F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee / Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori – club vs club disputes / controversie tra società – (2020-2021) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 6 October 2020

Decision of the

Single Judge of the Players' Status Committee

Passed on 6 October 2020,

regarding a contractual dispute concerning the player Kouassi Gervais Yao

BY:

Geoff Thompson (England), Single Judge of the PSC

CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:

PARMA CALCIO 1913, Italy

Represented by Studio E.L.S.A.

RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:

AL SADD SC, Qatar

Represented by ATFIELD

I. FACTS OF THE CASE

1. On 28 January 2020, the Italian club, Parma Calcio 1913 (hereinafter: Parma) received a transfer offer from the Qatari club, Al Sadd (hereinafter: Al Sadd) in the amount of EUR 3,200,000 for the transfer of the Ivorian player, Kouassi Gervais Yao (hereinafter: the player). Parma refused said offer via e-mail on that same day.

2. On 30 January 2020, Al Sadd signed and sent a transfer offer to Parma, by means of which it offered Parma the amount of USD 4,500,000 for the transfer of the player, to be paid within 30 days.

3. On that same day, 30 January 2020, Parma replied to Al Sadd, holding that it was “considering” the transfer offer, but requested that (i) the payment of the transfer fee should be executed within 48 hours as from the TMS instructions being entered, and (ii) that the 5% of solidarity contribution payable to third-parties should not be included in the amount of EUR 4,500,000.

4. On 31 January 2020, at 13:41, Al Sadd provided Parma with its final offer regarding the transfer of the player. As per said offer, Al Sadd would undertake to pay to Parma the amount of EUR 4,500,000 “within 3 weeks of the transfer of the federative sports rights of the Player”.

5. According to Parma, it decided to accept and sign this offer from Al Sadd (hereinafter: the transfer agreement).

6. The transfer agreement bears the signature of Parma, Al Sadd, and the player, and contained inter alia the following clauses:

“6. The validity of the present contract is strictly related to the issuance of the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) by the Football Association of [Parma] in favour of the Football Association of [Al Sadd] (…).

7. The validity of the present contract is strictly related to the fact that the [player] will accept his transfer to [Al Sadd] and consequently that an employment contract between [Al Sadd] and the [player] will be signed.

8. This contract is valid after the player pass (sic) the medical check-up at Aspetar hospital”.

7. According to the information provided in the Transfer Marching System (TMS), on 31 January 2020 at 21:50 (Swiss time), Parma entered a transfer instruction to release the player permanently. Similarly, at 22:03 (Swiss time), Al Sadd entered a transfer instruction to engage the player permanently from Parma.

8. In continuation, as per the information contained in the TMS, at 21:53 (Swiss time) (i.e. 23:53 Qatari time), Al Sadd uploaded, inter alia, the transfer agreement.

9. However, according to Parma, at 22:00 (Swiss time) on 31 January 2020, the Qatari transfer window closed. In this context, Parma referred to a WhatsApp message allegedly sent by Al Sadd on 31 January 2020 at 22:04, in which it states “My system shut down…”

10. On 2 February 2020, Parma informed Al Sadd in writing that it had been made aware via telephone by a representative of Al Sadd that the latter had suffered a “electronic shutdown”. Parma also informed Al Sadd of the possibility “to request a validation exception at FIFA” and requested that Al Sadd to verify if it was in a position to request such exception and to do so as soon as possible.

11. On 4 February 2020, Parma contacted the Qatar FA requesting the ITC of the player.

12. On 7 February 2020, Parma requested Al Sadd in writing to confirm whether it will “execute the transfer agreement of 31 January 2020”. As per Parma, “If Al Sadd decides not to execute the transfer, [Parma] will […] seek full compensation for the damages incurred […] The employment agreement concluded between [Parma] and the player will remain in force and [Parma] will be obligated to pay the player’s salaries. In view of the above, please be informed that [Parma] will also request payment from Al Sadd of any and all salaries to the player by [Parma]. In light of the above, we hereby kindly provide you again with our notice of payment of EUR 4,285,714.29 […] in accordance with Article 3 of the Transger Agreement of 31 January 2020”.

