F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2012-2013) – controversie tra società – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2012-2013) – 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 23 October 2012, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club M, from country D as Claimant against the club Club G, from country I as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player D

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2012-2013) – controversie tra società – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2012-2013) – 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 23 October 2012, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club M, from country D as Claimant against the club Club G, from country I as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player D I. Facts of the case 1. On 8 March 2010, Club M, from country D (hereinafter: Claimant), Club G, from country I (hereinafter: Respondent), and the player D (hereinafter: the player), concluded a “private agreement” concerning the transfer of the player. 2. The aforementioned agreement stipulated, inter alia, that: “7. Club G is willing to purchase the Player’s sports rights and is also willing to pay the amount of € 150.000,00 (Euro onehundredfiftythousand/00) for the right of option and as a first instalment for the future purchase of the Player’s sports rights; 8. Club G is willing to pay Club M the total amount mentioned and agreed upon under article 7, i.e. € 1.350.000,00 (Euro onemillionthreehundredfifty/00) after exercising the right of option mentioned above; (…) c) Club G commits to pay to Club M the amount of € 150.000,00 within and no later than 07 April 2010 by means of bank transfer upon presentation of regular invoice for the above mentioned right of option and as first instalment on the future purchase of the Player’s sports rights as mentioned above under article 7); (…) e) should the right of option for the purchase of the Players’ sports rights be actually exercised, this will be effective starting from 01.07.2010; f) such a right of option shall be exercised by Club G within and no later than 30 June 2010, by means of notification to both Club M - headquarters and the Player, expressly specifying its will to exercise such a right of option and purchase the Player’s rights, (…); g) should the case be as described under article f), the cost for the purchase of the Player’s sports rights, including the cost for the right of option as per article c) of this agreement shall be of € 1.500.000,00, including the cost for the right of option itself; j) the validity and effectiveness of this agreement is subject to the Player’s acceptance of his final and definite transfer from Club M to Club G, by means of a regular multi-year sports performance agreement. k) should the Player not be registered by Club G within August 10th 2010, due to his refusal to transfer and stipulate a regular professional agreement valid for the sports season of 2010/2011 and following for any reason or fault anyhow relating or depending on either Club M or the Player himself, Club M agrees and commits to pay to Club G a compensation of € 1.150.000,00, within and no later than August 20th 2010. l) should the Player not be registered by Club G within August 10th, 2010 due to any reason or fault anyhow relating or depending on Club M, Club M itself agrees and commits to pay to Club G a compensation of € 1.150.000,00, within and no later than August 20 2010; m) should the Player not be registered by Club G within August 10th, 2010 due to any reason or fault anyhow relating or depending on Club G, Club G itself agrees and commits to pay to Club M a compensation of € 1.000.000,00 within and no later than August 20th 2010;” 3. Moreover, the Claimant, the Respondent and the player signed an undated “preliminary transfer agreement” for the transfer of the player with effect on 1 July 2010. 4. This agreement stipulated, inter alia, that: a) Club M definitely and irrevocably transferred the Players’ sports rights for the sports Seasons 2010/2011 and following; b) Club G definitely and irrevocably purchased Players’ sports rights for the sports Seasons 2010/2011 and following; c) The amount agreed for such a definite transfer is of € 1.500.000,00; d) As far as the amount mentioned above under article c) Club G has already paid to Club M a first instalment, of € 150.000,00, whereas the settlement of the outstanding amount equivalent to € 1.350.000,00, shall be paid as hereafter specified. (…) 1) The player’s sports rights are definitely transferred to Club G, which commits to duly register him by applying to the competent FIGC organs; 2) The Player’s transfer as well as his registration for Club G shall anyway be effective from the date on which this agreement is stipulated and undersigned; (…) 4) For the final transfer of the Player’s rights related to his sports performances Club G shall pay to Club M shall be made based on the terms and conditions stated in the premises: the outstanding amount of € 1.350.000,00 shall be paid by Club G as follows: • € 850.000,00 within and no later than July 1st 2010 • € 250.000,00 within and no later than October 30th 2010 • € 250.000,00 within and no later than January 31st 2011. (…) 14) The parties agree that in case any term or condition not included in this agreement shall be judged without reserve according to the provisions of the F.I.F.A. Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. (…) 18) The validity and effectiveness of this agreement is subject to the Player’s acceptance of his final and definite transfer from Club M to Club G, by means of a regular multi-year sports performance agreement; (…) 20) should the Player not be registered by Club G within August 10th 2010, due to his refusal to transfer and stipulate a regular professional agreement valid for the sports season of 2010/2011 and following for any reason or fault anyhow relating or depending on either Club M or the Player himself, Club M agrees and commits to pay to Club G a compensation of € 1.150.000,00, within and no later than August 20th 2010; 21) should the Player not be registered by Club G within August 10th, 2010 due to any reason or fault anyhow relating or depending on Club M, Club M itself agrees and commits to pay to Club G a compensation of € 1.150.000,00, within and no later than August 20 2010; 22) should the Player not be registered by Club G within August 10th, 2010 due to any reason or fault anyhow relating or depending on Club G, Club G itself agrees and commits to pay to Club M a compensation of € 1.000.000,00 within and no later than August 20th 2010; 23) This agreement shall be registered by country I National Football League together with the whole documentation relating to the Player within the terms allowed and annually stated by FIGC/LNP for the transfer market campaign. 5. On 5 January 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract by the latter, indicating that the Respondent had failed to comply with its contractual obligations. The Claimant explained that, on 13 May 2010, the Respondent provided the Claimant with a copy of two bank transfers amounting to EUR 150,000 as payment for the option right stipulated in article 8c) of the aforementioned agreement. 6. The Claimant stated that the Respondent and the player signed an employment contract on 18 May 2010 valid as from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2015, and pointed out that, in order to duly register the player, said contract had to be deposited with the country I League, which had not been done by the Respondent before expiry of the League’s deadline on 30 June 2010. 7. The Claimant further stated that the “preliminary transfer agreement” was a definitive contract rather than a preliminary contract because the agreement did not contain a provision indicating that the parties would undertake to enter into a subsequent definitive contract. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that the employment contract between the Respondent and the player was called a “preliminary” contract due to the player’s registration that was necessary for the transfer to be completed. The Claimant stated that the Respondent was obliged to duly register the player, thereby referring to article 1) of the transfer agreement. The Claimant argued that the absence of the player’s registration, which was an obligation not complied with by the Respondent, may not be used by the Respondent as an excuse not to comply with the transfer agreement. 8. Consequently, the Claimant requests damages in the amount of EUR 2,475,627.40, calculated as follows: • EUR 850,000, first instalment payable on 1 July 2010; • EUR 250,000, second instalment payable on 30 October 2010; • EUR 250,000, third instalment payable on 31 January 2011; • EUR 1,000,000, due to the Respondent’s failure to duly register the player (referring to article 22 of the transfer agreement); • EUR 70,000, regarding legal costs; •EUR 55,627.40, regarding default interest calculated over the three instalments from the date of their maturity until 5 January 2011 based on an 8% annual rate; Equally, the Claimant requested 8% interest p.a. “calculated as from the date of the Respondent’s notification of this petition”. 9. On 14 February 2011, the Respondent replied to the claim lodged against it and pointed out that the agreement dated 8 March 2010 granted the Respondent a “right of first refusal”, which had to be exercised by 30 June 2010 by means of notification to both the Claimant and the player expressly specifying its will to exercise such right. The Respondent stated that it did not exercise such right of first refusal within the stated time limit. 10. According to the Respondent, the validity and effectiveness of the “preliminary transfer agreement” is conditional upon the registration of the agreement at the “competent Football Federation”. The Respondent argued that said agreement was never registered with the country I league and therefore never entered into force. In this regard, the Respondent referred to art. 105 of the “Norme Organizzative Interne Federali” (NOIF) (the internal organisational rules of the Federazione country I Giuoco Calcio (FIGC)), which stipulates the deadlines for registration of preliminary agreements. The Respondent further stated that the agreement did not specify who had to register the contract, because it was clear that both clubs could validly do so. With respect to the employment contract signed between the Respondent and the player, the Respondent pointed out that such contract was of a preliminary status and was never valid and effective, because the Respondent did not exercise its “right of first refusal” and the contract was never registered by the player. In this regard, the Respondent referred to art. 3.2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the FIGC, the LNP and the country I Players’ Association (AIC), which stipulates that the player can register the employment contract within 60 days after signing such contract if the club has not done so within 5 days after signing. In view of the foregoing, the Respondent requested that the claim is rejected. 