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 28 July 2020
Decision of the
Single Judge of the Players' Status Committee
passed on 28 July 2020,
regarding a dispute concerning the transfer of the player Jan Lecjaks
BY:
Stefano La Porta (Italy), Single Judge of the PSC
CLAIMANT:
BSC YOUNG BOYS, SWITZERLAND
RESPONDENT:
GNK DINAMO, CROATIA
I. FACTS
1. On 23 June 2017, the Swiss club, BSC Young Boys (hereinafter: YB or Claimant) and the
Croatian club, GNK Dinamo, (hereinafter: Dinamo or Respondent) signed a transfer
agreement in connection to the transfer of the Czech Player, Jan Lecjaks (hereinafter: player)
from the Claimant to the Respondent.
2. The parties agreed upon a payment of EUR 832,000, “inclusive solidarity payments”.
3. Additionally, the Parties agreed upon a conditional payment of EUR 100,000, in case the
Respondent “qualifies for the group stage of the UEFA Champions League”, as follows:
4. Furthermore, the transfer agreement contains the following clauses:
5. The Claimant maintained that the Respondent qualified for the group stage of the UEFA
Champions League for the season 2019/2020.
6. Consequently, the Claimant deemed that it is entitled to the conditional payment of EUR
100,000 as per art. 6 of the transfer agreement.
7. In this regard, the Claimant argued that even though the Player did not play for the
Respondent club in the moment of its qualification of the UEFA Champions League, it should
be entitled to the amount of EUR 100,000, as the transfer agreement does not stipulate such
condition.
8. On 10 January 2020, the Claimant sent a letter and an invoice to the Respondent, requesting
the amount of EUR 96,080, corresponding to the additional payment for the UEFA Champions
League qualification, granting the Respondent 21 days to remedy its default, to no avail.
9. On 9 April 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA, requesting payment of the
outstanding amount.
10. In its reply, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim. While not contesting that the
Respondent did qualify for the UEFA Champions League Group stage for the 2019/2020
season, the Respondent stressed that the Claimant is not entitled to such the bonus as the
player was no longer employed by the club.
11. In this context, the Respondent argued that it was never the parties’ real intention to apply
the conditional payments if the player was no longer employed by the Respondent.
12. Moreover, the Respondent stressed that the “parties’ common intention must prevail on the
wording of their contract”.
13. Having said this, the Respondent emphasised that the transfer agreement can only be
interpreted in the way that the conditional payments depended on the player being
employed by the Respondent. In particular, the Respondent highlighted that such a
requirement can be deduced from art. 4 and 5.
14. In this respect, the Respondent deemed that one condition for the validity of the transfer
agreement was that the player concluded an employment agreement with the Respondent
and “therefore, argumentum a contrario, this means that if the player Jan Lecjaks has not
concluded and employment contract with the Respondent, that in that case there is no
obligation to pay this conditional additional compensation because, in that case, this Transfer
Agreement of 23 June 2017 is no longer valid because of points from article 4 of the Transfer
Agreement were agreed as mandatory conditions that must occur which must be in force in
order for the transfer fee and the conditional additional fee to be paid”.
15. Consequently, the Respondent emphasised that “it would not be legal, vital or logical for the
Respondent to pay the Claimant a conditional additional transfer fee for a player who is no
longer the Respondent’s player” while the parties “did not specifically state in their Transfer
Agreement that the payment of additional fees […] will also happen in the case when the
player leaves the Respondent”.
II. CONSIDERATIONS 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) analyzed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In
this respect, taking into account that the claim was lodged on 9 April 2020, he took note that,
according to art. 21 of the November 2019 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of
the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules),
said edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at stake.
2. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules and
confirmed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 and 4 in combination with art. 22 lit. f) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he is competent to deal with the matter at
stake which concerns a dispute between two club belonging to different associations.
3. Furthermore, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players should be applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred, on
the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the June 2020 edition of the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players, and on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged
with FIFA on 9 April 2020. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the
March 2020 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the
Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand (cf. art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations).
