F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee / Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori – club vs club disputes / controversie tra società – (2019-2020) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 29 October 2019

Decision of the Single Judge

of the Players’ Status Committee

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 29 October 2019,

by

Roy Vermeer (The Netherlands)

Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee,

on the claim presented by the club

Deportivo Palestino, Chile,

represented by Mr Eduardo Carlezzo

as Claimant

against the club

San Lorenzo de Almagro, Argentina,

represented by Mr Juan Ramilo

as Respondent

regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties

and relating to the player Paulo Cesar Díaz Huincales

I. Facts of the case

1. On 26 May 2015 the Chilean club, Deportivo Palestino (hereinafter: Claimant), and the Chilean club, Deportivo Colo-Colo (hereinafter: Colo-Colo), signed a transfer agreement (hereinafter: first transfer agreement) for the permanent transfer of the player César Díaz Huincales (hereinafter: Player) from the Claimant to the Respondent.

2. According to clause 3.1 of the first transfer agreement, Colo-Colo committed itself to pay the Claimant USD 600,000 for 100% of the “federative rights” and 50% of the “economic rights” of the player, as follows:

a. USD 166,666.67 on the date of signature;

b. USD 166,666.67 on 30 June 2015;

c. USD 166,666.67 on 30 July 2015;

d. USD 100,000 on 30 May 2016.

3. Moreover, under clause 2.1 of the first transfer agreement, “Palestino transfers […] 50% of the economic rights of the player for the price established in clause 3.1”.

4. Clause 4 of the first transfer agreement stipulated the following: “In case Colo-Colo receives an offer for 100% of the federative and economic rights of the player for an amount equal or superior to USD 5,000,000, both clubs will obtain USD 2,500,000, and will be obliged to sell the player if he requests it. Without prejudice to the former, it is hereby established that Palestino retains the right to accept or reject any type of offer for the player for an amount inferior to the previously established”.

5. On 11 February 2016 Colo-Colo and the Argentinian club, San Lorenzo de Almagro (hereinafter: Respondent), signed a transfer agreement (hereinafter: second transfer agreement) for the permanent transfer of the player from Colo-Colo to the Respondent.

6. According to clause 4.1 of the second transfer agreement, the Respondent committed itself to pay Colo-Colo USD 1,000,000 for 100% of the “federative rights” and 50% of the “economic rights” of the player, as follows:

a. USD 500,000 on the date of signature;

b. USD 250,000 within 30 days of the signing of the second transfer agreement;

c. USD 250,000 within 60 days of the signing of the second transfer agreement.

7. Clause 2 of the preamble of the second transfer agreement reads as follows: “[Colo-Colo] is the sole and exclusive owner of 100% of the federative rights and 50% of the economic rights of the player […] As a consequence it commits itself to transfer the same in favour of [the Respondent] without any restrictions nor limitation […]”.

8. Clause 3 of the preamble of the second transfer agreement reads as follows: “[The Respondent] wishes to acquire from [Colo-Colo] 100% of the federative rights and 50% of the economic rights […]”.

9. Clause 5 of the second transfer agreement reads as follows: “[Colo-Colo] informs [the Respondent] that [the Claimant] is the owner of the remaining 50% of the economic rights of the player. As a consequence, [the Respondent] declares that said percentage will be maintained over the economic rights of the player […]”.

10. Clause 7.1 of the second transfer agreement reads as follows: “In case [the Respondent] undertakes a future transfer of the federative rights of the player to any other club […] albeit permanently or temporarily [The Respondent] commits itself to recognize in favour of [the Claimant] the corresponding amount in accordance with the proportions of the economic rights that correspondent at that moment, over the net surplus of the operation”.

11. Clause 7.2 of the second transfer agreement reads as follows: “The net surplus of the operation shall be understood to be the gross price of the sale and / or loan deducting the corresponding proportion of all expenses, taxes, duties, fees, contributions and any other concept that may be levied at the time of the transfer by the National Public Administration of Argentina, by the AFA, by FAA or by FIFA, including any solidarity mechanism that may correspond, and the percentage that corresponds to the player. [The Respondent] hereby agrees to terminate in advance the employment contract it enters into with the player, in the event that during the duration of the contract between [the Respondent] and the Player, either party [the Respondent and the Claimant] receives a duly documented formal offer from (another club) to purchase 100% of the federative rights and 100% of the economic rights, for a net sum equal to or bigger than USD 5,000,000 net. In view of the above, [the Respondent] shall be obliged to proceed with the transfer of the player and the result of the sale shall be distributed among the clubs [the Respondent and the Claimant] in accordance with the percentages that each of them holds over the ownership of the player's economic rights at the time of the sale. Notwithstanding the above, [the Respondent] –of the sums it receives - shall pay Colo-Colo the additional amount of USD 1,000,000”.

12. Clause 7.3 of the second transfer agreement stipulated the following: “Should [the Respondent] decide not to transfer the player, then it is obligated to compensate Colo-Colo and [the Claimant] in accordance with the terms established in [clause 7.2], taking into consideration the amount offered for the calculation of the compensation. Said amount shall be transferred within 30 days following the offer for the transfer of the player”.

13. According to the information in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 11 August 2018, the Respondent and the Saudi Arabian club, Al Ahli, signed a transfer agreement (hereinafter: third transfer agreement) for the permanent transfer of the player from the Respondent to Al Ahli.

14. According to Article 2 of the third transfer agreement, Al Ahli committed to pay San Lorenzo the amount of USD 4,300,000, plus USD 1,105,100 “as Taxes” by 15 August 2018 for the permanent transfer of the player from San Lorenzo to Al Ahli, as follows:

a. “AFA (2%): USD 86,000;

b. Decreto 1212/03 (7%): USD 301,000;

c. Art. 8 CCT 557/09 (15%): USD 645,000;

d. Stamp tax (1.2%): USD 51,600;

e. FAA (0.5%): USD 21,500”.

15. By means of Article 3 of the third transfer agreement, “Al Ahli and [the Respondent] agree that the transfer compensation paid to [the Respondent] does not include any solidarity contribution […] For that matter Al Ahli shall take upon itself the distribution of the solidarity contribution to the deserving clubs”.

16. Pursuant to Article 6 of the third transfer agreement, “[the Respondent] declares that no other club or party has the right to claim compensation for the Player other than solidarity contribution. For this matter [the Respondent] will supply to Al Ahli a “proof signed by the former club that there is no TPO of the Player’s economic rights.

17. Furthermore, the Respondent uploaded a document on the TMS, dated 15 August 2018, entitled: “Declaration on the ownership of the economic rights of the player by third parties”. Said document further stipulated the following: “By signing this document, I confirm that my club has not concerted any type of agreement regarding the economic rights of the player with a third [party]”.

18. Finally, according to the information on the TMS, Al Ahli paid an amount of USD 5,405,100 to the Respondent on 3 September 2018.

19. On 14 March 2018, the Respondent informed the Claimant in writing that it was interested in purchasing the 50% of the economic rights of the player that were in the possession of the Claimant for the amount of USD 1,250,000.

20. Furthermore, in said letter, the Respondent offered the Claimant 70% of the economic rights of the player, Rodrigo Tapia, who, at that time, was temporarily transferred from the Respondent to the Claimant.

21. On 11 August 2018, the Claimant informed the Respondent in writing that it rejected the offer, holding that “various intermediaries has asked about the value of the 50% of the economic rights of the player in case he is transferred from [the Respondent]”. In said letter, the Claimant further reminded the Respondent that it will “have the right to obtain 50% of any amount that emerges from any future transfer involving the player”.

22. By letter dated 17 August 2018, the Respondent informed the Claimant that it “is aware that you are the owner of 50% of the net product of the transfer of federative rights of the […] player. Furthermore, we hereby inform you that we have transferred 100% of the federative rights of the player to the club Al Ahli Saudi Football Club, for the amount of USD 4,300,000 net. Consequently, when we receive the transfer amount, we shall proceed to pay the 50% that corresponds to you”.

23. By letter dated 27 August 2018, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the payment “within 24 hours” of 50% of the amount obtained by the Respondent for the transfer of the player to Al Ahli.

24. On 28 August 2018, the Respondent informed the Claimant that it had not yet obtained the sums corresponding to the transfer of the player, and that it will pay the corresponding amount to the Claimant as soon as it has obtained the amount from Al Ahli.

25. On 5 September 2018, the Claimant again requested the Respondent to pay the 50% of the net product of the transfer fee.

