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

Santiago Wanderers, Chile,

represented by Mr Eduardo Carlezzo

as Claimant

against the club

Asociación Deportivo Cali, Colombia,

represented by Mr César Augusto Pinzón Cardona

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 24 June 2016, the Chilean club, Deportivo Santiago Wanderers (hereinafter: Claimant), and the Colombian club, Asociación Deportivo Cali (hereinafter: Respondent) signed a transfer agreement (hereinafter: first transfer agreement) for the permanent transfer of the player Ronnie Allan Fernández Sáez (hereinafter: player) from the Claimant to the Respondent.

2. According to clause 3.1 of the first transfer agreement, the Respondent committed itself to pay the Claimant USD 400,000 for 100% of the federative rights and 50% of the economic rights of the player.

3. Thus, in accordance with clause 1 (1) of the first transfer agreement, the Claimant and the Respondent agreed that “in case of a future transfer of the player, [the Respondent] will inform [the Claimant] about the offers or negotiations regarding the rights of the player […]. It is the obligation of [the Respondent] to protect the 50% of the economic rights owned by [the Claimant]. Given the above, all income and economic benefits resulting from a future transfer of the player will be distributed equally between [the Claimant and the Respondent]”.

4. On 12 January 2017, the Respondent informed the Claimant by email that it had “the possibility of transferring 50% of the economic rights of the player to the Bolivian club, Club Bolívar for USD 500,000”. In its email, the Respondent proposed to retain USD 300,000 and transfer USD 200,000 to the Claimant, thereby amending “the previously established distribution […] from 50-50% to 60-40%. Since no more than 2 clubs can own the economic rights of a player, [the Respondent] and Bolívar would sign an agreement 50-50% and [the Respondent and the Claimant] would sign a private agreement in which [the Respondent] provides to [the Claimant] 20% of its rights, thereby establishing a proportion 70% [the Claimant] and 30% [the Respondent] and [obliging itself] to preserve [the Claimant’s] rights over the player. In a future transfer of the player undertaken by Bolívar, [the Respondent] would provide [the Claimant] 70% of the sale’s value, thereby retaining the remaining 30%. In summary, [the Claimant] retains 70% of the player for USD 600,000 (400,000 paid by us 6 months ago and 200,000 now) which is the same as approximately USD 857,000 for 100%, with a valorization in 6 months of USD 57,000 over the USD 400,000 initially valorized”.

5. On that same day, 12 January 2017, the Claimant responded via email holding that it would accept the Respondent’s proposal under the following conditions:

a. The Claimant and the Respondent “will be the owners of the rights”;

b. The Claimant and the Respondent “sign a private agreement by means of which [the Claimant] recognizes [the Respondent’s] rights in a future transfer;

c. As regards the USD 30,000 payable to the player, this sum will be distributed in the same way as the economic rights, i.e. 60% [the Respondent] and 40% [the Claimant] (USD 12.000)”.

6. According to the information in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 16 January 2017, the Respondent and Bolívar signed a transfer agreement (hereinafter: second transfer agreement) for the permanent transfer of the player from the Respondent to Bolívar.

7. In accordance with clauses 3 and 4 of the second transfer agreement, Bolívar committed itself to pay the Respondent USD 500,000 for 100% of the federative rights and 50% of the economic rights of the player “by 30 January 2017”.

8. Clause 3 of the second transfer agreement further established that the transfer amount of USD 500,000 “does not include any price, percentage […], and sum of money of any other nature that this transfer generates”.

9. As per clause 1, paragraph 2, of the second transfer agreement, it was agreed that Bolívar acquired the possibility “to transfer […] de federative rights of the player, with the obligation of protecting […] the 50% [of the economic rights] which [the Respondent] retained”.

10. By means of clause 5 of the second transfer agreement, the Respondent “is obligated to pay to the player the total amount of USD 30,000 as a single premium”.

11. On 21 February 2017, the Respondent transferred the amount of USD 235,000 to the Claimant.

12. According to the information in the TMS, on 1 July 2017, Bolívar and the Saudi Arabian club, Al Fahya, signed a transfer agreement (hereinafter: third transfer agreement) for the permanent transfer of the player from Bolívar to Al Fayha.

