10,000 for qualifying to the Champions League X (cf. art. IV 3.e of the contract) plus an interest at a rate of 5% per year since the submission of the present claim until the date of effective payment.

6. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent confirmed having signed the contract with the Claimant and having paid to him a total amount of USD 373,368.6. Taking into account that the Claimant was entitled to receive the total amount of USD 526,000, the Respondent stated that an amount of USD 152,313 remained outstanding. The Respondent presented the following list of alleged payments for a total amount of USD 373,368.6:

Operation & rate on date

Payment in

Payment in USD

Mode of payment

Reason

Evidence

provided by the club

14.08.2014

1 USD = 3.7504

50,000

13,333.33

Bank transfer to coach´s bank account

Advance as loan (cf. art. IV point 1 of the contract)

Annex 2

Bank transfer order form

21.09.2014

1 USD = 3.7483

251,250

67,030

Check dated 18.09.2014 credited on 21.09.2014

Advance as loan (cf. art. IV point 1 of the contract)

Annex 3

Copy of a Check allegedly signed by the coach

18.11.2014

1 USD = 3.7526

187,650

50,031

Cash in

salary

Annex 4

Payment receipt allegedly signed by the coach

05.01.2015

1 USD = 3.7542

150,000

39,995

Cash in

Salary

Annex 5

Payment receipt allegedly

signed by the coach

20.02.2015

1 USD = 3.752

150,080

40,000

Cash in USD

Advance as loan (cf. art. IV par. 1 of the contract)

Annex 6

Payment receipt allegedly signed by the coach

09.03.2015

1 USD = 3.7503

Note: It is undated

46,875

12,496.66

Cash in

Salary November 2014

Annex 7

Payment receipt allegedly signed by the coach

09.03.2015

1 USD = 3.7503

Note: It is undated

46,875

12,496.66

Cash in

Salary

October 2014

Annex 8

Payment receipt allegedly signed by the coach

04.05.2015

1 USD = 3.751

46,875

12,496.66

Cash in

Salary March 2015

Annex 9

Payment receipt allegedly signed by the coach

03.06.2015

1 USD = 3.751

122,500

32,698

Bank transfer to coach´s bank account

salary

Annex 10

Bank transfer order form

30.11.2015

1 USD = 3.7525

187,500

49,966.68

Cash in

Salaries of July, August, September and October 2015

Annex 11

Payment receipt allegedly signed by the coach

20.02.2016

1 USD = 3.7498

20,000

5,330.61

Cash in

Advance of salary

Annex 12

Payment receipt allegedly signed by the coach

26.05.2016

1 USD = 3.7506

140,625

37,494

Cash in

3 monthly salaries

Annex 13

Payment receipt allegedly signed by the coach

Total

1,400,230

373,368.6

7. With regard to the bonus for qualifying to the X’s champions league, the Respondent argued that the Claimant should receive the amount of USD 30,000 as bonus for being champion but he was not entitled to receive the bonus amounting to USD 10,000. The Respondent alleged that the Claimant was entitled to receive that bonus only if the Respondent finished runner (second place or being the runner-up qualifying the X’s Champions League) but not if it was the champion since he already received a bonus for being the winner.

8. With reference to the 5% annual interest requested by the Claimant, the Respondent stated that the relevant interest should applied from the contract´s expiry date or within 30 days from the relevant FIFA´s deciding bodies’ decision (cf. art. 102 of the Swiss Code of Obligations).

9. In view of all the above, the Respondent requested FIFA to decide that it should pay to the Claimant an outstanding amount of USD 152,313 and a bonus of being champion amounting to USD 30,000 plus 5% interest as from the date of notification of FIFA´s decision.

10. The Claimant reacted to the Respondent´s position and contested some of the documentary evidence provided by the Respondent alleging that the signature of the Claimant was forged.