26. On 13 September 2018, amended on 27 November 2018, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, requesting inter alia the following:

a. USD 2,844,789, “which corresponds to 50% of the total transfer fee (USD 5,689,578)”;

b. Alternatively, USD 2,229,239, “which corresponds to 50% of USD 4,584,000 (USD 4,300,000 plus USD 284,478 of the solidarity contribution)”;

c. Alternatively, USD 2,263,157, “which would correspond to 50% of the total transfer fee (USD 4,526,315)”;

d. As a final alternative, USD 2,150,000, “which would correspond to 50% of USD 4,300,000”;

e. 5% interest “since the date in which the payment became due”;

f. That the Respondent pay all the procedural costs and reimburse the advance of costs to the Claimant.

27. In support of its claim dated 13 September 2018, the Claimant referred to the Respondent’s letter dated 17 August 2018 (cf. I/22), and argued that the Respondent itself had recognised that the transfer fee paid by Al Ahli for the transfer of the player was USD 4,300,000.

28. In reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent firstly referred to its correspondence of 17 August 2018, in which it “informed [the Claimant] that the transfer took place for the sum of USD 4,300,000”, and argued that it did not inform the Claimant about the conditions of the transfer of the player to Al Ahli, because it “did not have the obligation to do it that way”. As per the Respondent, the sole contractual obligation imposed on it was to pay the “corresponding amounts once it had received the transfer amount” from Al Ahli.

29. In this regard, the Respondent held that Al Ahli failed to comply with its obligations deriving from the transfer agreement, and that the Respondent had to consistently request from Al Ahli the corresponding amounts.

30. With regard to the requested amount of USD 2,150,000, the Respondent referred to Clause 7.2 of the second transfer agreement (cf. I/12), and held that the amounts due to the player’s former club in accordance with the rules on the solidarity mechanism need to be subtracted from the net transfer amount.

31. In its replica, the Claimant held that the Respondent’s argument that the solidarity contribution has to be subtracted before calculating the 50% due to the Claimant is groundless. In this regard, the Claimant referred to the clauses 2 and 4 of the transfer agreement it signed with Colo-Colo (cf. I/3 and I/4) and argued that it “is entitled to receive 50% of the total transfer fee in connection with the player […] without mention any kind of discount over the amount”.

32. According to the Claimant, the Respondent and Colo-Colo “could not have established any limitation to [the Claimant’s] rights, such as the provision of clause 7 of the transfer agreement signed between Colo-Colo and [the Respondent]”.

33. Moreover, the Claimant referred to a letter with regard to TMS case 3304 (i.e. the Claimant vs. Al Ahli), in which it was informed by FIFA that the transfer compensation amounted to USD 4,300,000 “plus the amount of USD 1,105,000 (…) as Taxes”. Furthermore, said letter stipulated that “[the parties] agree that the transfer compensation paid to [the Respondent] does not include any solidarity contribution that may arise from the present transfer”.

34. Consequently, as per the Claimant, it is false that the solidarity contribution is to be deducted from the calculation of the amount due.

35. According to the Claimant, “it can be easily concluded that AI AhIi retained the 5% and that the amount of USD 5,405,100 paid corresponds to 95% of the transfer fee, which means that the total transfer fee was in the amount of USD 5,689,578. Therefore, [the Claimant] is entitled to receive USD 2,844,789 which corresponds to 50% of the total transfer fee (USD 5,689,578)”.

36. Alternatively, the Claimant argued that if it “is entitled to receive 50% of USD 4,300,000 and that this amount is not including the solidarity contribution […] which means that [the Claimant] would be entitled to receive USD 2,292,239, corresponding to 50% of USD 4,584,000 (USD 4,300,000 plus USD 284,478 of the solidarity contribution)”.

37. Alternatively, the Claimant stated that if it is considered that the amount of USD 1,105,000 is not part of the transfer fee, but that the total amount equals USD 4,300,000 “and that it was not including the solidarity contribution, which means that AI AhIi retained the 5% and that the amount of USD 4,300,000 paid corresponds to 95% of the transfer fee and, for this reason, the total transfer fee was in the amount of USD 4,526,315”.

38. As a final alternative, the Claimant referred to its previous request, and argued that it is entitled to receive 50% of USD 4,300,000, i.e. USD 2,150,000.

39. With regard to the “Taxes” in the amount of USD 1,105,000, the Claimant considered this amount to be disproportionate and considered it possible that the Respondent and Al Ahli agreed on this amount “only to circumvent [Palestino’s] rights and harm its interests”.

40. In its duplica, the Respondent referred once again to the transfer agreement it signed with Colo-Colo, and argue that it did not establish a deadline by which it had to pay the corresponding amounts to the Claimant.

