F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2011-2012) – controversie tra società – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2011-2012) – club vs. club disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 March 2012 by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club Z, from country S as “Claimant” against the club Club A, from country U as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties concerning the player C

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2011-2012) – controversie tra società – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2011-2012) – club vs. club disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 March 2012 by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club Z, from country S as “Claimant” against the club Club A, from country U as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties concerning the player C I. Facts of the case 1. On 8 August 2007, Club Z, from country S (hereinafter: the Claimant) and Club A, from country U (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) regarding the definitive transfer of the player C (hereinafter: the player) from the Claimant to the Respondent. 2. In accordance with the agreement, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, as transfer fee, the amount of EUR 1,750,000 (note: the agreement is on file). 3. In addition, the agreement also stipulated that the Respondent had to pay ”a 14 days training camp for Club Z [i.e. the Claimant] in country U in January 2008“ and to “cover the following costs for a delegation of maximum 35 persons: return flights in economy class, hotel accommodation and meals, transportation in country U, training facilities.” Furthermore, the agreement also provided that ”Mr B and a representative of Club C and Mr L will travel to country U in September 2007 to select the hotel and the training facilities“ whereby the “costs of this trip are covered by Club A.” 4. On 23 December 2009, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent requesting from the latter the payment of the amount of currency of country S 381,000, plus 5% interests as from 1 December 2009. Furthermore, the Claimant requested FIFA to impose disciplinary sanctions as well as the costs of the proceedings on the Respondent. 5. In this respect, the Claimant, referred to the agreement and explained that, although the agreed training camp had already taken place in January 2008 in country U, the Respondent had never reimbursed the costs in the amount of currency of country S 381,000 that the Claimant claimed it had incurred in connection with the said training camp. 6. In support of its claim, the Claimant provided FIFA with the following documentary evidence: - an invoice dated 7 February 2008 for the amount currency of country S 381,000, allegedly issued by a travel agency called “Tui” (hereinafter: the travel agency) regarding a training camp of the Claimant on 8 January 2008 in country U for 37 persons; - a correspondence dated 8 April 2008, allegedly received by the travel agency, in accordance with which the amount of currency of country S 381,000 corresponded to: • Jebael Ali 9.01.2008-20.01.2008: 10 Single rooms for 11 nights: USD 96,213 / currency of country S 116,418 and 13 Double rooms for 11 nights: USD 117,053 / currency of country S 141,633; • Laundry: ”11 x Laundry charges“: USD 8,335 / currency of country S 10,085; • Football pitch: ”10 Days Football pitch“ USD 9,667 / currency of country S 11,697; • Visas: ”3 Visas / Transfers“: USD 267 / currency of country S 323; • Accommodation: ”Lunch, Drinks, Dinner“:currency of country S 11,895; • 09.01.2008: “Meet & Assist at Airport Lounge”, “Transfer”, “Breakfast”, “Luggage van”: USD 3,962 / currency of country S 4,794; • 15.01.2008: ”Meet & Assist / Transfer Staff“: USD 211 / currency of country S 255; • 17.01.2008: ”Full day Coach, Dinner“: USD 4,525 / currency of country S 5,475; • 20.01.2008: ”Lunch”, “Luggage”, “Van Transfer“: USD 2,161 / currency of country S 2,615; • Flights: ”Team / Staff 34 x economy Emirates“:currency of country S 38,110 - ”Staff 2 x business Swiss“:currency of country S 10,000; • Preview Travel: ”Sportsdirector“currency of country S 27,700. - a list containing the names of the people who had allegedly taken part to the training camp in question (note: the list contains 36 names). 7. In continuation, the Claimant explained that a total of 36 and not of 37 people, as wrongly stated in the invoice issued by the travel agency, had taken part in the training camp and that two people had flown business and not “economy class” as stipulated in the agreement. In this respect, and with regard to the fact that according to the agreement the training camp was supposed to be organised for a maximum of 35 people and that all participants should have flown in economy class, the Claimant was of the opinion that this small difference in expenses incurred should be compensated by the fact that the camp had lasted 11 instead of 14 days. 8. Finally, the Claimant explained that the ”preview travel“ of the “Sportsdirector” in the amount of currency of country S 27,700 corresponded to the trip of Mr B and Mr L to country U in December 2007 in accordance with the agreement. As to that, the Claimant specified that Mr B and Mr L had both flown economy class. 