4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into
the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started his analysis by acknowledging the facts
of the case and the arguments of the parties as well as the documents contained in the file.
However, the Single Judge emphasized that in the following considerations it will refer only
to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the
assessment of the matter at hand.
5. In this respect, the Single Judge took note that, on 23 June 2017, the parties concluded a
transfer agreement regarding the permanent transfer of the player from the Claimant to the
Respondent.
6. Subsequently, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA
against the Respondent and requested the payment of the total amount of EUR 96,080, which
corresponds to the payment defined in art. 6 lit.a of the transfer agreement less the solidarity
contribution.
7. Thereafter, the Single Judge turned his attention to the reply of the Respondent. In this
respect, he observed that, according to the latter, the Claimant was not entitled to said
additional payment since the player was no longer playing for the Respondent when the
condition of art. 6 lit. a of transfer agreement was fulfilled.
8. In view of the dissent between the parties, the Single Judge considered that the main legal
issue at stake is to establish whether the additional payment defined in art. 6 of the transfer
agreement was payable or not.
9. In relation to said agreement, the Single Judge noted that in its art. 6, inter alia, the parties
agreed upon the following:
“In the event, the player is transferred from to GNK Dinamo to a third club, YB will receive
the difference of the bonus received listed under 6 a-c and EUR 200,000.
Example:
If the player is transferred on 01.07.2018 and YB has received EUR 100,000 out of the bonuses
listed under 6 a-c, YB will receive another payment of EUR 100,000”
10. Based on the above, the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant expected to be paid the total
amount of EUR 200,000. The only uncertainty was when these amounts would be paid.
Furthermore, having analysed the wording of lit. a. and b. of said art. 6 of the transfer
agreement, it is evident that the Claimant did not want to make these conditions dependable
on the player, but solely on the Respondent.
11. In this context, the Single judge pointed out that the only condition for the payment of EUR
200,000 was that either the conditions in lit. a.- c. would need to be met or the player would
be transferred to a third club, all before 30.06.2020.
12. Subsequently, and in line with the considerations above, the Single Judge rejected the
Respondent’s argument that based on art. 4 of the transfer agreement, the conditions were
dependable on the player’s employment with the club.
13. As a result, the Single Judge concluded that the payment defined in art. 6 of the transfer
agreement was indeed payable to the Claimant.
14. Thereafter, the Single Judge went on to examine the Respondent’s argument, according to
which it paid the amount of EUR 50,000 to the Claimant.
15. As a result of all of the above, the Single Judge established that the total amount of EUR
96,080, which corresponds to the amount defined in art. 6 lit.a. of the transfer agreement less
the solidarity contribution, remained outstanding.
16. Thus, in application of the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Single Judge established that
the Respondent shall pay to the Claimant, the total amount of EUR 96,080.
17. In continuation, the Single Judge referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations,
which stipulate that, with its 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.
18. 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.
19. 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 Claimant 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 Respondent, 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 Respondent in accordance with
art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
20. 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.
21. Finally, in this respect, the Judge referred to the Covid-19 Football Regulatory Issues – FAQ,
published on 11 June 2020 that, given the current circumstances, for any claim lodged prior
to 10 June 2020 which has yet to be decided, the maximum amount of the procedural costs
shall be equivalent to any advance of costs paid. Thus, considering that the advance of costs
amounts to CHF 3,000, the Single Judge established said amount as the payable procedural
costs, which had to be paid by Gil Vicente in view of the outcome of the matter.
III. DECISION OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE PLAYERS' STATUS COMMITTEE
1. The claim of the Claimant, BSC Young Boys, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, GNK Dinamo, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
- EUR 96,080.
3. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4. The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the
relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.
5. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with
this decision to psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official
FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).
6. In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established 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 following consequences shall arise:
1. 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. The aforementioned ban
mentioned will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the
due amount is paid.
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
2. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision 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 the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
7. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 3,000 are to be paid by the
Respondent to FIFA (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