41. What is more, given that clause 7.3 of the second transfer agreement provided a 30 day deadline for the Respondent to compensate Colo-Colo and the Claimant in case it did not accept the transfer offer (cf. I/12), the Respondent is of the opinion that, by analogy, the same deadline should be applicable.

42. Therefore, as per the Respondent, the Claimant’s claim was extemporary, and the Respondent should have been given a 30 day deadline to pay the Claimant following the payment of the transfer sum by Al Ahli.

43. With regard to the actual transfer sum, the Respondent held that it follows from the transfer agreement signed between itself and Colo-Colo that the amount due to the Claimant is to be calculated over a net amount.

44. In this regard, the Respondent explained that it was unware of the agreement signed between the Claimant and Colo-Colo and, as such, could not possibly know whether the Claimant and Colo-Colo agreed on net amounts or gross amounts.

45. In this context, the Respondent held that, as stated in the transfer agreement signed between Colo-Colo and the Respondent, the solidarity contribution needs to be subtracted from the calculation.

46. Similarly, with regard to the “Taxes”, as stipulated in the transfer agreement signed between the Respondent and Al Ahli, the Respondent reiterated that as per clause 7.2 of the transfer agreement signed between the Respondent and Colo-Colo, only the net transfer sum should be taken into consideration.

47. Finally, the Respondent explained that in Argentina the transfers of players are “affected by numerous items, all of which were clearly listed in [Article 2 of] the transfer agreement signed between [the Respondent] and Al Ahli, and which reach 25.7% of the involved amount” (cf. I/14).

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 referred to art. 21 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 13 September 2018, the Single Judge concluded that the 2018 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 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, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the January and June 2018 editions of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and, on the other hand, to the fact that the claim was lodged with FIFA on 13 September 2018. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the June 2018 edition of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance.

3. 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 Regulations he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns a dispute between two football clubs affiliated to two different associations.

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 facts of the dispute, the arguments of the parties as well as the documentation contained in the file. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in the TMS.

5. In doing so, the Single Judge recalled the main events that gave rise to the dispute, as reported by the parties during the course of the investigation.

6. First of all, the Single Judge acknowledged that on 26 May 2015, a first transfer agreement was concluded relating to the transfer of the player from the Claimant to Colo-Colo for a transfer fee of USD 600,000. Equally, the Single Judge observed that, as per the first transfer agreement, the Claimant committed itself to transfer “50% if the economic rights of the player” to Colo-Colo.

7. From the outset, the Single Judge wished to underline that he considers the references to “50% of the economic rights” nothing more than what parties in football more typically refer to as “sell-on clauses”. In other words, 50% of the “economic rights of the player” means in the current dispute simply that the Claimant and Colo Colo made an agreement by means of which Colo Colo would pay 50% of any transfer fee received from a third club to the Claimant for the future transfer of the player.

8. In continuation, the Single Judge recalled that on 11 February 2016, a second transfer agreement was concluded relating to the transfer of the player from Colo-Colo to the Respondent for a transfer fee USD 1,000,000. The Single Judge further noted that, by means of the second transfer agreement, Colo-Colo committed itself to transfer “50% of the economic rights” to the Respondent.

9. The Single Judge further took into account Clause 7.1 of the second transfer agreement, by means of which the Respondent committed itself “to recognise in favour of [the Claimant] the corresponding amount in accordance with the proportions of the economic rights that correspondent at that moment, over the net surplus of the operation”. However, the Single Judge also underlined the fact that the Claimant was not an actual party to the second transfer agreement.

10. Finally, the Single Judge highlighted that on 11 August 2018, a third transfer agreement was concluded relating to the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Al Ahli for a transfer fee of USD 4,300,000, plus USD 1,105,100 “as Taxes”.

11. Having established the above, the Single Judge recalled that the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent requesting “50% of the total transfer fee” with regard to the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Al Ahli.

12. With regard to the Claimant’s request for relief, the Single Judge failed to understand what the contractual basis was for such a claim, taking into consideration that the Claimant was not part of the agreement signed between Colo-Colo and the Respondent. The Single Judge was of the opinion that the Claimant could i) not claim any entitlements on the basis of an agreement to which it was not a party and ii) could not claim against a party with which it had no contractual arrangements. Therefore, in principle, the Single Judge was of the opinion that the claim against the Respondent should be rejected for lack of legal basis.

13. Having said this, the Single Judge analysed the Respondent’s reply to the claim, placing particular emphasis on the Respondent’s statement that it would pay the “corresponding amounts [to the Claimant] once it had received the transfer amount” from Al Ahli (cf. I/28). In addition, the Single Judge referred to the letter sent by the Respondent to the Claimant on 17 August 2018 (cf. I/22), and recalled that the Respondent did not dispute in these proceedings that, in fact, an amount was due to the Claimant.

14. In light of the above, the Single Judge determined that the Respondent unequivocally recognised that it is obligated to pay to the Claimant 50% of the transfer fee obtained from the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Al Ahli. As such, on the basis of the statements of the Respondent, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent needs to pay the Claimant a sum of money.

15. Consequently, the Single Judge deduced that the fundamental question in the matter at hand is determining what amount corresponds to 50% of the transfer fee. In this regard, the Single Judge turned to the third transfer agreement, and recalled that Al Ahli committed itself to pay to the Respondent a transfer fee of USD 4,300,000, plus USD 1,105,100 “as Taxes”. In other words, the Single Judge understood that the total transfer fee relating to the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Al Ahli amounted to USD 5,405,100. Furthermore, the Single Judge took into account the information found in the TMS, and recalled that Al Ahli paid the full amount of USD 5,405,100 on 3 September 2018 (cf. I/18).

16. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge took note of the Respondent’s comments, which inter alia held that the solidarity contribution needed to be subtracted from the total transfer sum, yet the Single Judge could not follow the Respondent’s argumentation in this respect. Referring to Art. 3 of the third transfer agreement (cf. I/15), the Single Judge underlined that the transfer fee of USD 5,405,100 did not include the solidarity contribution. In other words, as per the Single Judge, the solidarity contribution was already paid directly by Al Ahli to the player’s former clubs, including the Claimant.

17. Considering all of the above, the Single Judge determined that the Respondent obtained the total amount of USD 5,405,100 from Al Ahli. Therefore, and taking into consideration that the Respondent acknowledged that the Claimant is entitled to 50% of the transfer fee, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant is entitled to the amount of USD 2,702,550.

18. In addition and as to the Claimant’s request related to the payment of interest on the aforementioned sum of USD 2,702,550, the Single Judge, in accordance with the practice of the Players’ Status Committee, established that the Respondent has to pay 5% interest p.a. on the relevant amount as from 16 August 2018.

19. 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 proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee including its 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 (cf. art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).

20. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is to a considerable extent accepted. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to bear the major part of the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA.

21. 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

USD 2,702,550, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000.

22. In conclusion, and considering the complexity of the case as well as the volume of submissions, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 25,000.

23. Consequently, the Single Judge established that the Respondent has to pay the amount of CHF 20,000 and the Claimant has to pay the amount of CHF 5,000 order to cover the costs of the present proceedings. The Single Judge further noted that the Claimant already covered its part of the costs as an advance of costs at the beginning of the proceedings.

24. Taking into account the consideration under number II.2 above, the Single Judge referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with his decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.

25. In this regard, the Single Judge pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.

26. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that, in the event that the Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the player within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the club, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the club in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

27. Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.

28. Finally, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by confirming that any further claim of the Claimant shall be rejected.

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

1. The claim of the Claimant, Deportivo Palestino, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, San Lorenzo de Almagro, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 2,702,550, plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 16 August 2018 until the date of effective payment.

3. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly, of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the amount mentioned under point III/2.

4. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with point III/2. to FIFA to the e-mail address psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if need be, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).

5. In the event that the amount due plus interest in accordance with point III/2. above is not paid by the Respondent within 45 days as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the Respondent, the Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

6. The ban mentioned in point III/5. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.

7. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is still not paid by the end of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

8. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 25,000 are to be paid, within 45 days as from the date of notification of this decision, as follows:

8.1 The amount of CHF 20,000 has to be paid by the Respondent to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. 18-01903/osv:

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

8.2 The amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid by the Claimant. Taking into account that the latter has already paid the amount of CHF 5,000 as advance of costs at the beginning of the present procedure, the Claimant is exempted to pay said amount to FIFA.

9. In the event that the aforementioned amount of costs is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

*****

Note related to the publication:

The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 20 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).

Note related to the appeal procedure:

According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS. 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

For the Single Judge of the

Players’ Status Committee

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer