F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2013-2014) – controversie tra società – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2013-2014) – 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 29 July 2013, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club G, from country I as Claimant against the club Club C, from country B as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player J

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2013-2014) – controversie tra società – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2013-2014) – 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 29 July 2013, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club G, from country I as Claimant against the club Club C, from country B as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player J I. Facts of the case 1. On 25 February 2011, Club G, from country I (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club C, from country B (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed a transfer agreement (hereinafter: “the agreement”) for the transfer of the player J (hereinafter: “the player”) from the Claimant to the Respondent. 2. Art. 1 of the agreement stipulates that the Respondent shall pay to the Claimant a transfer compensation amounting to EUR 120,000, payable in two instalments, as follows: - EUR 60,000 at the signing of the agreement, and - EUR 60,000 on 30 April 2011. 3. Also on 25 February 2011, the Respondent and the player signed an employment contract, valid as from the date of the signature until 31 December 2013. 4. On 9 September 2011, the Claimant lodged a complaint in front of FIFA against the Respondent stating that the latter had not yet paid the second instalment as agreed upon in the agreement. In this respect, the Claimant requested payment of the amount of EUR 60,000 from the Respondent. 5. In its reply, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim outlining the following: a) on 7 March 2011, the Football Association of country I sent a request to release the player for international duty as from 24 March 2011 until 28 March 2011; b) on 14 March 2011, the medical team of the Respondent detected a chronic health problem on the player and recommended treatment, for which the player did not show up; c) on 7 May 2011, the player departed to country I without informing the Respondent about his absence; d) on 23 May 2011, the player sent an e-mail to the Respondent informing it of his decision to terminate the employment contract due to the non-payment of his salaries; e) on 25 May 2011, the Respondent informed the player that it considered his termination of the employment contract groundless; f) on 15 July 2011, the player and the Claimant concluded an employment contract valid until 30 June 2014; g) on 27 July 2011, a request for the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) of the player was made by the Football Association of country I. On the same day, the Respondent was approached by the Claimant, the latter offering to settle the matter amicably proposing that it would withdraw its claim for the payment of EUR 60,000 and, as a result, the player would withdraw his claim for compensation. However, the Respondent rejected the offer. 6. The Respondent considered that the player terminated the employment contract without just cause by leaving on 7 May 2011 and it considered that the Claimant is to be held jointly responsible for such termination by inducing the player to terminate the relevant employment contract. Therefore, the Respondent requested from the Claimant and the player payment in the amount of EUR 222,000 plus interest as well as procedural costs. 7. On 8 June 2012, FIFA informed the Respondent that its complaint against the player and the Claimant for the alleged breach of the employment contract would be treated separately from the present matter. Consequently, FIFA requested the Respondent to remit a separate response in relation to the claim lodged by the Claimant. 8. Following the above-mentioned communication, the Respondent informed FIFA that it i) wished to “avail of the reasons” earlier set out, it ii) lodged a separate claim for breach of contract against the player and the Claimant, and iii) that it is not obliged to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 60,000 as there must be “offsetting between the debts of [the Respondent] and [the Claimant]”. 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 9 September 2011, thus after 1 July 2008 and prior to the coming into force of the 2012 edition of the Procedural Rules. 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 was 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 and 2012 editions 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 9 September 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 25 February 2011, a transfer agreement was concluded relating to the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent for a transfer compensation amounting to EUR 120,000, payable in two equal instalments of EUR 60,000 each. 6. Furthermore, the Single Judge observed that it was undisputed between the parties that the first instalment of EUR 60,000 had been paid by the Respondent to the Claimant and that the second instalment of EUR 60,000, falling due on 30 April 2011, had remained unpaid. 7. In this respect, the Single Judge observed that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent outlining that the latter still owed it the amount of EUR 60,000. 8. Moreover, the Single Judge took note that, in its reply, the Respondent did not dispute that a debt existed towards the Claimant. However, the Respondent outlined that a dispute had arisen in relation to the employment contract it had signed with the player, who, in the meantime, had terminated his employment contract and had returned to the Claimant. As a result, the Respondent held the player and the Claimant liable for the termination of the employment contract without just cause by the player. Therefore, the Respondent considered that the amount payable to the Claimant should be set off against the amount of compensation payable by the player and the Claimant to the Respondent, following the termination of the employment contract without just cause. 9. In this respect, the Single Judge emphasised that, although the present matter might be closely connected to it, the matter between the Respondent, the player and the Claimant in relation to the employment-related dispute arisen between said parties is a separate matter which would fall under the exclusive competence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations. Hence, only the Dispute Resolution Chamber could adjudicate on this employment-related dispute. 10. Having established the foregoing, the Single Judge determined that the Respondent did not provide any valid argument which would justify the non- payment of the second instalment of the agreed transfer compensation. As a consequence and considering that the Respondent had not contested that it had failed to pay the second installment of the transfer compensation to the Claimant, the Single Judge held that it could be established that the Respondent had failed to respect the terms of the transfer agreement dated 25 February 2011. 11. Consequently, the Single Judge held that, in accordance with the basic legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Respondent has to fulfill its contractual obligations towards the Claimant. Therefore, the Single Judge decided to accept the claim of the Claimant, and held that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount EUR 60,000 corresponding to the second installment under the agreement. 12. 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). 13. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant had been fully accepted, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the full costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 14. 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 60,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 10,000. 15. In conclusion, in view of the circumstances of the present matter as well as the fact that it was adjudicated by the Single Judge and not by the Players’ Status Committee in corpore, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 8,000. Furthermore, and in line with his aforementioned considerations and taking into account the degree of success of the parties in these proceedings, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of currency of country H 8,000 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 G, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 60,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum is not paid within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5 % p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned deadline and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 8,000 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 H 6,000 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 H 2,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent directly and immediately of the account number to which the remittances are to be made in accordance with the above points 2. and 4.2. 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