9. By means of a correspondence received on 29 September 2010, the Respondent stated that “we have reviewed the agreement concluded with Club Z on 8 August 2007 whereas we found the same not stating any financial obligations to the club except the amount of compensation for the transfer of the said player and which has been paid on time… we refer to the agreement signed by the two clubs regarding the transfer of the said player on 8 August 2007, but if there was another agreement with an agent (..) please send us a copy so that we can make the necessary actions (..) whereas the club is now being managed by a new administration several months ago and whereas upon searching the club’s file we found no useful information useful about his issue.“ 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 which Procedural Rules are applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the 2008 edition of the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 23 December 2009, thus after 1 July 2008. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the current edition of the Procedural Rules (edition 2008) is applicable to the matter at hand. 2. Subsequently, with regard to his competence, the Single Judge confirmed that on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 as well as art. 22 lit. f) of the 2010 edition 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 football clubs affiliated to two different associations. 3. 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 2009 and 2010 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 23 December 2009. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2009 edition of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance. 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started by acknowledging the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties as well as the documents contained in the file. In particular, the Single Judge started his analysis of the case by noting that, 8 August 2007, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) concerning the transfer of the player C (hereinafter: the player) from the Claimant to the Respondent in accordance with which the Respondent had to pay to the Claimant, in addition to a transfer fee amounting to EUR 1,750,000, ”a 14 days training camp (..) in country U in January 2008“. In this respect, the Single Judge further remarked that, as stated in the agreement, the Respondent had to “cover the following costs for a delegation of maximum 35 persons: return flights in economy class, hotel accommodation and meals, transportation in country U, training facilities” as well as to pay the costs of a trip for ”Mr B and a representative of Club Z and Mr L (..) to country U in September 2007 to select the hotel and the training facilities“. 5. In continuation, the Single Judge took note that, in its claim to FIFA, the Claimant had requested from the Respondent the reimbursement of currency of country S 381,000 alleging that this amount corresponded to the costs which it had incurred in connection with a training camp that had taken place in country U in January 2008 (hereinafter: the training camp). Furthermore, the Single observed that, for its part and in its only and concise submission to FIFA, the Respondent had acknowledged having concluded the agreement with the Claimant but, at the same time, had maintained that the document in question did not seem to contain “any financial obligations” other than “the amount of compensation for the transfer of the (..) player”. As to that, the Single Judge understood that the Respondent had never challenged the fact that, despite the terms of the agreement, it had not organized a training camp in country U on behalf of the Claimant, nor did it contest that the training camp had indeed taken place and that the Claimant had had to cover the costs linked to the training camp on its own. The Respondent, correlatively, did not contest the actual costs which the Claimant apparently had to bear in this connection, the reimbursement of which it is claiming in the context of the present dispute. 6. In light of the above, taking into account the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, considering that the Respondent had acknowledged having concluded the agreement with the Claimant and bearing in mind that the latter had never contested not having covered the costs of a training camp although it was contractually foreseen, as well as the clear wording of the agreement in this regard, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent, in order to fulfil its obligations pertaining to the agreement, had to reimburse the Claimant accordingly. 7. On account of the foregoing and while assessing the concrete amount due by the Respondent to the Claimant, the Single Judge recalled that, in accordance with the agreement, the Respondent had undertaken to cover the costs of a 14 days training camp for 35 people in country U in January 2008 and, particularly, to pay “return flights in economy class, hotel accommodation and meals, transportation in country U, training facilities” as well as a trip for ”Mr B and a representative of Club Z and Mr L (..) to country U in September 2007 to select the hotel and the training facilities“. 8. Besides, the Single Judge acknowledged that the amount claimed by the Claimant, i.e. currency of country S 381,000, comprised the followings expenses: 10 Single rooms during 11 nights (currency of country S 116,418); 13 Double rooms during 11 nights (currency of country S 141,633); laundry service (currency of country S 10,085); ”10 Days Football pitch“ (currency of country S 11,697); ”3 Visas / Transfers“ (currency of country S 323); ”Lunch, Drinks, Dinner“ (currency of country S 11,895); “Meet & Assist at Airport Lounge”, “Transfer”, “Breakfast”, “Luggage van” on 9 January 2008 (currency of country S 4,794); ”Meet & Assist / Transfer Staff“ on 15 January 2008 (currency of country S 255); ”Full day Coach, Dinner“ on 17 January 2008 (currency of country S 5,475); ”Lunch”, “Luggage”, “Van Transfer“ on 20 January 2008 (currency of country S 2,615); 34 flight tickets with Emirates in economy class (currency of country S 38,110); 2 flight tickets with Emirates in business class (currency of country S 10,000) and a trip made by Mr B and Mr L to country U in December 2007 (currency of country S 27,700). 9. In view of the aforementioned and bearing in mind the specific content of the agreement as to the obligations of the Respondent, the Single Judge considered that he would have to analyse the request of the Claimant in detail in order to establish the exact entitlement of the latter. 10. In this respect and to begin with, the Single Judge took note that, in accordance with the agreement, the Respondent had to pay to the Claimant “35 return flights in economy class”. Furthermore, the Single Judge acknowledged that, in its claim to FIFA, the Claimant had requested the reimbursement of 34 flight tickets in economy class, corresponding to currency of country U 38,110, as well as of two flight tickets in business class amounting to currency of country U 10,000. 11. Taking into account the above and considering the clear wording of the agreement, which only provided for the Respondent to cover the costs of 35 economy class tickets, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that solely the value of the requested economy flights tickets, for which the Claimant presented the respective invoice of the travel agency, could be reimbursed. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent had to pay to the Claimant the amount of currency of country S 38,110, corresponding to 34 flight tickets in economy class, while it rejected the Claimant’s request regarding the reimbursement of the amount of currency of country S 10,000 in connection with two flight tickets in business class. 12. In continuation, the Single Judge observed that, as stated in the agreement, the Respondent had to pay “hotel accommodation and meals” for 35 training camp’s participant. Besides, after analysis of the respective invoice of the travel agency, the Single Judge remarked that the amount requested by the Claimant in this connection corresponded to currency of country S 258,051 and included the costs of 10 Single rooms, i.e. currency of country S 116,418, as well as of 13 Double rooms, i.e. currency of country S 141,633, during 11 nights. In this regard and considering that the sum in question comprised the accommodation of 36 people and not of 35 as contractually foreseen, the Single Judge concluded that it had to be reduced accordingly. 13. Hence, the Single Judge decided that the price of one single room during 11 days, i.e. the sum of currency of country S 11,641.8 (i.e. currency of country S 116,418 ÷ 10) had to be discounted from the total amount requested by the Claimant in connection with accommodation, i.e. from the amount of currency of country S 258,051. As a result, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of currency of country S 246,409 (i.e. currency of country S 258,051 - currency of country S 11,641.8) had to be reimbursed by the Respondent to the Claimant for the accommodation in country U. 14. In addition and in the same context, the Single Judge noticed that the Claimant had also claimed from the Respondent the reimbursement of currency of country S 11,895 for “lunch, Drink, Dinner”. In this regard and bearing in mind that, as stipulated in the agreement, the Respondent had to pay the meals of the participants to the training camp, the Single Judge concluded that the sum of currency of country S 11,895, corresponding to “lunch, Drink, Dinner”, had to be reimbursed by the Respondent to the Claimant. 15. In conclusion, the Single Judge ruled that the Respondent had to additionally pay to the Claimant the amount of currency of country S 258,304 (i.e. currency of country S 246,409 plus currency of country S 11,895) for the “hotel accommodation and meals” of the latter. 16. Equally, the Single Judge recalled that, under the terms of the agreement, the Respondent had to pay the “transportation in country U” of the participants to the training camp. Furthermore, the Single Judge took note that the request of the Claimant in this context consisted in the reimbursement of the followings costs: currency of country S 4,794 for “Meet & Assist at Airport Lounge”, “Transfer”, “Breakfast”, “Luggage van” on 9 January 2008; currency of country S 255 for “Meet & Assist / Transfer Staff” on 15 January 2008 and currency of country S 2,615 for “Lunch”, “Luggage”, “Van Transfer” on 20 January 2008. Relating to this and first of all, the Single Judge deemed it necessary to mention that, in his own understanding of the agreement, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the expression “transportation in country U” referred exclusively to the mere transportation of the training camp’s participants in country U and did not include any additional services. 