13. On 13 February 2020, Parma put Al Sadd in default, giving Al Sadd until 16 February 2020 to provide an answer to its notification of 7 February 2020. Parma further maintained that, “in the event we receive a negative reply [Parma] will consider the transfer agreement of 31 January 2020 to be breached and the player will again play for [Parma]”.

14. On 14 February 2020, Al Sadd informed Parma in writing that, “since the ITC in this case was not issued within the registration period the Agreement is void […] In summary, the transfer of the player was not concluded and no payment is due by Al Sadd”.

15. On that same day, 14 February 2020, Parma informed Al Sadd that it was “11 minutes late in requesting” the ITC. As per Parma, “the condition precedent of the issuance of the International Transfer Certificate should be considered as fulfilled and thus the transfer agreement is fully valid and binding”.

16. According to Parma, on 15 Febrary 2020, the player was reintegrated in Parma’s club activities.

17. On 19 February 2020, Al Sadd reiterated in writing that the conditions for an international transfer to take place were not fulfilled, and that consequently the transfer agreement did not enter into force.

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA

18. On 23 April 2020, Parma filed a claim against Al Sadd before FIFA. A brief summary of the parties’ positions is detailed in continuation.

A. Claim of Parma

19. With regard to the transfer agreement of 31 January 2020, Parma underlined that “Al Sadd entered its instructions into the FIFA TMS after the Qatar winter transfer window ended and its refusal to execute the transfer of the Player constitutes a clear breach of the Transfer Agreement”.

20. Therefore, according to Parma, Al Sadd has to compensate Parma for the abovementioned breach.

21. With regard to the compensation due, Parma firstly recalled that under the transfer agreement, it was to obtain EUR 4,500,000 minus 5% corresponding to the solidarity contribution. Thus, as per Parma, it would have received EUR 4,275,000 “net” from Al Sadd.

22. In continuation, Parma argued that the residual value of the contract of the player with Parma amounted to EUR 5,642,500. Thus, according to Parma, “in accordance with the legal principle of the positive interest, Al Sadd must pay to [Parma] the sum of EUR 4,275,000 (Transfer Fee) and EUR 5,642,500 (salaries), being EUR 9,917,500 in order to put [Parma] in the position they would have been, if the Transfer Agreement was performed properly by Al Sadd”.

23. Parma requested the following relief:

“1) Accepts the present claim;

2) Orders Al Sadd to pay to Parma Calcio damages amounting to Euro 9.917.500,00 or in the amount deemed fit by the FIFA Players' Status Committee;

3) Awards Parma Calcio any further or other relief as the FIFA Player's Status Committee sees fit;

4) Decides that any amount payable by Al Sadd to Parma Calcio is subject to 5% p.a. interest as from 1 February 2020 until the effective date of payment

5) Orders Al Sadd to bear any and all costs of the proceedings;

6) Orders Al Sadd to compensate the legal costs of Parma Calcio in their hill amount;

8) Applies the measures established by article 24bis of the FIFA Regulations and any other measures it considers necessary”.

B. Reply and counterclaim of Al Sadd

24. In its reply dated 2 June 2020, Al Sadd first referred to the labour claim it lodged against the player and Parma (Ref. 20-00540) and points out that any allegations developed in the reply to the present claim are “without prejudice to the content of Al Sadd’s claim […] 20-00540”.

25. Having said that, Al Sadd made also a chronological recollection of the events related to the negotiation and signature of the transfer agreement and the employment contract, focusing on 31 January 2020.

26. Al Sadd deemed that no valid transfer agreement was concluded with Parma and that the latter was the party that prevented the transfer agreement from entering into force. Al Sadd argued that “Consequently, based on the principle of culpa in contrahendo, Parma shall be held liable to compensate Al Sadd for the damages caused in connection with the negotiations of the transfer. On a subsidiary basis, it will be demonstrated that should the transfer agreement have entered into force (quod non), its alleged breach would be attributable to Parma. Finally, on even more subsidiary basis, emphasis will be put on Parma’s absence of damages”.

27. In this respect, Al Sadd first claims that two conditions precedent for the validity of the agreement were not fulfilled: the issuance of the ITC by the FIGC and the medical examination of the player.

