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 Z, from country S as Claimant against the club Club G, from country I as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player V

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 Z, from country S as Claimant against the club Club G, from country I as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player V I. Facts of the case 1. On 8 July 2009, Club Z, from country S (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club G, from country I (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded a loan agreement for the temporary transfer of the player, Player V (hereinafter: the player) from the Respondent to the Claimant. 2. The aforementioned loan agreement stipulated, inter alia, that: “2. Club G is transferring to Club Z the services of the Player on a loan basis for the Season 2009/2010 until 30 June 2010 as well as 25% of the economical rights on the future transfer of the Player against compensation in the amount of currency of country S 2,000,000 (two million of currency S). 3. Club Z is acquiring from Club G the services of the Player on a loan basis for the Season 2009/2010 until 30 June 2010 as well as 25% of the economical rights on the future transfer of the Player against compensation in the amount of currency of country S 2,000,000 (two million currency of country S). (…) 6. In the event that no offer is received for the definitive transfer of the Player during the Season 2009/10, Club G has the option to extend the loan period of the Player with Club Z for the Season 2010/11 until 30 June 2011, provided that the Player agrees to extend his employment contract with Club Z until 30 June 2011 for the same financial conditions as foreseen in his employment contract with Club Z for the Season 2009/10. Club G shall make use of this option right by 30 June 2010. In the event that the loan period is extended for a further season, the parties agree that the provisions contained in the points 7-10 are extended as well and apply accordingly. For the eventual extension of the loan period for the Season 2010/11 there will be no loan fee to be paid by Club Z. 7. In the event the Player returns to Club G at the end of the Season 2009/10, Club G shall pay back to Club Z the amount of currency of country S 2,000,000 (two million currency of country S) by 15 July 2010. Once in receipt of this amount the 25% of the economical rights on the future transfer of the Player in possession of Club Z will be automatically returned to Club G and the present agreement loses any legal force. In such event, Club Z engages itself to instruct the country S Football Federation to issue the International Transfer Certificated to the country I Football Federation in favour of country I at the end of the loan period. For the purpose of this agreement, also the loan of the Player from Club G to a third club for the Season 2010/11 is considered as a return of the Player to Club G and falls under the conditions of the present provision. However, in addition to the terms agreed in this provision the parties agree that any definitive transfer of the Player during the Summer registration period 2010 will still entitle Club Z to receiving 25% of the amount of the transfer compensation above currency of country S 2,000,000 (two million currency of country S). 8. In the event the Player does not return to Club G at the end of the loan period and instead he is transferred on a definitive basis to a third club, the revenue received by the third club for the vent of the rights of the Player shall be distributed between Club G and Club Z in accordance with the terms and deadlines agreed in the transfer contract as follows: a. Club Z shall receive the first currency of country S 2,000,000 (two million currency of country S) of the transfer compensation; b. Every amount of the transfer compensation above currency of country S 2,000,000 (two million currency of country S) shall be distributed in the following percentages: i. Club G: 75% ii. Club Z: 25% Club G will also recognize a bonus to Club Z which is at the sole and full discretionality of the Board of Club G.” 10. In the event that Club G does not agree to the definitive transfer of the Player to a third club for the amount offered, despite Club Z agreeing to the amount offered, then Club G is compelled to buy from Club Z its share of the economic rights for currency of country S 2,000,000 (two million currency of country S), and in the event that the offer is equal or superior to currency of country S 5,000,000 (five million currency of country S) Club G shall pay Club Z 25% of the amount offered above currency of country S 2,000,000 (two million currency of country S). This amount shall be paid by Club G to Club Z within 30 days from the refusal of Club G to the definitive transfer of the Player to the third club.” 3. On 28 November 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for payment of the amount of currency of country S 1,950,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 16 July 2011. The Claimant explained that, on 14 July 2009, the parties agreed to reduce the amount to be paid by the Claimant to currency of country S 1,950,000 if the entire amount was paid on the same day, and that, following this “additional agreement”, the Claimant had transferred the relevant amount to the Respondent on 14 July 2009. Furthermore, the Claimant indicated that the parties extended the loan period until 30 June 2011 and that art. 7 of the agreement is valid and applicable also in case the loan period is extended until 30 June 2011, as stated in art. 6 in fine of the agreement. The Claimant explained that the extension of the loan period only has an impact on the relevant dates as follows: the reimbursement by the Respondent was to be done until 15 July 2011, and the loan of the player from the Respondent to a third club for the season 2011/12 is considered a return of the player to the Respondent (cf. art. 7 of the loan agreement). 4. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that the loan period of the player with the Claimant ended on 30 June 2011 and the registration of the player was returned to the Respondent on 7 July 2011. Subsequently, the player was loaned by the Respondent to Club C, from country I, for the season 2011/12. As a result, the Claimant deemed that the condition of art. 7 of the loan agreement is fulfilled and the Respondent therefore had to return the amount of currency of country S 1,950,000 to the Claimant by 15 July 2011 at the latest. The Claimant added that the loan agreement does not grant the Respondent the right to choose between two options (reimbursement or renounce on 25% of the player’s economical rights), but rather that, as long as the Respondent does not carry out the reimbursement, based on art. 7 of the agreement, the Claimant keeps its quote of 25% as a sell on right on the player and would benefit from a possible definitive transfer of the player, in addition to its right to claim reimbursement of the amount of currency of country S 1,950,000. 5. Consequently, the Claimant requests the payment of currency of country S 1,950,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 16 July 2011. 6. On 20 January 2012, the Respondent replied to the claim lodged against it and confirmed having received the amount of currency of country S 1,950,000 from the Claimant. The Respondent further confirmed the conclusion of the sell-on clause in the loan agreement and the extension of the loan period until 30 June 2011, as well as the player’s return to the Respondent at the end of the 2010/11 season and the subsequent loan of the player to Club C, from country I. However, the Respondent emphasised that “No consequence is provided for in the Transfer Agreement in case of non-payment by [the Respondent] of currency of country S 1’950’000, other than the right for [the Claimant] to hold on to the 25% sell-on option. (…) by not paying back currency of country S 1,950,000 [the Respondent] resolved to not get back the 25% sell-on option and leave it with [the Claimant]”. The Respondent stated that this is exactly what happened; it did not return the amount of currency of country S 1,950,000 to the Claimant and the latter club therefore retained its sell-on option. Furthermore, the Respondent objected to the Claimant’s interpretation that it is entitled to hold on to the 25% sell-on option as long as the payment has not been made by the Respondent, in addition to retaining its right to claim the amount of currency of country S 1,950,000, by stating that the reimbursement of said amount and the 25% sell-on option are “mutually exclusive”. Finally, the Respondent argued that accepting the Claimant’s request to reimburse the amount of currency of country S 1,950,000 to the club would deplete the loan agreement of any economical substance, and it would mean that the Respondent would derive no financial advantage from the loan transfer since it transferred the player on loan for two seasons and the 25% sell-on option to the Claimant whereas it would receive nothing in exchange. 7. On 16 February 2012, the Claimant submitted its response to the Respondent’s reply and stated that the loan agreement does not need to provide for any consequence, since the unwritten and direct consequence of “any financial obligation” is that the obligation has to be fulfilled, referring therewith to the principle of pacta sunt servanda. The Claimant subsequently repeated its statement that art. 7 of the loan agreement does not grant the Respondent the right to choose between two options, because said provision clearly and unequivocally stipulates that the reimbursement of the amount of currency of country S 1,950,000 has to be made until 15 July 2011. The Claimant reiterated that, pending the reimbursement of the amount of currency of country S 1,950,000, the 25% sell-on right remains with it. According to the Claimant, this is to be considered a sanction for the delayed payment by the Respondent, in addition to the obligation to return the currency of country S 1,950,000 by 15 July 2011. The Claimant therefore reserves its right to claim 25% of any transfer fee obtained by the Respondent pending the reimbursement of currency of country S 1,950,000. 8. With regard to the Respondent’s statement that the reimbursement of currency of country S 1,950,000 by the Respondent would deplete the agreement of any economical substance, the Claimant indicated that it made a temporary investment in the chance to participate with a share of 25% at a definitive transfer of the player during the period of loan. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that it is common ground that loan transfers of players are free of a loan fee and that it took over the player’s salary during the entire loan period. This amount, currency of country S 450,000, could be saved by the Respondent whilst it could regain 100% of the player’s economical rights after the loan period. Besides this financial advantage, the Claimant stated that the player’s market value may have increased due to the proper training and development of the player by the Claimant. Finally, the Claimant compared the initial payment of currency of country S 1,950,000 to the Respondent with a financial loan for a period of two years, without the application of an interest rate. 9. On 19 June 2012, the Respondent submitted its response to the latest position of the Claimant enclosing a document referred to as “addendum to the transfer agreement between [the Respondent] and [the Claimant]”. The Respondent stated that, despite not bearing any date, said addendum was concluded after the completion of the loan agreement and signed by representatives of both parties. The Respondent pointed out that, according to art. 1a) of the addendum, “should the player return to Club G following Club Z’s technical evaluation, Club G shall refund Club Z the amount of currency of country S 2,000,000.00 (two million currency of country S), (…), the agreement presently in force shall immediately cease to be valid and effective, (…)”. Furthermore, the same article stipulates that, “as an alternative, the parties are entitled to renew the player’s temporary transfer for the Sports Season 2010/2011”. According to art. 1d) of the addendum, in the event that the loan is extended until the end of the 2010/11 season, “it is understood that the player’s temporary transfer shall be extended for one season only, at the end of which Club G shall in no way be obliged to refund Club Z any amount.”. The Respondent argued that the loan period was extended by one season until 30 June 2011 and therefore, pursuant to the aforementioned provisions of the addendum, it was in no way obliged to refund the Claimant any amount. 10. In turn, the Claimant stated that “the addendum to the transfer agreement” was already signed before the conclusion of the loan agreement (8 July 2009), and subsequently sent by fax to a country S based law firm on 22 June 2009 together with an undated loan agreement signed by Mr W, herewith indicating that the “addendum to the transfer agreement” was signed on or before 22 June 2009 and was serving as an addendum to the undated loan agreement. In this respect, the Claimant enclosed a fax report of 22 June 2009. The Claimant argued that the parties defined, by means of the “addendum to the transfer agreement”, the basis for the negotiations for the loan transfer of the player. The Claimant indicated that such negotiations continued after 22 June 2009, referring to a contractual draft dated 29 June 2009, and finally resulted in the loan agreement dated 8 July 2009 which was signed by two board members. The Claimant further stated that the chronological order of the agreements and the wording of art. 6 and 7 of the loan agreement lead to the conclusion that art. 1d) of “the addendum to the transfer agreement” was eliminated and replaced by art. 6 and 7 of the loan agreement, which shall therefore be considered valid and applicable. Finally, the Claimant indicated that Mr W was not authorised to sign any agreements on behalf of the Claimant. 11. In its reply to the Claimant’s extra position, the Respondent stated that “the addendum to the transfer agreement” reveals the true intention of the parties: the amount of currency of country S 1,950,000 was paid by the Claimant in order to obtain the player on loan for two seasons and secure the right to receive 25% of any amount paid to the Respondent for the player’s permanent transfer to a third club. The Respondent finally stated that, by comparing the initial payment of currency of country S 1,950,000 to the Respondent with a financial loan for a period of two years, the Claimant is implying that the loan agreement was concluded to structure a monetary loan, guaranteeing “interest-free liquidity” to the Respondent. As a consequence, the Respondent believes that FIFA is not competent to hear a “request for refund” which derives from a purely financial operation that does not fall within the scope of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. Alternatively, the Respondent requested that the claim is rejected. 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 28 November 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 28 November 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 indicated 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 is competent to deal with disputes between clubs belonging to different associations. 4. Having said that, the Single Judge recalled that the Respondent challenged the competence of the Single Judge by stating that FIFA is not competent to hear a “request for refund” that derives from a purely financial operation, which does not fall within the scope of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. In this respect, the Single Judge held, however, that the present dispute clearly derived from the conclusion of a loan agreement between two clubs affiliated to two different associations and, therefore, 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. 5. 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. 6. First of all, the Single Judge acknowledged that it was undisputed between the parties that, on 8 July 2009, a loan agreement was concluded concerning the temporary transfer of the player from the Respondent to the Claimant. 7. Equally, the Single Judge acknowledged that, according to art. 6 of the loan agreement, the Respondent had the option to extend the loan period of the player with the Claimant for the 2010/2011 season and that, provided that it had done so by 30 June 2010, the provisions contained in the art. 7-10 of the loan agreement would be extended as well and would apply accordingly. 8. Furthermore, the Single Judge took due note that it was undisputed that the parties had agreed to reduce the amount of currency of country S 2,000,000, stipulated in the loan agreement as compensation for the loan of the player, to currency of country S 1,950,000, which was subsequently paid by the Claimant to the Respondent, and that the parties had extended the loan period of the player with the Claimant for the 2010/2011 season, after which the player was transferred on loan from the Respondent to Club C, from country I. 9. Equally, the Single Judge took note that it was undisputed that art. 7-10 of the loan agreement were extended and applied accordingly following the extension of said agreement for the 2010/2011 season. 10. Having established the above, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent stating that the conditions of art. 7 of the loan agreement had been fulfilled but that the Respondent had failed to return the amount of currency of country S 1,950,000 to the Claimant. The Single Judge noted the Claimant’s statement that art. 7 of the loan agreement does not grant the Respondent the option to choose to either reimburse the loan compensation or to renounce 25% of the player’s economic rights, but rather that, as long as the Respondent does not carry out the reimbursement, the Claimant keeps its quote of 25% as a sell on right on the player, in addition to its right to claim reimbursement of the amount of currency of country S 1,950,000. The Single Judge observed that, consequently, the Claimant requested the payment of the amount of currency of country S 1,950,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 16 July 2011. 11. The Single Judge went on to consider the Respondent’s submissions in this respect. By doing so, it took due note that the Respondent interpreted the loan agreement emphasising that “No consequence is provided for in the Transfer Agreement in case of non-payment by [the Respondent] of currency of country S 1’950’000, other than the right for [the Claimant] to hold on to the 25% sell-on option”. In other words, according to the Respondent, the reimbursement of the loan compensation and the 25% sell-on option are “mutually exclusive”. 12. Furthermore, the Single Judge took note of the Claimant’s comments on the Respondent’s answer, in which it reiterated its interpretation of art. 7 of the loan agreement, explaining that the remainder of the 25% sell-on right with the Claimant is to be considered a sanction for the delayed reimbursement of the loan compensation by the Respondent. 13. Likewise, the Single Judge took note of the Respondent’s comments on the Claimant’s latest position, in which it submitted an undated “addendum to the transfer agreement between [the Respondent] and [the Claimant]” which was, according to the Respondent, concluded by the parties after the loan agreement of 8 July 2009. The Respondent pointed out that art. 1d) of said addendum stipulates that, in the event that the loan period of the player is extended until the end of the 2010/2011 season, “it is understood that the player’s temporary transfer shall be extended for one season only, at the end of which Club G shall in no way be obliged to refund Club Z any amount.”. The Respondent argued that the loan period was extended by one season until 30 June 2011 and therefore, pursuant to the aforementioned provision of the addendum, it was in no way obliged to refund the Claimant any amount. 12. The Single Judge continued taking note of the Claimant’s position regarding the addendum submitted by the Respondent, in which the Claimant stated that said addendum had already been concluded before the loan agreement of 8 July 2009, and subsequently sent by fax to a law firm based in country S, together with an undated loan agreement signed by a representative of the Claimant. The Claimant indicated that the addendum was signed on or before 22 June 2009 and was serving as an addendum to the undated loan agreement which formed the basis for the negotiations for the loan transfer of the player, resulting in a contractual draft dated 29 June 2009 and, finally, in the loan agreement of 8 July 2009. The Claimant finally stated that the chronological order of the agreements and the wording of art. 6 and 7 of the loan agreement lead to the conclusion that art. 1d) of the addendum was eliminated and replaced by art. 6 and 7 of the loan agreement, which shall therefore be considered valid and applicable. 14. Finally, the Single Judge took note of the final comments of the Respondent, in which it stressed that the addendum reveals the true intention of the parties: the amount of currency of country S 1,950,000 was paid by the Claimant in order to obtain the player on loan for two seasons and secure the right to receive 25% of any amount paid to the Respondent for the player’s permanent transfer to a third club. 15. After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, taking into consideration all the aforementioned arguments, the Single Judge observed that the parties, in particular, disputed the interpretation of art. 7 of the loan agreement and the order of the different agreements that were concluded between them. 16. Having said that, the Single Judge started by analysing the order in which the loan agreement and the “addendum to the transfer agreement between the Respondent and the Claimant” were concluded between the parties. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that it is undisputed that the loan agreement was signed by the parties on 8 July 2009. However, it is disputed by the parties when the addendum, which does not bear a date, was concluded between them. The Respondent stated that the addendum belonged to the loan agreement and was signed after 8 July 2009; the Claimant argued that the addendum belonged to a draft of the loan agreement and was signed before 8 July 2009. 17. In this respect, the Single Judge referred to the documentation on file, in particular, to the fax report dated 22 June 2009 which indicated that the addendum was sent by the Claimant to a law firm, as well as to the undated loan agreement that was sent together with the addendum on 22 June 2009. Taking into account said documents as well as taking into consideration the explanations provided by the Claimant, the Single Judge deemed that the explanations given by the Claimant were credible and, therefore, the Single Judge was comfortably satisfied in his conclusion that the parties had already signed said addendum on or before 22 June 2009, in other words, before signing the loan agreement on 8 July 2009. The Single Judge held that, given the timeline of the events, it could be established that the parties’ intention was to replace the undated loan agreement and the addendum, both signed before 8 July 2009, by the loan agreement of 8 July 2009, which shall therefore be considered as the relevant agreement in the present matter. 18. In continuation, the Single Judge remarked that art. 7 of the loan agreement stipulated, inter alia, that “In the event the Player returns to Club G at the end of the Season 2009/10, Club G shall pay back to Club Z the amount of currency of country S 2,000,000 (two million currency of country S) by 15 July 2010. Once in receipt of this amount the 25% of the economical rights on the future transfer of the Player in possession of Club Z will be automatically returned to Club G and the present agreement loses any legal force. (…) For the purpose of this agreement, also the loan of the Player from Club G to a third club for the Season 2010/11 is considered as a return of the Player to Club G and falls under the conditions of the present provision.”. 19. In this respect, the Single Judge held that it was undisputed by the parties that the loan period of the player with the Claimant was extended for the 2010/2011 season, resulting at the same time in the automatic extension and application of art. 7-10 of the loan agreement for the 2010/2011 season. Furthermore, it was undisputed by the parties that the player was transferred on loan to Club C for the 2011/2012 season, which, in accordance with art. 7 of the loan agreement, is considered as a return of the player to the Respondent. 20. Having established the abovementioned, the Single Judge went on to analyse how art. 7 of the loan agreement should be interpreted. On the basis of the literal wording of art. 7, the Single Judge concluded that the parties had in fact agreed upon the reimbursement of the loan compensation to the Claimant in the event that the player would return to the Respondent after the (extended) loan period. The Single Judge held that the return of the player was the sole condition that had to be met and that this would result in the obligation for the Respondent to reimburse the loan compensation to the Claimant, without this being “mutually exclusive” with the 25% sell-on option. Given that it is undisputed that the player was transferred on loan to a third club after the loan period with the Claimant, the Single Judge held that the Respondent has to pay the amount of currency of country S 1,950,000 to the Claimant. 21. Hence, having established that the player was transferred on loan from the Respondent to a third club after the loan period with the Claimant and taking into account the pertinent wording of art. 7, the Single Judge concluded that the condition stipulated in art. 7 of the loan agreement was met and, therefore, the Respondent has to pay the amount of currency of country S 1,950,000 to the Claimant plus interest at 5% p.a. on said amount as of 16 July 2011. 22. 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 S 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). 23. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is accepted. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 24. 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 currency of country S 1,950,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country S 25,000. 25. In conclusion, and considering the complexity of the case, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country S 20,000. 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 S 20,000 has to be paid by the Respondent. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club Z, is 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 currency of country S 1,950,000 plus interest at 5% p.a. on said amount as of 16 July 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. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country S 20,000 are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 4.1. The amount of currency of country S 15,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XX-XXXXX: 4.2. The amount of currency of country S 5,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under point 2. and 4.2. above are 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