11. On 4 March 2011, the Claimant submitted its response to the Respondent’s reply and stated that a right of option and a right of first refusal are two different concepts: a right of first refusal would give the Respondent preference to exercise its right in the event that the Claimant would agree on a transfer of the player with a third club, whereas the right of option gives the Respondent the option to inform the Claimant that it wants to exercise its right. The Claimant argued that the Respondent was allowed to exercise the option right in any way indicating its will to transfer the player, which happened when the parties signed the “preliminary transfer agreement”. The Claimant reiterated that the preliminary transfer agreement is actually a definitive transfer agreement and, consequently, art. 105 of the NOIF is not applicable to it since it refers to preliminary agreements only. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that it would be an absolute nonsense to require from a foreign club to register any kind of agreement with the competent country I football bodies without being a member of those bodies. According to the Claimant, the NOIF are only applicable to country I clubs affiliated to the FIGC, according to its art. 14. Moreover, the Claimant indicated that, in accordance with clause 18 of the “preliminary transfer agreement”, the validity and effectiveness of said agreement was only conditional upon the signing of an employment contract between the Respondent and the player. This condition was fulfilled when the Respondent and the player signed an employment contract on 18 May 2010. Finally, the Claimant stated that non-registration of the employment contract does not make the contract invalid or ineffective, according to art. 3.3 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement which stipulates that “the timely registration of the contract is a condition, among other legal and regulatory requirements, for its approval by the competent League”. 12. On 31 March 2011, the Respondent submitted its response to the latest position of the Claimant stating that the “preliminary transfer agreement” would have been valid only if the Respondent had exercised its option right, and only in that case a date would have been added to the agreement. The Respondent finally stated that it is commonly known that a transfer contract can only be valid and effective if it is registered with the competent federation and equally reiterated its previous arguments. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter: the Single Judge) analysed which Procedural Rules were applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) as well as to the fact that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 5 January 2011, thus after 1 July 2008. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the 2008 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand. 2. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players is 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 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and, on the other hand, to the fact that the claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 5 January 2011. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance. 3. Furthermore, the Single Judge confirmed that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Procedural Rules in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and par. 3 as well as art. 22 lit. f) of the Regulations, he was competent to deal with the present matter since it concerned a dispute between two clubs affiliated to two different associations. 4. The competence of the Single Judge 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. 5. First of all, the Single Judge acknowledged that it was undisputed between the parties that, on 8 March 2010, a “private agreement” was concluded concerning the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent. 6. Equally, the Single Judge acknowledged that said agreement contained an option right for the definitive transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent, for which the Respondent had paid the amount of EUR 150,000 to the Claimant on 13 May 2010 and which, according to clause f), had to be exercised by the Respondent by no later than 30 June 2010 by means of a notification to the Claimant and the player. 7. Furthermore, the Single Judge took due note that it was undisputed that the Claimant, the Respondent and the player signed an undated “preliminary transfer agreement” for the transfer of the player that would commence on 1 July 2010, according to which “the player’s sports rights are definitely transferred to [the Respondent], which commits to duly register him by applying to the competent FIGC organs”. 8. Equally, the Single Judge took note that, according to clause 22 of said agreement, “should the Player not be registered by [the Respondent] within August 10th, 2010 due to any reason or fault anyhow relating or depending on [the Respondent], [the Respondent] itself agrees and commits to pay to [the Claimant] a compensation of € 1.000.000,00 within and no later than August 20th 2010”. 9. Having established the above, the Single Judge noted that, on 5 January 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent in connection with the transfer of the player, stating that the Respondent and the player had signed an employment contract on 18 May 2010 and that it was the Respondent’s obligation to duly register the player. The Single Judge noted the Claimant’s statement that the Respondent had not complied with said obligation and had not paid the relevant transfer compensation and that, therefore, it had breached the “preliminary transfer agreement”, which, according to the Claimant, was a definitive transfer agreement since it did not contain any provision indicating that the parties would undertake to enter into a subsequent definitive agreement. Consequently, the Claimant requested to be awarded with the amount of EUR 2,475,627.40 plus 8% interest. 10. The Single Judge went on to consider the Respondent’s submissions in this respect. By doing so, it took due note that the Respondent acknowledged the existence of the “private agreement” and the “preliminary transfer agreement”, duly signed by all parties, however, being of the opinion that the latter agreement was not a definitive agreement for the transfer of the player, but merely a conditional agreement that had to be registered at the “competent Football Federation” in order to be considered valid and effective. The Single Judge noted that the Respondent held that the “preliminary transfer agreement” did not specify which party was responsible for registering said agreement, that it was in fact never registered and, therefore, never entered into force. In this respect, the Single Judge took note that the Respondent referred to art. 105 of the NOIF, the internal organizational rules of the FIGC. 11. Moreover, the Single Judge took note that the Respondent acknowledged the existence of the contract with the player, dated 18 May 2010, which was, according to the Respondent, a preliminary employment contract that never became valid or effective since it was never registered. 12. Furthermore, the Single Judge took note of the Claimant’s final comments, in which it stated that the Respondent had exercised the option right by signing the “preliminary transfer agreement” and reiterated that said agreement is a definitive agreement, which was only conditional upon the signing of an employment agreement between the Respondent and the player, which happened on 18 May 2010. Likewise, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant argued that the NOIF are only applicable to country I clubs affiliated to the FIGC and that, therefore, it would be nonsense to require from a foreign club to register any kind of agreement with the competent country I football bodies without being a member of those bodies. 13. Likewise, the Single Judge took note of the Respondent’s final comments, in which it stated that the “preliminary transfer agreement” would have been valid only if the Respondent had exercised its option right, and only in that case a date would have been added to said agreement. 14. After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, the Single Judge observed that the parties disputed whether the option right had been duly exercised by the Respondent and whether the agreement referred to as the “preliminary transfer agreement” should be considered a definitive transfer agreement. 15. In view of the above, the Single Judge remarked that the option right “shall be exercised by [the Respondent] within and no later than 30 June 2010, by means of notification to both [the Claimant] - headquarters and the Player, expressly specifying its will to exercise such a right of option and purchase the Player’s rights, (…)”. 16. In this respect, the Single Judge held that, by signing the “preliminary transfer agreement” with the Claimant and the player as well as the employment contract with the player on 18 May 2010, therewith implying its intention to transfer the player, and taking into consideration the wording of the “preliminary transfer agreement”, the Respondent had in fact expressed its will to exercise the option right to transfer the player. 17. Having established that the Respondent duly exercised the option right by signing the “preliminary transfer agreement”, and considering that it is not disputed whether the “preliminary transfer agreement” was signed before 30 June 2010, the Single Judge held that the Respondent has fully complied with the conditions stipulated in clause f) of the “private agreement”. 18. Having established the abovementioned, the Single Judge went on to analyze whether the “preliminary transfer agreement” is to be considered a definitive transfer agreement. In view of the documentation on file and, in particular, on the basis of the wording of the agreement, the Single Judge concluded that the parties’ real intention when signing the agreement must have been to conclude a definitive transfer agreement for the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent and that such transfer agreement was, taking into account clause 18 of the transfer agreement, merely conditional upon the conclusion of an employment contract between the Respondent and the player. In this respect, the Single Judge arrived at his conclusion for the reasons outlined below. 19. First of all, the Single Judge underlined that the agreement was duly signed by all parties, i.e. the Claimant, the Respondent and the player, clearly expressing their mutual intention to transfer the player from the Claimant to the Respondent on a definitive basis. 20. Secondly, the Single Judge pointed out that the parties did not include any provision pursuant to which they would have to enter into a subsequent definitive agreement in order to finalise the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent and stressed that the agreement contained all essentialia negotti. 21. Thirdly, the Single Judge held that it is not the title of an agreement, but merely the wording of such agreement as well as the intention of the parties that is decisive as to the interpretation and distinction of agreements. 22. Finally, the Single Judge emphasised that the Respondent had concluded an employment contract with the player on 18 May 2010 and that, thus, the condition established in clause 18 of the agreement had been fulfilled. 23. In view of all the aforementioned considerations, the Single Judge concluded that the “preliminary transfer agreement” is, in fact, a definitive agreement for the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent and added that the mere fact that the date is missing from said agreement does, in the present matter, not automatically lead to the invalidity of the relevant agreement. 24. Having established the above, the Single Judge recalled that the remaining amount of the transfer compensation, i.e. the amount of EUR 1,350,000, had not been paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. The Single Judge observed that the Respondent had not done so, claiming that the employment contract of the player was never officially registered with the relevant authorities and that, therefore, one of the conditions for the transfer agreement to be valid had not been complied with. 25. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that, according to clause 1 of the transfer agreement, the Respondent committed “to duly register him by applying to the competent FIGC organs”. Consequently, the Single Judge held that it was the responsibility of the Respondent to ensure that the player would be duly registered with the relevant organ. Furthermore, the Single Judge held that, any argument raised by the Respondent in relation to the registration of the agreements and contracts with the NOIF, could not be opposed to the Claimant, which is a club having no relationship whatsoever to the FIGC. Hence, the Single Judge was of the firm conclusion that the Respondent was responsible for the proper registration of the relevant agreement and the player and that it had failed to do so. 26. Having established that the Respondent was responsible for the registration of the player, the Single Judge referred to clause 22 of the transfer agreement, which stipulates that “should the Player not be registered by [the Respondent] within August 10th, 2010 due to any reason or fault anyhow relating or depending on [the Respondent], [the Respondent] itself agrees and commits to pay to [the Claimant] a compensation of € 1.000.000,00 within and no later than August 20th 2010”. The Single Judge held that the parties had agreed upon a clause applicable in case the player would not be registered due to the Respondent’s fault. The Single Judge deemed that this is precisely what happened; the player was not registered by the Respondent prior to 10 August 2010 due to the fault of the Respondent. 27. In this context and as to the request for compensation by the Claimant, which was based both on clause 4 and clause 22 of the agreement, the Single Judge deemed it evident that the Claimant was not entitled to both the amount of EUR 1,350,000 and the additional amount of EUR 1,000,000. Taking into account the preceding paragraph, the Single Judge considered that clause 22 replaced the financial terms established in clause 4 of the transfer agreement. 28. In view of the foregoing and, in particular, in view of clause 1 and clause 22 of the transfer agreement, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant a compensation amounting to EUR 1,000,000.Equally, taking into consideration the request of the Claimant as well as the long- standing practice of the Players’ Status Committee, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to pay 5% interest p.a. as of 26 January 2011 on said amount. 29. Furthermore, the Single Judge decided to reject the Claimant’s claim for “legal costs” in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, which stipulates that in proceedings of the Players’ Status Committee no procedural compensation shall be awarded. 30. The Single Judge finally established that any further claim of the Claimant is rejected. 31. 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 currency of country H 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). 32. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that both the Respondent and the Claimant have to bear part of the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 33. 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. On that basis, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 2,475,627.40. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 34. In conclusion, and considering the complexity of the case as well as the amount of correspondence received in the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 24,000. Furthermore, and in line with his aforementioned considerations and taking into account the degree of success, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of currency of country H 16,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, and the amount of currency of country H 8,000 has to be paid by the Claimant. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club M, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club G, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 1,000,000 plus interest at 5% p.a. on said amount as of 26 January 2011 until the date of effective payment. 3. If the aforementioned sum plus interest 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. 4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 24,000 are to be paid within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1. The amount of currency of country H 16,000 by the Respondent to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XX-XXXXX: 5.2. The amount of currency of country H 8,000 by the Claimant to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of currency of country H 5,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant has to pay the amount of currency of country H 3,000 to FIFA to the aforementioned bank account with reference to case nr. XX-XXXXX. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 2. above is to be made and to notify the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received. Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to article 67 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