11. In particular, the Claimant contested the authenticity of the evidence submitted by the Respondent with regard to the first advance fee amounting to USD 113,000 allegedly made by the Respondent in three partial payments:

(1) 50,000 on 14 August 2014 allegedly by bank transfer (Annex 2). The Claimant argued that the Respondent enclosed a certified translation of a bank transaction order form filled out and signed by the Respondent being the part of the bank not filled out. Apart from being a copy (no original document), it is only a transfer order therefore it did not prove that the money actually went out from the Respondent´s bank account;

(2) 251,250 on 21 September 2014 allegedly paid by check (Annex 3). The Claimant argued that the Respondent enclosed a certified translation of a check but not an original document. The document is a copy of a check on a paper with the alleged Claimant´s signature below. Moreover from the translation appears that this payment is related to “country B’s Professional League 2013/2014 season” i.e. the previous employment contract concluded between the parties;

(3) USD 40,000 on 20 February 2015 allegedly paid by cash directly to the Claimant. The latter contested the authenticity of this document (Annex 6) since he did not have the opportunity to see the originals and he did not receive this amount. The Claimant argued that on that exact date (20 February 2015) he received another two payments from the Respondent, i.e. 46,875 related to his November 2014´s salary and 18,125 related to his December 2014´s salary. The Claimant further argued that the Respondent copy-pasted his signatures from those documents and added the amount of USD 40,000.The Respondent made a contradicted statement when in the table refers to salary payment whereas in the document referred to “a part of the first advance loan from salaries”.

12. Moreover, the Claimant contested having received the amount of 150,000 allegedly paid by the Respondent on 5 January 2015. The Claimant alleged that his signature was copy-pasted on the relevant document, i.e. Annex 5.

13. Furthermore, the Claimant enclosed an extract from the Respondent´s accountant and accounting manager dated 31 January 2016 (hereinafter: “the extract”), in which the Respondent allegedly listed all payments that it made to the Claimant from 1 January 2014 until 31 January 2016 for a total amount of 703,275. This extract stated that the Respondent had an outstanding total amount of 423,750 towards the Claimant, i.e. “1- February 2015, November 2015 and December 2015; 2- January 2016, Down payment, due date 1/07/2015”.

14. In addition, after the issuance of the extract, the coach confirmed having received from the club the total amount of 160,625 as follows: 20,000 on 20 February 2016 and 140,625 on 26 May 2016 in four payments (26,875, 46,875, 46,875 and 20,000) related to the salaries of November 2015, December 2015, January 2015 and half of February 2016.

15. Moreover, the Claimant contested the Respondent’s argument that the bonus of USD 10,000 for qualifying to the Champions League X was included in the bonus of USD 30,000 for winning the country B Professional League bonus. In this regard, the Claimant argued that the contract is clear and that the real will of the parties was that the Claimant should receive these bonuses from the Respondent cumulatively, upon reaching the stipulated objectives.

16. The Respondent presented its duplica after the deadline set by FIFA expired. In this respect, the Respondent argued that, Friday and Saturday is weekend in country B it is undisputed that the given deadline of 20 January 2017 has fallen on Friday. In accordance with art. 16 par 9 of the procedural rules if the final day of the time limit is an official holiday or non-working day in the country where the party submitting a document is domiciled the time limit shall expire at the end of the next working day as a consequence the deadline set by FIFA expired on Sunday 22 January 2017. The club sent its answer within the deadline on Saturday 21 January 2017. Therefore, the Respondent requested FIFA to admit its position.

17. In particular, the Respondent referred to the extract provided by the Claimant and contested its validity “in form and in content” and alleged that:

a) it doesn’t bear the name of the signers;

b) it was not signed by any club´s official or employee. For legal certainty it should be signed by the president vice president or general secretary as they are the legal persons with the legal capacity to sign any document on behalf of the club;

c) it doesn’t bear the date of its execution;

d) the club doesn’t have any accountant manager. The sole employee working for the club as accountant does not have the legal power to sign any document on behalf of the club;

e) there is no written request from the coach in order for the club to produce such extract;

f) since it is written in letterhead paper it should bear a referential number and

g) the extract is not an accounting instrument. The content is statistical without any legal basis.

18. Furthermore, the Respondent lodged a counterclaim arguing that the Claimant committed several traffic violations for a total amount of 30,000 (=USD 8,107) which the Respondent alleged having paid. Therefore, the Respondent claimed that this amount should be reimbursed by the Claimant to the Respondent.

19. In reply to the Respondent´s last position, the Claimant argued that the Respondent presented its position after the deadline provided by FIFA expired, therefore it should not be taken into account by the competent deciding body. The Respondent´s allegation that Friday was not a working day in country B is not a valid reason and irrelevant in accordance with art. 16 par. 3 of the FIFA Procedural Rules.

20. The Claimant reiterated all his previous allegations and added that the Respondent recognised to owe the Claimant at least the amount of USD 152,313 plus a bonus of USD 30,000.

21. With regard to the second advance fee amounting to USD 113,000 due on 1 July 2015, the Claimant stated that the Respondent tacitly recognised owing it since it did not present any evidence in this regard.

22. With regard to monthly salaries, the Claimant reiterated his previous requests for salaries and argued that the Respondent did not present documentary evidence to prove the payment of the claimed monthly salaries.

23. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that the extract was issued on paper with the Respondent´s letterhead, is dated and signed by the persons in charge of the Respondent´s accounting department. This document summarized all payments that the Respondent made to the Claimant from 1 January 2014 until 31 January 2016.

24. The Claimant rejected the Respondent´s counterclaim to deduct traffic fines since they were not admissible, time barred, without legal basis, lacking of sufficient proof and not translated.

25. The Respondent presented an additional position and argued that by providing the relevant documentary evidence it fulfilled its duty of burden of proof.

26. In addition the Respondent enclosed a bank certification dated 26 September 2017 confirming that according to the bank records the transactions below were made from the Respondent´s account in favour of the coach:

Transaction date

Transaction amount

Beneficiary account

14/05/2014

50,000

23058358000103

03/06/2015

122,500

26562712000100

21/09/2014

251,250

Check Nr. 4144

27. After the close of investigation, the Claimant sent a letter to FIFA in connection to the bank certification provided by the Respondent in its last position stating the following:

 50,000 (14/05/2014) it was a payment received by the Claimant but related to the first employment contract. Therefore, it is irrelevant for the present claim since it has no relation to the second employment contract;

 122,500 (03/06/2015) it was a payment already recognized by the Claimant related to the following monthly salaries: remaining part of December 2014, April and May 2015 and

 251,250 (21/09/2014) this payment is rejected by the Claimant. The Claimant reiterated that the extract showed clearly the payments made by the Respondent to the Claimant during the validity of the second employment contract (from 1 January 2014 until 31 January 2016) and this payment is not included.

28. FIFA sent a letter to the parties informing that it will be up to the FIFA deciding body to consider or not the Claimant´s unsolicited submission.

II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee

1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter also referred to as: “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 30 June 2016. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the 2015 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: “the Procedural Rules”) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).

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 c) of the 2016 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he shall adjudicate on an employment-related dispute between a club or an association and a coach that have an international dimension. As a consequence, the Single Judge confirmed that he was the competent body to decide on the present employment-related dispute involving a coach and a club affiliated to the Football Federation of country B.

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 confirmed that in accordance with the art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the edition 2016 of the said Regulations and taking into account the fact that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 30 June 2016, the 2016 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance.

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 documentation contained in the file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

5. In this respect and first of all, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant and the Respondent confirmed having concluded the contract valid from 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2016.

6. On the one hand, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Claimant lodged the present claim requesting from the Respondent the payment of the total amount of USD 334,750 as outstanding remuneration plus interest.

7. On the other hand, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent recognized owing to the Claimant the amount of USD 152,313 and USD 30,000 as bonuses. The Single Judge underlined that the Respondent had submitted a series of documents in support of its position representing all the payments allegedly made to the Claimant during their contractual relationship.

8. At this stage, the Single Judge pointed out that the Claimant contested the validity of certain documents provided by the Respondent. In addition, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant argued that some of the documentary evidence provided by the Respondent were related to a previous employment contract or to payments which were not claimed by him in the present case.

9. In view of the above, the Single Judge decided that, in accordance with the general principle of pacta sunt servanda which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Respondent must fulfil the obligations it voluntarily entered into with the Claimant by means of the contract.

10. Subsequently, the Single Judge focussed his attention to the different items requested by the Claimant and examined carefully the documentary evidence provided by the Respondent.

11. To start with, the Single Judge pointed out that the Claimant requested an amount of USD 113,000 as first advance payment (cf. art. IV, point 1 of the contract) plus 5% annual interest from due date until the date of effective payment.

12. In this respect, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Respondent presented three documents as alleged proof of payment, i.e. one bank transfer´s order dated 14 August 2014 (Annex 2); copy of one check dated 17 September 2014 allegedly signed by the Claimant (Annex 3) and one payment receipt dated 20 February 2015 allegedly signed by the Claimant (Annex 6).

13. At this stage, the Single Judge shared the Claimant´s view that a bank transfer´s order is not enough proof of payment since by means of said order was not possible to confirm the receipt of the relevant amount (Annex 2) by the creditor, i.e. the Claimant.

14. Moreover and with regard to Annex 3, after a detailed analysis of said evidence the Single Judge took note that the relevant document provided by the Respondent clearly indicated that the reason of that payment was “salary and bonuses for the country B Professional League 2013/2014 season”.

15. In view of the above, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that said document which explicitly refers to remuneration of the 2013/2014 country B sporting season cannot possibly refer to the first advance payment which was due on 1 July 2014 (cf. art. IV point 1 of the contract).

16. With regard to the payment receipt identified as Annex 6, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant contested its authenticity even though, the relevant document appeared to be signed by the latter.

17. In this context, the Single Judge considered appropriate to remark that, as a general rule, FIFA´s deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as falsified signatures, and that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority.

18. In continuation the Single Judge recalled that all documentation remitted shall be considered with free discretion and, therefore, he focused his attention on the Annex 6 as well as on other documents containing the Claimant’s signature, provided by the parties in the context of the present dispute. In this regard, the Single Judge pointed out that the original version of the Annex 6 was provided by the Respondent.

19. After a thorough analysis of the aforementioned payment receipt (Annex 6), in particular, comparing the relevant signatures of the Claimant in the various documents provided in the present affair, the Single Judge had no other option but to conclude that, for a layman, the signatures on such documents appear to be the same.

20. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent proved having paid an amount of USD 40,000 to the Claimant and as a consequence, an amount of USD 73,000 remains outstanding as first advance payment plus a 5% annual interest as from due date until the date of effective payment.

21. In continuation, the Single Judge underlined that the Claimant requested an amount of USD 113,000 as second advance payment (cf. art. IV, point 1 of the contract) plus 5% annual interest from due date until the date of effective payment.

22. In this regard, the Single Judge took note that the Respondent did not present any evidence in this regard. Moreover, the Single Judge referred to the amount of USD 152,313 recognised as outstanding by the Respondent towards the Claimant.

23. In this context, the Single Judge referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof.

24. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent owed to the Claimant an amount of USD 113,000 as second advance payment plus a 5% annual interest as from due date until the date of effective payment.

25. Secondly, the Single Judge focused his attention to the Claimant´s request for outstanding monthly salaries related to the months of February 2015; February 2016 (half); March 2016, April 2016, May 2016 and June 2016 in accordance with art. IV point 1 of the contract plus a 5% annual interest as from the respective due dates and until the date of effective payment.

26. With regard to the salary related to February 2015, the Single Judge stated that the Respondent did not present specific evidence proving that this monthly salary was paid. Moreover, the Single Judge underlined that this monthly salary was listed in the extract presented by the Claimant as outstanding by the Respondent.

27. In this context, the Single Judge deemed appropriate to remark that while perusing the documentary evidence submitted by the Respondent, he focused his attention mainly on the date and reason of the relevant payment and then he analysed if they matched with the respective item requested by the Claimant.

28. Along these lines, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent contested the validity of the extract alleging lack of formalities and that was not signed by a club´s official with enough legal powers to issue it.

29. After an exhaustive analysis of the extract, the Single Judge deemed that there was no reason to think that it was not a valid document since it bears the essential elements of any legal instrument, such as, date, stamp and signature of club’s officials.

30. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the extract was a valid document and thus, the salary related to the month of February 2015 amounting to USD 12,500 remained outstanding by the Respondent plus the applicable interest.

31. Moreover, the Single Judge pointed out that the Claimant´s requested the payment of half of the February 2016´s monthly salary amounting to USD 6,250 and the monthly salaries related to March, April, May and June 2016 amounting in total to USD 50,000.

32. In this respect, the Single Judge pointed out that the Respondent did not present any specific and conclusive evidence proving that the relevant monthly salaries were paid. In this context, the Single Judge emphasised that some of the documentary evidence provided by the Respondent was not precise enough (date and reason) to match the Claimant’s requests.

33. In addition, the Single Judge remarked that the evidence provided by the Respondent identified as Annexes 7 upon 12 issued within 9 March 2015 until 20 February 2016 cannot possibly refer to the requested salaries of 2016. Indeed, at the time when these payments were allegedly made by the Respondent, the salaries requested by the Claimant were yet to fell due.

34. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge remarked that the payment dated 26 May 2016, for an amount of USD 37,500 (allegedly equivalent to 140,625) provided by the Respondent and identified as Annex 13 was recognised by the Claimant. In fact, the Single Judge underlined that the Claimant explicitly confirmed having received the total amount of 140,625 on said date in four partial payments related to the salaries of November 2015, December 2015, January 2015 and half of February 2016 and that this specific statement of the Claimant was not contested by the Respondent.

35. As a consequence, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive the total amount of USD 56,250 related to the salaries of February 2016 (half), March, April, May and June 2016 plus the respective interests.

36. Having established the aforementioned, the Single Judge went on to address the Claimant’s request for the total amount of USD 40,000 as bonuses, i.e. USD 30,000 for winning the “country B Professional League” and USD 10,000 for qualifying to the Champions League X based on art. IV point 3 of the contract.

37. In this regard, the Single Judge emphasised that the Respondent did not contest the fact that the club win the National League and qualified for the Champions League X. The Single Judge pointed out that the Respondent contested the Claimant´s entitlement to receive the bonus amounting to USD 10,000 alleging that it was already included in the other bonus (USD 30,000).

38. The Single Judge was keen to emphasise that the wording of art. IV point 3 of the contract was clear and specific granting two different bonuses to the Claimant in case the Respondent would achieve the relevant objectives.

39. Considering that it remained undisputed that the Respondent won the national league and qualified for the Champions League X, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent the amount of USD 40,000 as bonuses in accordance with art. IV point 3 of the contract.

40. Moreover, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant had requested an annual interest of 5% from the date of submission of this claim to FIFA. In this regard, the Single Judge decided to grant interest at a rate of 5% per year over the bonuses amounting to USD 40,000 from 30 June 2016 until the date of effective payment.

41. Lastly, the Single Judge focussed his attention to the Respondent´s counterclaim for alleged traffic violations amounting to 30,000. In this respect, the Single Judge noticed that the Respondent presented some evidence, however not translated in one of the official FIFA working languages.

42. Therefore, the Single Judge rejected the Respondent´s counterclaim based on art. 9 par 1 lit. e) and art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules.

43. In view of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the total amount of USD 294,750 as outstanding remuneration plus the respective applicable interest.

44. 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 the proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee, including the 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.

45. 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. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is USD 334,750. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000.

46. Considering that, in the case at hand, the responsibility of the failure to comply with the contract can entirely be attributed to the Respondent and taking into account that the particular circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings in the amount of CHF 25,000 and held that such costs have to be borne by the Respondent.

47. In conclusion, the amount of CHF 25,000 has to be paid by the Respondent in order to cover the costs of the present proceedings.

49. The Single Judge concluded his deliberations by establishing that any other claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.

III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee

1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Coach A, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club B, has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Coach A, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the total amount of USD 294,750 as outstanding remuneration, plus interest as follows:

 5% per year on the amount of USD 73,000 as from 2 July 2014 until the date of effective payment;

 5% per year on the amount of USD 113,000 as from 2 July 2015 until the date of effective payment;

 5% per year on the amount of USD 12,500 as from 1 March 2015 until the date of effective payment;

 5% per year on the amount of USD 6,250 as from 1 March 2016 until the date of effective payment;

 5% per year on the amount of USD 12,500 as from 1 April 2016 until the date of effective payment;

 5% per year on the amount of USD 12,500 as from 1 May 2016 until the date of effective payment;

 5% per year on the amount of USD 12,500 as from 1 June 2016 until the date of effective payment;

 5% per year on the amount of USD 12,500 as from 1 July 2016 until the date of effective payment;

 5% per year on the amount of USD 40,000 as from 30 June 2016 until the date of effective payment.

3. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Coach A, are rejected.

4. If the aforementioned sum, plus interest as provided above, 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.

5. The counterclaim lodged by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club B, is rejected.

6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 25,000 are to be paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club B, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, as follows:

6.1 The amount of CHF 20,000 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

6.2 The amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Coach A.

7. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Coach A, is directed to inform the Respondent/Counter-Claimant Club B, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 6.2 above 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 art. 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).

For the Single Judge of the

Players’ Status Committee

Omar Ongaro

Football Regulatory Director

Encl. CAS directives