17. Accordingly and also bearing in mind points 14 and 15 above, by means of which it was inter alia established that the Respondent had to pay the “meals” of the Claimant during the training camp, the Single Judge considered that only the post “Lunch”, “Luggage”, “Van Transfer” seemed to comply with his aforementioned interpretation of “transportation in country U” and could therefore be reimbursed. Correspondingly and following the same logic, the Single Judge added that, in his opinion, the positions “Meet & Assist at Airport Lounge”, “Transfer”, “Breakfast”, “Luggage van” on 9 January 2008 and of “Lunch”, “Luggage”, “Van Transfer” exceeded the said concept of mere “transportation in country U” and, consequently, could not be granted. For those reasons, the Single Judge decided that only the amount of country U 2,615, corresponding to “Lunch”, “Luggage” and “Van Transfer” had to be reimbursed to the Claimant by the Respondent. 18. Likewise, the Single Judge pointed out that, as specified in the agreement, the Respondent had to provide for the “training facilities” of the Claimant. Furthermore and at the same time, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant had requested to be compensated for the costs of a “10 Days Football pitch” in the amount of currency of country S 11,697. Considering the above and in particular considering the fact that in accordance with the agreement, the training facilities had to be financed by the Respondent, the Single Judge resolved that the amount in question, i.e. currency of country S 11,697, was indeed due to the Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent had to pay currency of country S 11,697 to the Claimant. 19. Similarly, the Single Judge stressed that, by signing the agreement, the Respondent had undertaken to pay the costs of Mr B and Mr L’s scouting trip to country U “to select the hotel and the training facilities”. What is more, the Single Judge recalled that the claim of the Claimant included a request for the reimbursement of the trip in question. 20. In view of the above and considering that the agreement provided for the Respondent to pay for a preliminary trip of Mr B and Mr L to country U, the Single Judge decided, after a careful analysis of the supporting documents presented by the Claimant, that the latter had to reimburse to the Claimant the amount claimed, i.e. currency of country S 27,700. 21. Finally and with regard to the Claimant’s requests concerning “11 x Laundry charges”, “3 Visas/Transfers” and “Full day Coach, Dinner”, the Single Judge emphasised that those costs were not included in the agreement and consequently should not be reimbursed. 22. In view of all the above, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant’s claim against the Respondent is partially accepted and that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the total amount of currency of country S 338,426 as well as the claimed interest on the said amount at the rate of 5% interest per year as from 1 December 2009. 23. Finally, 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 currency of country S 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. 24. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is only partially accepted. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that in view of the circumstances of the present case it would be fair and reasonable that the costs of the current proceedings be proportionally borne by the Claimant and the Respondent on the basis of their respective degree of success in the present matter. 25. 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 the total amount at dispute in the present matter, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country S 25,000. 26. In conclusion, and considering that the case at hand was adjudicated by the Single Judge and not by the Players’ Status Committee in corpore and that the present case did not show particular factual difficulties or specific legal complexities, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country S 20,000. 27. Consequently, the amount of currency of country S 20,000 has to be paid by the Respondent to cover the costs of the present proceedings. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club Z, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club A, has to pay to the Claimant, Club Z, the amount of currency of country S 338,426, as well as 5% interest per year on the said amount from 1 December 2009 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Club Z, are rejected. 4. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country S 20,000 are to be paid by both parties, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1. The amount of currency of country S 15,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, Club A, to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XX-XXXXX: 5.2. The amount of currency of country S 5,000 has to be paid by the Claimant, Club Z. Considering that the Claimant, Club Z, already paid the amount of currency of country S 5,000 as advance of costs, the latter is exempted from paying the abovementioned costs of the proceedings. 6. The Claimant, Club Z, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club A, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 2 above is to be made and to notify the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received. ** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 63 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives). The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following: Court of Arbitration for Sport Avenue de Beaumont 2 1012 Lausanne Switzerland Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org www.tas-cas.org For the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives