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, 11 October 2016

Decision of the Single Judge

of the

Players’ Status Committee

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 11 October 2016,

by

Mr Geoff Thompson (England),

Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee,

on the claim presented by the coach

Coach A, Country B

as “Claimant / Counter-Respondent”

against the club

Club C, Country D

as “Respondent / Counter-Claimant”

regarding a contractual dispute between the parties

I. Facts

1. On 1 January 2015, the Coach of Country B, Coach A (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent or simply: the Claimant) and the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent / Counter-Claimant or simply: the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), by means of which the Claimant was appointed as “Professional Head Coach”, valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2016.

2. Article 2.1 of the contract established that “Party B [i.e. the Claimant] must fulfil all duties as a head Coach, and do his best to reach the annual target as set out by Party A [i.e. the Respondent]. Party B may not be suspended by Party A”.

3. Articles 5 and 6 of the contract provided the following remuneration, bonuses as well as other benefits for the Claimant to be paid by the Respondent :

 Salary of EUR 2,936,000 payable in 24 equal instalments of EUR 122,333;

 EUR 1,000,000 as signing-on fee payable before 15 January 2015. In case of late payment of such amount, the Respondent would have to pay 5% interest per month to the Claimant;

 Bonuses as follows:

 “EUR 15,000 per each win of the team in the Football League of Country D (League E) and/or Asian Football Confederation Champions League matches (ACL). EUR 5,000 per each draw of the team in League E and ACL matches. The bonuses to be paid within 30 days from the respective match;

 EUR 300,000 if the team becomes the champion of the Football Association Cup of Country D;

 EUR 100,000 if the team takes third place in the League E to be paid within 30 days from the last match of the respective season;

 EUR 200,000 if the team takes second place in the League E to be paid within 30 days from the last match of the respective season;

 EUR 1,000,000 if the team becomes the champion of the League E to be paid within 30 days from the last match of the respective season;

 EUR 200,000 if the team passes through the group stage of the ACL. The bonus to be paid within 30 days from the last match of the team in the ACL in the respective season;

 EUR 300,000 if the team plays in quarter final of the ACL. The bonus to be paid within 30 days from the last match of the team in the ACL in the respective season;

 EUR 400,000 if the team plays the semi-final of the ACL. The bonus to be paid within 30 days from the last match of the team in the ACL in the respective season;

 EUR 500,000 if the team plays the final of the ACL. The bonus to be paid within 30 days from the last match of the team in the ACL in the respective season;

 EUR 1,000,000 if the team becomes the champion of the ACL to be paid within 30 days from the last match of the respective season”;

 8 Round trip business class flight tickets for the route Capital F to City G or City G to Capital F;

 One cellular phone with credit paid by the Respondent;

 Luxury brand new car with a driver 24/7;

 Health insurance.

4. Article 8.3 (4) of the contract established that “[D]uring the contract period, if Party A´s [i.e. the Respondent] team lost 5 consecutive matches in Country D Super League, Party A has the right to terminate the contract, subject to payment of compensation in the amount of 50% of all the salaries of Party B [i.e. the Claimant] that he would have earned until the end of the validity term of this contract (…)”.

5. Article 10 of the contract provided that: “If Party A [i.e. the Respondent] cancels (terminates) this contract prematurely without just cause or if Party B [i.e. the Claimant] terminates this contract prematurely but with just cause (unless just cause emanates from a force majeure circumstances, e.g. Flood, earthquake, etc.), Party A shall pay the compensation to Party B. The compensation shall be paid in the amount of the salaries of Party B that he would have earned until the end of the validity term of this contract, and within 30 day from the date when the contract was prematurely terminated. No mitigation shall apply”.

6. On 6 November 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent arguing that the latter had breached the contract without just cause. In this respect, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the amount of EUR 1,957,336 as compensation corresponding to the remaining salaries until the end of the contract, as well as an interest at a rate of 5% per year from 23 July 2015 until the date of payment, as well as EUR 25,000 related to the “Claimant´s attorney feed and other expenses incurred for the defence of its interests in the present arbitration”.

7. According to the Claimant, from January 2015 until July 2015, he performed his contractual obligations without any complaint from the Respondent. However, on 22 July 2015, the Respondent sent a notice informing the Claimant and the rest of his staff of the suspension from their training and coaching activities for Respondent´s first team. In this regard, the letter read as follows: “On account of that the results of the games of Club C in 2015 season does not reach the expectation of the club [i.e. the Respondent], after we [i.e. the Respondent] discussed with the board of director of our club, we are now inform you that the club has made the decision to suspend your duties of Head Coach (Coach A) [i.e. the Claimant], Coach-Team Manager (Coach H), Assistant Coach (Coach J), Physical Coach (Coach K) and Kinetotherapist (Kinetotherapist L) from 22 July 2015. The club will have a meeting with you and will make a final decision later”. In this regard, the Claimant maintained that from the very next day after said communication, the Claimant and the rest of the staff were deprived of their driver and interpreter and the Respondent did not allow them to render the agreed services upon the contract.

8. In continuation, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent on 29 July 2015, requesting the fulfilment of the contract as well as two other correspondences addressed to FIFA and to the Football Association of Country D respectively in order to seek assistance. In particular, the Claimant reminded the Respondent of the content of article 2 of the contract by means of which it was prohibited to suspend the Claimant and requested the Respondent to “immediately reinstate him [i.e. the Claimant] in his Head Coach position in accordance with the employment contract [i.e. the contract]. Lacking thereof, such circumstance would be deemed as a clear breach of the employment agreement [i.e. the contract] pursuant to clause 10 of the contract, releasing my client thereby of his obligations pursuant to the employment agreement and entitling him to the compensations therein provided”.

9. Furthermore, on 31 July 2015, a second letter was sent to the Respondent, FIFA and the Football Association of Country D on behalf of the Claimant and the rest of the technical staff, requesting the immediate reinstatement in their employment positions and setting a 5 days deadline to provide an answer.

10. Moreover, on 6 August 2015, and considering the lack of reply of the Respondent, the Claimant sent a third letter to the Respondent, FIFA and the Football Association of Country D, underlining the lack of reply and granting an additional deadline of 48 hours in order to find an amicable solution to the matter.

11. In this regard, the Claimant argued that on 11 August 2015, through a letter received by email dated 4 August 2015, the Respondent presented an offer to the Claimant in order to terminate the contract, providing the following:

“The club [i.e. the Respondent] now decides to pay you [i.e. the Claimant] and your staff 50% of the remaining part of your salaries (from 1 July 2015 to 31 December 2016, namely EUR 1,425,000 net), the payments will be made in two instalments via an intermediary company. The details of the payments are as follows:

1. The first instalment: the amount of EUR 712,500 net will be paid to you within 30 September 2015;

2. The second instalment: the amount of EUR 712,500 net will be paid to you within 31 March 2016.

If you agree with the above-mentioned terms, the club will give you and your staff a release letter and you can leave City G from this date, moreover, you can start to negotiate with any other club regarding your new contract after the termination agreement has been signed between you and the club”.

12. In reply to said proposal, on the same day, the Claimant sent a final proposal for a final amicable settlement, requesting the payment of the 75% of the remaining salaries and providing the following: “in order to put a final end to this situation present, conveys here a final offer whereby the Club [i.e. the Respondent] will be disbursing to my clients a 75% of the remaining net salaries under their employment agreements in one lump sum payment to be effectively paid within 15 days from the signature of the settlement. By means of this offer, this Party [i.e. the Claimant] would be renouncing to a net sum corresponding to 25% of their remaining salaries, which this party considers more than fair lessening of their actual entitlement (…). In light of the current situation and as it has been evidenced the Club´s determination to terminate the employment rapports, and the consequent lack of any need of my clients´ professional services to be rendered, this Party considers pointless for the coaching staff to remain in Country D. Therefore, unless the club will provide satisfactory reason for their stay, they will be authorized to depart from Country D back to their places of origin”.

13. According to the Claimant, the Respondent expressly accepted the departure of the Claimant and the rest of the staff, providing to all of them a return flight ticket, as well as appointing a new head coach on 28 August 2015. According to the Claimant, by adopting such inappropriate conduct as well as by not replying to the last proposal of the Claimant, the Respondent clearly committed a material breach of the contract.

14. As a consequence, the Claimant sent two last warnings to the Respondent by means of two letters dated 2 October and 26 October 2015 respectively, communicating the breach of the contract as well as the possible consequences of said breach and granting a final deadline before submitting a claim on front of the FIFA Players´ Status Committee.

15. Finally, on 4 November 2015, and just before the filing of the claim at FIFA, the Respondent sent a letter dated 2 November 2015 presenting a second offer to the Claimant and the rest of the staff, as follows:

“The club [i.e. the Respondent] now agrees to pay you [i.e. the Claimant] and your staff EUR 1,300,000 as the compensation, the payment will be made in one instalment via an intermediary company. If you agree with the above-mentioned terms, the club will sign termination agreements with you and your staff and after the agreement signed you can negotiate your new contract with any other club. If you cannot accept said terms, we will follow the terms of your employment contract as usual”.

16. In reply, the Claimant refused the aforementioned proposal by means of a correspondence dated 5 November 2015, “as no substantial progress has been made in relation to the first offer delivered on 11 August 2015”.

17. In light of all of the above, according to the Claimant, the Respondent clearly breached the contract without just cause due mainly to the following reasons:

 the contract specifically prohibited the implementation of a suspension;

 the suspension was a “masquerade attempting to conceal the actual determination of the club [i.e. the Respondent], i.e. terminate the employment contract” and the lack of performance of the Claimant cannot serve as a legal basis for such suspension;

 the Respondent´s appointment of a new head coach along with a new coaching staff confirmed the lack of interest in the services rendered by the Claimant;

 the Respondent prevented the Claimant from performing and fulfilling the main tasks for which he was hired;

18. Consequently, the Claimant requested the application of article 10 of the contract and, considering that the Respondent had already paid all the salaries until August 2015, claimed the total amount of EUR 1,957,336, corresponding to the remaining salaries provided in the contract, as well as 5% interest per year as from 23 July 2015 until the effective payment.

19. In reply to the claim lodged against it, the Respondent indicated that it had tried to reach an amicable solution “offering a reasonable proposal of termination of the contract consisting of a sum amounting to the 50% of the remaining part of the salary”. In continuation, the Respondent alleged that due to the request for airplane tickets in order to for the Claimant and the rest of the staff to return to their respective countries of origin included in the correspondence dated 11 August 2015, the Respondent then decided the “temporary appointment of a new Head Coach” who was finally presented on 28 August 2015, to avoid negative consequences on the team. Furthermore, in the last proposal sent to the Claimant on 4 November 2015, the Respondent underlined that in said correspondence, they offered to the Claimant to be reinstated immediately in case he would not accept the final offer, showing that the Respondent never intended to terminate the contract. Additionally, according to the Respondent, they continued to pay all the salaries to the Claimant during the suspension period.

20. The Respondent also pointed out the content of articles 2 and 8 of the contract as well as the bonuses in favour of the Claimant and maintained that according to said provisions, “it can be clearly established that the annual targets of the club [i.e. the Respondent] were to win both the League E and or at least to get a good position of them”. In this regard, the Respondent maintained that despite those clear objectives, the team failed to pass the group stage in the League E where the Respondent only achieved 1 win, 1 draw and 4 defeats and was classified in the 12th position of the league table (out of 16th teams). Due to the above reasons, the Respondent maintained that they decided “to temporarily suspend the coach [i.e. the Claimant] intending to make an impact in the squad, serving as a revulsive in order to improve the performance of the club”.

21. As regards to article 2 of the contract and the alleged prohibition of the suspension, the Respondent was of the opinion that the wording “may not” does not prohibit a proper suspension and was a word used to “express possibility”.

22. The Respondent found also important to underline that the behaviour of the Claimant complicated the situation as he requested airplane tickets to return to his country, showing his willingness to leave the Respondent’s country.

23. As a final remark, the Respondent concluded that it neither tried to harm the Claimant´s career, nor prevented him from concluding another employment contract with another club, but only tried to protect its sporting interests. In this regard, the Respondent underlined that a coach’s career does not have the time limitation of a player’s career.

24. As regards to the compensation requested by the Claimant, the Respondent held that article 10 of the contract shall not be valid due to its lack of reciprocity since the Claimant was the only party entitled to compensation in case of breach. As a consequence, the possible salaries of the Claimant with his new club shall be mitigated in case the PSC shall decide to accept the claim. Additionally, according to the Respondent and taking into consideration that the contract was signed in Country D, the Law of Country D shall had to be taken into account in order to calculate the compensation. The Respondent also pointed out that it already anticipated a sign-on fee amounting to EUR 1,000,000 and the non-amortized fee shall be deducted from the possible compensation, if any. In this regard, the Respondent held that in the current case, the non-amortized fee amounted to EUR 625,000.

25. In his replica, the Claimant maintained his previous arguments and highlighted that the alleged “temporary nature” of the suspension was never communicated to the Claimant in any of the correspondences and, therefore, must be interpreted as a termination. As regards to article 2 of the contract and the interpretation made by the Respondent, the Claimant maintained that the presence of said provision in the contract reflected the actual intention of the parties. Furthermore, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent tried to enforce article 8.3 (4) of the contract however the condition included was never met, i.e. the team did not lose five consecutive games, and therefore engendered an illegitimate suspension. Additionally, the Claimant held that the parties contractually agreed the consequences of an unjustified termination of the contract in article 10, and specified that no mitigation whatsoever shall apply. However, the Claimant informed FIFA that he remained unemployed for all this period of time until 23 March 2016. Finally, the Claimant contested the alleged distribution of the sign-on fee, as this amount was to be paid upon his arrival in Country D and was independent from the rest of the remuneration stipulated in the contract. Therefore, the Claimant deemed that the requested compensation shall not be mitigated.

26. In its final position, the Respondent insisted on its previous statements of defence and underlined that the Claimant did not provide any evidence whatsoever which would indicate his difficult situation, such as the removal of his driver or interpreters. The Respondent also highlighted that contrary to the allegations of the Claimant, the suspension was temporary and the Claimant was informed about this. In this respect, the Respondent deemed that this was corroborated by the fact that the last offer was presented to the Claimant two days before the end of the season. Regarding the issuance of the flight tickets, the Respondent maintained that this obligation was set in the contract and therefore there was no reason to object to such request.

27. As a consequence, according to the Respondent, the Claimant breached the contract on 2 October 2015 without just cause and therefore it lodged a counterclaim against him, claiming the non-amortized transfer fee paid to the previous Club of Country M of the Claimant, Club N, that the Respondent had to pay for the transfer of the Claimant, i.e. the amount of EUR 2,218. Alternatively, the Respondent requested again to reduce the compensation to one month salary based on the Law of Country D.

28. In his reply to the counter-claim, the Claimant rejected it in its entirety and indicated that the Respondent only filed such counterclaim in order to delay the current proceedings. In this regard, the Claimant insisted on all the previous arguments and facts exposed in the proceedings and enclosed a witness statement from his assistant coach, Coach J, describing the situation faced by the Claimant and the rest of the technical staff during their stay in Country D, in which they were all deprived of their translators, drivers and locker rooms, which prevented them from working properly. Finally, the Claimant underlined again that the Respondent had never informed him of the temporarily nature of the suspension and that it did not bring any evidence in this respect.

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 6 November 2015. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the 2015 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution (hereinafter: “the Procedural Rules”) is applicable to the matter in hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).

2. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 in combination with art. 22 lit. c) of the 2015 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he would be, in principle, competent to deal with employment-related disputes between a club or an association and a coach of an international dimension.

3. In continuation, 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 recalled that the claim was submitted to FIFA on 6 November 2015 and concluded that the 2015 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 (cf. art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations).

4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started his analysis by acknowledging the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties as well as the documents contained in the file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will only refer to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

5. In this respect and to begin with, the Single Judge acknowledged that, on 1 January 2015, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded a contract valid from the date of signature until 31 December 2016. In this context, the Single Judge also noted that, by means of a letter dated 22 July 2015, the Respondent sent a notice informing the Claimant and the rest of his staff of the suspension from their training and coaching activities due to the alleged bad sporting results of the team during the 2015 football season. Subsequently, the Single Judge took note that despite the various requests from the Claimant demanding to be reinstated in his duties or to find an amicable solution, the Respondent decided to appoint a new head coach on 28 August 2015 and made several proposals to reach an amicable settlement afterwards that did not meet the expectations of the Claimant.

6. In continuation, the Single Judge remarked that, on the one hand, the Claimant had argued that the Respondent clearly breached the contract due to the following reasons: (a) suspension of the Claimant, specifically prohibited by the contract, who in fact constituted a masquerade attempting to conceal the actual determination of the club, i.e. the termination of the contract; (b) the appointment of a new coach (c) the behaviour of the Respondent preventing him from fulfilling his main tasks for which he was hired in accordance with the contract. Consequently, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the payment of compensation for the breach of contract in the amount of EUR 1,957,336 in application of article 10 of the contract as well as 5% interest p.a. as from 23 July 2015.

7. On the other hand, the Single Judge remarked that, for its part, the Respondent deemed that the suspension of the Claimant was only temporary due to the low performance of the Claimant and not expressly prohibited by the contract and that the appointment of a new coach was also temporary in order to safeguard its sporting interest. Additionally, The Single Judge observed that the Respondent had also indicated having tried to reach an amicable settlement several times with the Claimant offering him some reasonable proposals. Furthermore, the Single Judge duly noted that the Respondent maintained that article 10 of the contract should not apply due to its lack of reciprocity and therefore in case the PSC would decide to accept the request for compensation, said compensation should be mitigated and calculated in accordance with Law of Country D, deducting also the non-amortized fee already paid to the Claimant at the beginning of the contractual relationship. Lastly, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent lodged a counter-claim against the Claimant as it deemed that that the latter decided to terminate the contract without just cause and requested the payment of the non-amortized fee paid to his former Club of Country M, Club N it had allegedly to pay for the transfer of the Claimant to the Respondent, i.e. EUR 2,218,750.

8. In light of the above, the Single Judge deemed that he had to address the question of which party was responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship in question and whether such termination had occurred with or without just cause.

9. In continuation, the Single Judge also underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the contract was breached by one of the parties without just cause, it would be necessary to determine the consequences for the party that caused the unjust breach of the relevant contract.

10. In view of the above, the Single Judge went on to deliberate as to whether the circumstances surrounding the suspension of the Claimant by the Respondent can be considered as a just cause for the Claimant to have prematurely terminated the contract.

11. In doing so, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent had never contested having suspended the contract by means of the letter addressed to the Respondent and the rest of the technical staff on 22 July 2015 which stipulated the that “on account of that the results of the games of Club C in 2015 season does not reach the expectation of the club”, as well as to the fact that he appointed a new head coach on 28 August 2015.

12. In continuation, the Single Judge was eager to emphasise that only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity might justify the termination of a contract without prior warning. In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect a continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. The Single Judge was also keen to underscore that a premature termination of an employment contract can always only be an ultima ratio.

13. In view of all the above, the Single Judge considered that at the time of the suspension of the contract, i.e. on 22 July 2015, despite the arguments of the Respondent that the suspension was only on a temporary basis, the Claimant had good reasons to believe that the reinstatement for him and the rest of the coaching staff would not occur. In particular, considering that the club appointed a new coach on 28 August 2015 and that they were deprived from exercising their duties as per the contract and all based on their alleged low performance. Additionally, the Single Judged underlined that the wording of the contract was clear enough and prohibited in article 2 the suspension of the Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge held that the objective circumstances at the time and specially the suspension, is to be considered in itself a serious breach of contract by the Respondent.

14. In light of the aforementioned, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Respondent had terminated the contract without just cause on 22 July 2015.

15. Having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract as of 22 July 2015, the Single Judge went on to consider the amount of compensation that should be granted following the Respondent´ unjustified termination of the contract.

16. Having established the above-mentioned, the Single Judge went on to assess the potential financial consequences of the breach of the contractual relationship by the Respondent.

17. In this regard, upon a careful examination of the contract concluded between the Claimant and the Respondent, the Single Judge took note that Article 10 of the contract provided that: “If Party A [i.e. the Respondent] cancels (terminates) this contract prematurely without just cause or if Party B [i.e. the Claimant] terminates this contract prematurely but with just cause (unless just cause emanates from a force majeure circumstances, e.g. Flood, earthquake, etc.), Party A shall pay the compensation to Party B. The compensation shall be paid in the amount of the salaries of Party B that he would have earned until the end of the validity term of this contract, and within 30 day from the date when the contract was prematurely terminated. No mitigation shall apply”.

18. The Single Judge held that this contractual clause is to the benefit of the Claimant only, i.e. it is not reciprocal as it does not grant the same rights to the Respondent, and that, therefore, said clause cannot be taken into consideration in the determination of the amount of compensation.

19. As a consequence of the above, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of compensation due to the Claimant had to be assessed in accordance with other criteria a taking into consideration the residual value of the contract according to the longstanding jurisprudence of the PSC.

20. Bearing in mind the above, and taking into account that the contract was valid until 31 December 2016, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the Claimant was entitled to the remaining value of his salary as compensation for the unilateral termination of the contract without just cause. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of EUR 1,957,328, corresponding to the salaries from September 2015 until December 2016, serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.

21. With regard to the request of the Respondent to reduce the compensation payable to the Claimant to one monthly salary in accordance with Law of Country D, the Single Judge only applies the pertinent FIFA Regulations and therefore rejected such request of the Respondent.

22. In continuation, the Single Judge verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the Players’ Status Committee, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the coach’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.

23. The Single Judge noted that, according to the Claimant, he concluded an employment contract on 1 July 2016 with the Club of Country M, Club O, valid from the date of signature until 30 June 2017 for a monthly salary of EUR 12,142. Consequently, the Single Judge concurred that the full amount received from June 2016 until December 2016 under the new employment contract shall be taken into consideration in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand, i.e. EUR 72,852.

24. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and that the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 1,884,476 as compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.

25. Having said this and as regards to the Respondent’s counter-claim request as well as considering that the Respondent terminated the contract without just cause, the counter-claim must be rejected in its entirety.

26. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 1,884,476 as compensation for breach of contract as well as

5% interest per year on the said amount from 23 July 2015 until the date of effective payment.

27. 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 its 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).

28. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the Claimant’s claim was partially accepted as well as considering that the Respondent was the party at fault, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA.

29. 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 over CHF 200,001 the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000.

30. In conclusion, and considering the particularities of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 20,000 has to be paid by the Respondent.

*****

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 C, has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Coach A, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, the amount of EUR 1,884,476 as compensation for breach of contract as well as 5% interest per year on the said amount from 23 July 2015 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. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Coach A, are rejected.

5. The counter-claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C, is rejected.

6. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 20,000 are to be paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C, within 30 days of notification of the present decision as follows:

6.1 The amount of CHF 15,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XXX:

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 to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Coach A.

7. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Coach A, is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 5.2 are to be made and to notify the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received.

16

Coach A, Country B / Club C, Country D

*****

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).

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