13. As per clause 3 of the third transfer agreement, Al Fayha agreed to pay Bolívar an amount of USD 2,000,000 in one instalment within 7 days after signing the third transfer agreement.

14. Clause 2 (d) of the third transfer agreement stipulated that “the economic rights of the player shall be transferred to [al Fayha] in their full 100%”.

15. On 5 July 2017, the Claimant wrote a letter to the Respondent questioning how, by means of the second transfer agreement, the Respondent managed to transfer 50% of the economic rights to Bolívar, while retaining 50% of the economic rights, when it only held 50% of the economic rights in the first place. As per the Claimant, it only “received an amount equal to 25% of the economic rights; meaning that [the Respondent] transferred 50% of the income of said operation to us, while retaining 50% of the economic rights of the player.

16. The Claimant further held in said letter that the Respondent “is still required to pay 25% of the economic rights which [the Claimant] had not transferred […] and which became payable on the moment of the subsequent transfer of the player”. The Claimant further highlighted that it became aware of the transfer of the player from Bolívar to Al Fayha, and argued that, consequently, it should “receive an amount equivalent to the percentage of the rights which it still owns”.

17. On 10 October 2017, the Claimant and Al Fayha signed a “Settlement Agreement” in relation to the solidarity contribution deriving from the transfer of the player from Bolívar to Al Fayha. In said Settlement Agreement, Al Fayha inter alia informed the Claimant that the player was transferred from Bolívar to Al Fayha for the amount of USD 2,000,000.

18. On 11 September 2018, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, requesting inter alia the following:

a) USD 515,000, plus 5% interest p.a. over said amount as follows:

i. As from “January 2017” over the amount of USD 15,000 (corresponding to the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Bolívar);

ii. As from “July 2017” over the amount of USD 500,000 (corresponding to the transfer of the player from Bolívar to Al Fayha).

b) “The share of 50% of any amount received from Al Fayha that is higher than USD 1,000,000”, plus 5% interest p.a.;

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

19. In support of its claim, the Claimant referred to the email sent by the Respondent on 12 January 2017 and its counterproposal dated 12 January 2017. In this regard, the Claimant held that, notwithstanding its counterproposal, the parties had failed to reach an agreement, “and decided to remain with the stipulated in the first clause of the [first] transfer agreement”, i.e. “all income and economic benefits resulting from a future transfer of the player will be distributed equally between [the Claimant and the Respondent]” (cf. I/3).

20. In continuation, the Claimant explained that, by means of information provided by FIFA in a dispute between the Claimant and Bolívar with regard to the solidarity contribution deriving from the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Bolívar, it had understood that the player was transferred from the Respondent to Bolívar for the amount of USD 500,000.

21. Consequently, given that it owed 50% of the economic rights of the player, the Claimant stated that the Respondent should have transferred USD 250,000 to the Claimant instead of the USD 235,000 transferred on 21 February 2017.

22. With regard to the subsequent transfer of the player from Bolívar to Al Fayha for USD 2,000,000, the Claimant deduced that USD 1,000,000 was paid to Bolívar and USD 1,000.000 to the Respondent.

23. However, as per the Claimant, “despite [the Respondent’s] obligation to inform [the Claimant] about the terms of a future transfer, [the Respondent] never contacted [the Claimant] to disclose the relevant information, neither paid [the Claimant] the 50% of all the amounts received as a result of the subsequent transfer of the player”.

24. As per the Claimant, the Respondent received the total amount of USD 1,500,000 as a result of the player’s transfers, “but only paid [the Claimant] the amount of USD 235,000 […] despite having the obligation to pass to [the Claimant] 50% of all the amounts received as a consequence of any transfer of the player”, i.e. USD 750,000.

25. Consequently, according to the Claimant, the Responent still has the obligation of transferring the amount of USD 515,000 to the Claimant.

26. In reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent firstly referred to Article 18 ter (1) of the FIFA RSTP and held that “the future transfer” only refers to the first subsequent transfer, and not any future transfers. Thus, as per the Respondent, “a future transfer” as is also stipulated in clause 1 (1) of the first transfer agreement, can only refer to the first subsequent transfer.

27. According to the Respondent, the Claimant is to be considered as a “third party”, in accordance with the articles 18 bis and 18 ter of the FIFA RSTP. Consequently, as per the Respondent, “no club could agree to an agreement by means of which [the Claimant] would be permitted to obtain a position in which it could influence […] transfers […] Similarly, neither [the Respondent] and Bolívar, nor Bolívar and Al Fayha, could sign an agreement with [the Claimant], given that [the Claimant] would be considered a third party in the negotiations regarding the economic rights of the player”.

28. With regard to the alleged proposal it made to the Claimant on 12 January 2017 regarding the redistribution of the economic rights of the player, the Respondent stated that this email appears to have been sent by the Respondent, but “that this is not the case (since the person sending it is not, nor has ever been, the legal representative of [the Respondent])”.

29. In this light, the Respondent argued that it never made said offer to the Claimant, especially with regard to “a future redistribution of the economic rights in case of a new transfer of the player from Bolívar to a third party, given that [the first transfer agreement] only referred to the first subsequent transfer of the player”.

30. In continuation, the Respondent referred to clause 5 of the second agreement (cf. I/10), and held that, following the transfer of the player from the Respondent from Bolívar, it had to pay the amount of USD 30,000 directly to the player.

31. Consequently, as per the Respondent, only the amount of USD 470,000 had to be redistributed 50%/50% between the Respondent and the Claimant. According to the Respondent, the Claimant was therefore only entitled to USD 235,000.

32. With respect to the Claimant’s correspondence dated 5 July 2017, the Respondent held that on 10 July 2017 it replied to said correspondence stating that “it did not have the obligation of paying again to [the Claimant] the percentage relating to the economic rights of the player, given that it only had this obligation after the first subsequent transfer of the player to Bolívar”.

33. In its replica, the Claimant referred to the first transfer agreement, and reiterated that the Claimant and the Respondent “would equally share all the profits that might be related to the player […], with no limitation whatsoever”. Consequently, as per the Claimant, its right is not limited to only one transfer of the player, but covers “all the amounts received by [the Respondent] that might be related to the player”.

34. The Claimant is further of the opinion that the Respondent misinterpreted clause 1 of the first transfer agreement, given that it stipulates “a future transfer” and not “one future transfer”. In this sense, the Claimant highlighted that the rest of clause 1 of the first transfer agreement “embraces any and all the incomes eventually received by [the Respondent]”.

35. With regard to the alleged email correspondence between the parties on 12 January 2017, the Claimant elaborated that the following day, i.e. on 13 January 2017, the Respondent sent another email, which reads as follows: “The lawyers of Bolívar made us note that the agreement cannot be [the Claimant] – Bolívar because the owner of the economic rights at the moment is [the Respondent]; therefore we would have to return to our initial offer, in which the agreement is signed between [the Respondent] and Bolívar; a private agreement between [the Claimant and the Respondent] will remain in existence in all cases”.

36. According to the Claimant, “all these e-mails strongly prove the terms of the agreement reached between” the parties.

37. As regards to the Respondent’s argument that said emails were not sent by the Respondent, the Claimant held submitted that the email address asinisterra@deportivovali.com.co has the same domain as the email addresses of the Respondent found in the TMS. The Claimant further added that the email sent by the Respondent on 12 January 2017 contained all the club’s information, the club’s stamp, telephone number, etc.

38. In addition, the Claimant stated that the name Albero Sinisterra appears on the Responent’s official website as the Respondent’s “Administrative, Financial and Commercial Manager.

39. In continuation, the Claimant underlined that it is a “previous club, with which the player has been registered”. In this sense, the Claimant argued that a “previous club, with which the player has been registered” cannot be considered a third party in accordance with its definition as stipulated in the FIFA RSTP. As a consequence, the prohibition outlined in Article 18 ter RSTP is not applicable to the case at hand.

40. Furthermore, with respect to the Respondent’s argument that only USD 235,000 was due to the Claimant as a result of the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Bolívar, the Claimant referred to clause 3 of the second transfer agreement and held that the transfer sum USD 500,000 did not include “any amount, percentage […] and any sum of money if any other nature than this assignment might generate” (cf. I/8).

41. Thus, as per the Claimant, given that “there is no reason at all to consider the deduction of USD 15,000”, it should have received USD 250,000 from the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Bolívar.

42. In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated that the email sent by Alberto Sinisterra, “who at that time was the general manager, but not anymore”, did not come from the Respondent, because “it did not pass through the judicial department, who is in charge of approving the documents related to the agreements signed with other clubs”.

43. As to the interpretation of a “third party”, the Respondent considered that the Claimant should be considered a third party in accordance with its definition as stipulated in the FIFA RSTP, because it was “a party other than the two clubs transferring a player from one to the other”. As per the Respondent, the Claimant erred by believing that it is not a third party, simply because it was a “previous club, with which the player has been registered”.

44. According to the Respondent, the Claimant misinterpreted the norm, because the norm “does not indicate that by being a former club, it can never be a third party”.

45. Given the above, the Respondent argued that the Claimant could not be involved in the agreements between the Respondent and Bolívar or between Bolívar and Al Fayha, in order to avoid it from obtaining “a position through which it could exercise influence over transfers related with the independence, policy or actions of the club”.

46. With regard to the USD 30,000 paid to the player and which, as per the Respondent, were to be deducted from the transfer amount of USD 500,000, the Respondent held that the Claimant was not only aware that the player was entitled to this amount, but also that it was liable to pay part of this amount, as can be deduced from the email the Claimant sent on 12 January 2017 (cf. I/6.c.).

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 11 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 11 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 24 June 2016, a first transfer agreement was concluded relating to the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent for a transfer fee of USD 400,000. Equally, the Single Judge observed that, as per the first transfer agreement, the Claimant committed itself to transfer “50% of the economic rights of the player” to the Respondent.

7. In this context, the Single Judge further noted that, as per the first transfer agreement, the Claimant and the Respondent agreed that “all income and economic benefits resulting from a future transfer of the player will be distributed equally between [the Claimant and the Respondent]” (cf. I/3).

8. In continuation, the Single Judge recalled that on 16 January 2017, a second transfer agreement was concluded relating to the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Bolívar for a transfer fee USD 500,000. The Single Judge further noted that, by means of the second transfer agreement, the Respondent committed itself to transfer “50% of the economic rights” to Bolívar.

9. Finally, the Single Judge highlighted that on 1 July 2017, a third transfer agreement was concluded relating to the transfer of the player from Bolívar to Al Fahya for a transfer fee of USD 2,000,000.

10. Having established the above, the Single Judge recalled that the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent requesting, inter alia, USD 15,000 corresponding to the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Bolívar, as well as 500,000 corresponding to the transfer of the player from Bolívar to Al Fayha.

11. With regard to the Claimant’s request for relief, the Single Judge took into consideration the Claimant’s arguments, who held that it was entitled to 50% of all the amounts the Respondent received, or would receive, regarding any transfer of the player. In particular, the Single Judge deduced that the Claimant was of the opinion that it was entitled to 50% of the amount obtained by the Respondent for the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Bolívar, as well as 50% of the amount obtained by the Respondent for the transfer of the player Bolívar to Al Fayha.

12. From the outset, the Single Judge wished to underline that he considers the references to “50% of the economic rights” and the “ownership of the economic rights” nothing more than what parties in football more typically refer to as “sell-on clauses”. In other words, the Claimant’s “ownership” of 50% of the “economic rights” is in the Single Judge’s view simply an agreement that the Respondent pays 50% as a sell-on fee to the Claimant should the Respondent transfer the player to a third club.

13. Having said this, the Single Judge then proceeded to analyse the Respondent’s position. In this regard, the Single Judge firstly referred to the comments provided by the Respondent with regard to the Claimant’s request for USD 15,000 corresponding to the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Bolívar. According to the Respondent, the Claimant was only entitled to 50% of USD 470,000, because the Respondent paid an amount of USD 30,000 directly to the player which should be deducted from the transfer fee of USD 500,000 agreed upon with Bolívar (cf. I/30). Given that it remained undisputed that the Respondent paid USD 235,000 to the Claimant, the Single Judge acknowledged that according to the Respondent no amount remained outstanding to the Claimant.

14. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that the second transfer agreement merely stipulated that Bolívar committed itself to pay the Respondent USD 500,000 as a transfer fee to the Respondent. The fact that the Respondent thereafter decided to pay USD 30,000 to the player is irrelevant for determining the amount the Claimant is entitled to. Indeed, the Claimant was neither a party to the agreement between the Respondent and the player by means of which the Respondent paid USD 30,000 to the player, nor a party to the agreement between the Respondent and Bolivar.

15. Hence, the Single Judge determined that USD 500,000 encompassed the entire transfer fee and that 50% of this amount corresponded to the Claimant’s entitlement on the basis of the sell-on fee, i.e. USD 250,000. Given that it remained undisputed that the Respondent paid the amount of USD 235,000 to the Claimant, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of USD 15,000 remained outstanding to the Claimant.

16. In continuation, the Single Judge took into consideration the Respondent’s position that, as per the first transfer agreement, the Claimant was only entitled to an amount regarding the first subsequent transfer of the player: i.e. the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Bolívar. The Single Judge further recalled that, as per the Respondent, the Claimant should be considered a “third party” capable of influencing future transfers involving the player.

17. In this context, the Single Judge firstly reiterated that in accordance with definition 14 of the Regulations, a Third Party is considered “a party other than the two clubs transferring a player from one to the other, or any previous club, with which the player has been registered”. The Single Judge subsequently underlined that the player was previously registered with the Claimant and could thus not be considered a “third party” pursuant to definition 14 of the Regulations.

18. Subsequently, the Single Judge turned to the query of whether the Claimant was, or could be, entitled to an amount from the Respondent following the transfer of the player from Bolívar to Al Fahly. In order to solve this query, the Single Judge firstly reiterated that, as per the first transfer agreement, the parties agreed that “all income and economic benefits resulting from a future transfer of the player will be distributed equally between [the Claimant and the Respondent]”.

19. According to the Single Judge, the first transfer agreement left little room for doubt: As long as the Respondent benefits from any future transfer of the player, then this benefit has to be distributed equally between the Claimant and the Respondent.

20. In light of this, the Single Judge recalled that by means of the second transfer agreement, Bolívar committed to pay 50% of any future transfer to the Respondent. In this regard, the Single Judge wished to point out that, in accordance with established Players’ Status Committee jurisprudence, the provision agreed upon between Bolívar and the Respondent needs to be interpreted as meaning that the Respondent and Bolívar agreed on a sell-on fee, by means of which the Respondent would obtain 50% of the transfer fee following the transfer of the player from Bolívar to a third club.

21. Therefore, and given that on 1 July 2017 the player transferred from Bolívar to Al Fahya for a transfer fee of USD 2,000,000 (cf. I/13), the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent was entitled to receive from Bolívar 50%, i.e. USD 1,000,000, with regard to this transfer.

22. As such, and particularly taking into account that the Respondent benefitted from the transfer of the player from Bolívar to Al Fahya, the Single Judge determined that the Respondent is obligated to distribute this benefit equally with the Claimant, in accordance with the first transfer agreement. In other words, considering that the Respondent obtained USD 1,000,000 from the transfer of the player from Bolívar to Al Fahya, the Single Judge established that 50% of that amount, i.e. USD 500,000, corresponds to the entitlement of the Claimant.

23. Considering all of the above, the Single Judge determined that the Claimant is entitled to obtain from the Respondent the total amount of USD 515,000, as follows:

a) USD 15,000 as outstanding remuneration corresponding to the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Bolívar;

b) USD 500,000 corresponding to the transfer of the player from Bolívar to Al Fahya, based on the sell-on clause agreed upon between the Respondent and Bolivar.

24. In addition and as to the Claimant’s request related to the payment of interest on the aforementioned sum of USD 515,000, the Single Judge, in accordance with the practice of the Players’ Status Committee, established that the Respondent has to pay 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment on the relevant amount as follows:

a) On the amount of USD 15,000 as from 31 January 2017;

b) On the amount of USD 500,000 as from 31 July 2017.

25. 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).

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

27. 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 515,000, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000.

28. Consequently, and taking into account the complexity of the matter and the volume of the submissions, the Single Judge established that the Respondent has to pay the amount of CHF 25,000 in order to cover the costs of the present proceedings.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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, Santiago Wanderers, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, Asociación Deportivo Cali, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 515,000, plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows:

a. On the amount of USD 15,000 as from 31 January 2017;

b. On the amount of USD 500,000 as from 31 July 2017.

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 by the Respondent 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. 18-01869/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 directly to the Claimant.

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