28. Al Sadd insists on the culpa in contrahendo of Parma and claims that the pre-requisites of a) the existence of contractual negotiations, b) a fault, c) a damage and d) a causal link are present in the case at hand. Al Sadd deems that Parma acted in bad faith, trying to “sabotage” the transfer of the player, based on the following description of the events from the end of January / beginning of February 2020:

“75. […] after receiving a first offer, on 28 January 2020, Parma informed Al Sadd that the club was not interested in selling the player as “the transfer market window will be open until 31/01/2020 so there won’t be enough time for us to find a player with the same attributes that could replace him” and “the offer received is not adequate for the player’s current market value.”

76. Nevertheless, on 30 January 2020, Parma accepted Al Sadd’s offer to transfer the Player in exchange for the payment of EUR 4,500,000.

77. After settling the last minor details, i.e. the deadline for payment and the allocation of the solidarity contributions, Al Sadd addressed to Parma the final signed version of the transfer agreement on 31 January 2020 at 3.23 pm, this is almost 9 hours before the closure of the transfer window.

78. Despite being a professional club accustomed to the use of TMS and therefore aware of the urgency, Parma did not take any action aimed at gathering and providing the documentation needed in order to complete the transfer. In this regard, it must be underlined that since 6.00 pm, Parma’s representatives and the Player were together in Milan.

79. Worrying about the situation, Al Sadd decided to initiate the transfer instruction in TMS at 10.03 pm, which was notified to Parma.

80. However, it is only at 11.49 pm, i.e. 11 minutes before the closure of the transfer window, that Parma showed a first formal reaction and sent the countersigned copy of the transfer agreement. The document was immediately uploaded in TMS by Al Sadd.

81. Considering the Player’s absence of reaction, but knowing that the Player was in Milan with Parma’s representatives, Al Sadd requested Parma to provide it with the countersigned copy of the employment contract, which was mandatory to request the ITC.

82. In its claim, Parma stated that the Player signed the transfer agreement at 11.45 pm. In this respect, the Committee will agree that it would have made no sense for the Player to sign the transfer agreement – document which, in fact, did not require his signature – if he had not, at least simultaneously, agreed on and signed the employment contract. It must therefore be concluded that by 11.45 pm at the latest, the Player had signed the employment contract and that the representatives of Parma were in possession of a signed copy of the latter since they were with the Player in Milan.

83. However, inexplicably unless bad faith is considered, instead of sending the requested employment contract – which was certainly in its possession - Parma sent a copy of the Player’s passport as well as the TMS transfer report and asked a copy of the transfer agreement signed by Al Sadd.

84. Facing this bad faith, Al Sadd reiterated its request regarding the employment contract.

85. Despite being aware that the transfer window was closed, Parma sent to Al Sadd the second-to-last page of the employment contract on 1 February 2020 at 00.02 am. A few minutes later, and although Al Sadd had drawn its attention to the fact that the transfer could not go through, Parma sent a complete copy of the employment contract. In this respect, and for the sake clarity, it must be highlighted that by “electrical shutdown”, Al Sadd meant that as a consequence of the closure of the transfer window, any transfer request through the TMS platform was blocked.

86. What is more, Al Sadd then realised that Parma had also inserted incorrect information concerning the payment deadline. This cannot be due to a simple error in the calculation of the 3-week time limit since Parma had indicated a date prior to the date of the transfer. This was a deliberate misrepresentation”.

29. Due to Parma’s attitude, Al Sadd claimed to have suffered a loss of EUR 16,800 corresponding to the costs incurred for the negotiations held in Zurich, i.e. Flight tickets QAR 32,320 (EUR 8,100); Hotel booking CHF 8,463.15 (EUR 8,000).

30. Al Sadd also claimed that it suffered a loss resulting from the fact that it could not transfer another similar player during the registration period. Al Sadd explained that it had to hire a free player, Marco Fabian from Mexico, for a salary of EUR 570,000 for 6 months. Since Al Sadd was willing to pay Mr Kouassi Gervais a salary of EUR 6,000,000 for 24 months, it claimed that the financial damage suffered corresponds to EUR 930,000, which is the difference between the 2 salaries for a period of 6 months. For the remaining period of 18 months until 31 December 2020, Al Sadd claimed to have suffered a loss of EUR 4,500,000, i.e. the total value of the player’s contract for this period, since it was unable to hire a winger/offensive midfielder for this period due to Parma’s alleged fault.

31. Al Sadd further claimed that in the event that FIFA deems that the transfer agreement is valid, it was breached by Parma, since on 8 February 2020, before the transfer fee had even fallen due, the player was already back at Parma and playing for it. Thus, for hindering the execution of the transfer agreement, Parma should pay Al Sadd compensation in the amount of EUR 5,446,100.

32. Alternatively, Al Sadd claimed that Parma did not suffer any damages and that it should not be compensated by Al Sadd. In particular, Al Sadd submitted that “the Player is still an asset of Parma, the value of which corresponds to the price at which Parma was ready to sell it, i.e. the transfer compensation agreed with Al Sadd. Therefore, awarding the amount of the agreed transfer fee as compensation would de facto compensate Parma twice. This aspect of Parma’s claim shall thus be rejected. The second consequence is that Parma is not entitled to claim the salaries to be paid to the Player as it committed to pay theses salaries after the alleged breach of Al Sadd and despite having no obligation to do so. In other words, Parma itself created the damages that it is now claiming. As such, this claim shall also be rejected”.

33. Al Sadd requested the following relief:

“1. Declare that the transfer agreement signed on 31 January 2020 did not enter into force;

2. Reject the claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for breach of the transfer agreement;

3. Accept the claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant;

4. Order the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to pay to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant compensation in the amount of EUR 5,446,100, plus an interest of 5% per annum as from 1 February 2020 until the date of effective payment, based on the principle of culpa in contrahendo;

5. Order the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to bear all the costs relating to the present procedure”.

C. Reply to the counterclaim

34. Parma entirely rejected the counterclaim lodged by Al Sadd and disputed its admissibility on the grounds of res judicata. In this respect, Parma claimed that “In the DRC-Procedure [Ref 20-00540], Al Sadd is claiming to receive compensation for damages equal to the exact same amount as in the Counterclaim and for the same purported behaviour of Parma Calcio”,

35. In particular, Parma claimed the following:

“(i) The Transfer Agreement is valid and entered into force, in accordance with the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (the “FIFA Regulations”) and the Swiss Code of Obligations (the “SCO”).

(ii) Al Sadd breached its obligations under the Transfer Agreement and violated the legal principle pacta sunt servanda. Thus, it is liable to compensate the damages incurred by Parma Calcio in accordance with the principle of positive interest;

(iii) In the event the Transfer Agreement did not enter into force, Al Sadd breached its obligation under article 152 par. 1 of the SCO.5 As a consequence, it is liable to compensate the damages incurred by Parma Calcio in accordance with the principle of positive interest;

(iv) Even if Al Sadd did not breach its obligation under article 152 par. 1 of the SCO, Al Sadd should be held liable to pay compensation to Parma Calcio on the basis of the principle of culpa in contrahendo; and

(v) In any event:

- the Counterclaim should be rejected ex officio;

- Parma Calcio did not commit a fault, nor did Al Sadd incur any damages and therefore the conditions required for a culpa in contrahendo are not fulfilled; and

- Al Sadd does not provide a valid legal basis for being awarded damages in the unlikely event Parma Calcio is considered having breached the Transfer Agreement.”

36. Parma made a detailed chronological recollection of the facts, as in its reply to Al Sadd’s claim in case ref. 20-00540, and claims that the facts as explained by Al Sadd are incorrect and in bad faith.

37. In particular, Parma emphasised the following facts, occurred after the player had requested Al Sadd to modify a few of the contractual clauses, regarding specifically a health insurance and the penalty clause:

“In other words, almost 21 hours after the Player made the Requests and 2 hours and 18 minutes before the closing of the Qatari transfer window, Al Sadd finally addressed the Requests of the Player and agreed to modify the Employment Agreement.

At 21:24 on 31 January 2020, i.e. almost two hours after Xavi confirmed that Al Sadd would amend the Employment Agreement, Xavi informed Mr. Dembele that Al Sadd would send the final and amended version to the Player (Annex 16).

At 21:36 on 31 January 2020, i.e. 24 minutes before the end of the Qatari transfer window, Al Sadd sent the final and amended version of the Employment Agreement to the Player, which differs from the draft of the Employment Agreement sent by Al Sadd at 11:33 on the same day (Annex 17)

[…]

Indeed, rather than amending the Employment Agreement when the Player made his Requests (at 23:36 on 30 January 2020), Al Sadd (i) ignored the Requests of the Player for almost an entire day, even after Parma Calcio informed it of being available to accept the offer, subject to the Player accepting the transfer and (ii) only sent a final version of Employment Agreement 24 minutes before the closing of the Qatari transfer window”.

[…]

At 21:49 on 31 January 2020, after having scanned the Transfer Agreement, Parma Calcio provided Al Sadd with a copy signed by Parma Calcio, Al Sadd, as well as by the Player for acceptance of the transfer (Annex 18). It only took Parma Calcio 4 (!) minutes as to provide Al Sadd with the Transfer Agreement, as opposed to Al Sadd, which needed an entire day to provide the Player with the final version of the Employment Agreement.

Parma Calcio 1913 S.r.l. v. Al Sadd Sports Club.

At 21:50 on 31 January 2020, Parma Calcio entered its instructions into the FIFA Transfer Matching System (the “FIFA TMS”) in order to consent to the release of the International Transfer Certificate (the “ITC”) (Annex 19).

At this moment Parma Calcio fulfilled all of its obligations in an exemplary manner.

[…]

Indeed, Al Sadd had received the signed final page of the Employment Agreement from the Player 4 minutes before the closing of the transfer window.

At 22:00 on 31 January 2020, the Qatari transfer window closed, before Al Sadd entered its instructions into the FIFA TMS, despite having all required documentation in its possession (Annex 21)”.

38. On 3 February 2020, Al Sadd confirmed to have signed an employment contract with the Mexican football player Mr Marco Fabian, being the team’s fifth and last allowed foreign player. In spite of Parma’s warnings of 7 and 13 February 2020, Al Sadd did not comply with the transfer agreement and the player resumed work with Parma.

39. Parma refers to art. 151, 152 and 156 of the Swiss Code of Obligations and insists that the fulfilment of the conditions precedent in clauses 6 and 8 of the transfer agreement were deliberately hindered by Al Sadd. Thus, Parma deems that the transfer agreement entered into force and Al Sadd breached it.

40. Finally, Parma submits the following request for relief:

(i) In principal order;

- To decide that the Transfer Agreement had entered into force;

- To decide that the Transfer Agreement was breached by Al Sadd;

- To order Al Sadd to pay Parma Calcio compensation for the damages incurred in the amount of Euro 9.917.500,00, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2020 until the actual date of payment.

(ii) Alternatively:

- To decide that Al Sadd breached its obligation under article 152 par. 1 of the SCO;

- To order Al Sadd to pay Parma Calcio compensation for the damages incurred in the amount of Euro 9.917.500,00, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2020 until the actual date of payment.

(iii) Alternative to point (i) and (ii):

- To decide that Al Sadd is liable for damages on the basis of culpa in contrahendo;

- To order Al Sadd to pay Parma Calcio compensation for the damages incurred in the amount of Euro 2.964.000,00 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2020 until the actual date of payment.

(iv) In any event:

- To declare the Counterclaim inadmissible;

- To reject the Counterclaim;

- To reject any other request of Al Sadd;

- To award Parma Calcio any further or other relief as the FIFA Player’s Status Committee sees fit;

- To order Al Sadd to bear any and all costs of the proceedings;

- To order Al Sadd to compensate the legal costs of Parma Calcio in the amount of Euro 50.000,00;

- To apply the measures established by article 24bis of the FIFA Regulations and any other measures it considers necessary”.

III. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE PLAYERS’ STATUS COMMITTEE

A. Competence and applicable legal framework

41. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter: the Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the present matter. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 23 April 2020. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the June 2020 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.

42. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 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 June 2020 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he is competent to deal with the matter at sake which concerns an employment-related dispute of an international dimension between an Italian Club and a Qatari club.

43. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge noted that the admissibility of the counterclaim is contested by Parma on the grounds of the principle of res judicata and Al Sadd’s position regarding the case ref. 20-00540.

44. In this respect, while taking note of the similar request and argumentation, the Single Judge deemed that the counterclaim of Al Sadd is based on the transfer agreement (or rather its invalidity, as claimed by Al Sadd). Accordingly, the Single Judge concluded that the counterclaim falls under the scope of art. 22 lit. f) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.

45. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the counterclaim of Al Sadd is admissible.

46. 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 confirmed that in accordance to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the October 2020 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and considering that the present claim was lodged with FIFA on 23 April 2020, the March 2020 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the present matter as to the substance.

B. Burden of proof

47. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, he stressed the wording of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may consider evidence not filed by the parties.

48. In this respect, the Single Judge also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in TMS.

C. Merits of the dispute

49. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

I. Main legal discussion and considerations

50. By doing so, the Single Judge recalled the parties’ respective positions, and determined that the main issue in the case at hand, as disputed by the parties, was to determine whether the transfer agreement was valid, and the consequences thereof.

51. In this regard, the Single Judge recalled, first and foremost, the longstanding and well-established jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee pursuant to which the validity of a transfer agreement may be made subject to a few administrative conditions precedent, as the issuance of the ITC and a successful medical exam.

52. Having the above in mid, the Single Judge then turned to the contents of the transfer agreement, and observed that said contract contained the following conditions precedent regarding its validity:

- the issuance of an ITC;

- the successful medical exam of the player;

- the acceptance of the player to be transferred;

- the execution of an employment contract between the player and Al Sadd.

53. The Single Judge turned then to the submissions of the parties, and noted that it remained undisputed that the two first conditions precedent, i.e. the issuance of the ITC and the completion of a successful medical examination by the player, were not fulfilled.

54. Consequently, the Single Judge was comfortable to determine that the conditions precedent to the contract had not been fulfilled, and hence that the transfer agreement did not become valid.

55. Although confident of the exhaustiveness of the foregoing reasoning, the Single Judge wished to emphasise, for the sake of completeness, that he deemed that no damage was suffered by Parma in connection from the invalidity of the transfer agreement, as Parma kept the player’s services, the payment of his salaries being a natural consequence of it.

56. On account of all the above, the Single Judge decided that the claim of Parma and the counterclaim of Al Sadd were rejected in their entirety.

D. Costs

57. 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 and the Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and are normally to be paid by the unsuccessful party.

58. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that both the claim and the counterclaim are fully rejected. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the parties shall bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA in equal shares.

59. The Single Judge further observed the temporary amendments outlined in art. 18 par. 2 lit. ii) of the Procedural Rules, which entered in force in 10 June 2020, according to which the maximum amount of procedural costs levied for any claim lodged prior to 10 June 2020, which was yet to be decided at the time of such temporary amendment, shall be equivalent to any advance of costs paid.

60. Accordingly, the Single Judge observed that each of the parties paid the amount of CHF 5,000 as advance of costs, and therefore decided that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000.

61. Consequently, the Single Judge determined that each of the parties shall pay the amount of CHF 5,000 in order to cover the costs of the present proceedings.

62. Subsequently, the Single Judge reverted to art. 17 par. 5 in combination with art. 18 of the Procedural Rules, and observed that the advance of costs paid by a party shall be duly considered in the decision regarding costs. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the amount of the procedural costs, as decided herein, shall be offset against the amounts paid by each party as advance of costs.

IV. DECISION OF THE PLAYERS' STATUS COMMITTEE

1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Parma Calcio 1913, is rejected.

2. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Al Sadd SC, is admissible.

3. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected.

4. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 10,000 are to be paid to FIFA by the parties as follows: CHF 5,000 by the Respondent and CHF 5,000 by the Claimant. As both parties have already paid CHF 5,000 each as advance of costs, no further payments are due (cf. note relating to the payment of the procedural costs below).

For the Players' Status Committee:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer

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) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.

NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:

FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, 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 Procedural Rules).

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Fédération Internationale de Football Association

FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland

www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777