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 15 January 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country F as Claimant against the club, Club B, from country T as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player N

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 15 January 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country F as Claimant against the club, Club B, from country T as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player N I. Facts of the case 1. On 30 June 2011, Club A, from country F (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the Club B, from country T (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded a transfer agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) for the transfer of the player N (hereinafter: the player) from the Claimant to the Respondent for a transfer fee of EUR 2,100,000 payable on 30 June 2011, plus possible bonus payments. 2. In this context, the agreement provided, inter alia, the following Free translation from language of country F: “(…) Article 3 - Payment of a transfer fee: In addition to the main transfer fee the following bonus payments are to be added: (…) - Should the [Respondent] participate in the Europa League and should the player participate in at least 20 (twenty) official games during the season, the [Respondent] shall pay 150.000,00 (…) according to the modalities as stipulated in article. 5. (…) Article 5 - Payment modalities: - The bonus payments shall be paid within 15 days following the realization of the relevant objective. (…)” 3. The Regulations of the UEFA Europa League (hereinafter: UEL) stipulate the following: “(…) V - Competition System Article 7 - Number of rounds 7.01 As shown in Annex Ib, the competition consists of: a) a qualifying phase: − first qualifying round − second qualifying round − third qualifying round b) play-offs c) the [UEL]: − group stage (six matchdays) − round of 32 − round of 16 − quarter-finals − semi-finals − final (…)” 4. On 19 November 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent and requested from the latter the amount of EUR 150,000, plus 5% interest on said amount as of 15 July 2012. 5. In support of its claim, the Claimant indicated that the Respondent has participated in the UEL during the season 2011/2012 and that the player has played in at least 35 matches for the Respondent. Therefore, the conditions of the relevant bonus payment as stipulated in art. 3 of the agreement have allegedly been met. 6. In its reply, the Respondent acknowledged that the player has participated in more than 20 games for the Respondent during the season 2011/2012, however stressed that it has only participated in the play-off-round of the UEL at which stage it was eliminated and could hence not participate in the actual UEL. Therefore, the conditions of art. 3 of the agreement have not been fully met, which is why the respective bonus payment has not fallen due. 7. In its replica, the Claimant referred to the regulations of the UEL, 2011/2012 edition, art. 7.01, indicating that the qualification phase as well as the play-off- round are part of the UEL. 8. In its final position, the Respondent also referred to the Regulations of the UEL, however stressing that already the titles ”a) qualifying phase, b) play-offs and c) UEFA Europa League” indicate that the qualifying phase and the play-offs are not part of the actual UEL. In this regard, since the Respondent was eliminated during the play-off-round, it did not participate in the UEL which is why no bonus payments have fallen due. 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 are 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 2012) (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 19 November 2012, thus before the aforementioned rules entered into force (1 December 2012), 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 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 with FIFA on 19 November 2012. 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. In this respect and first of all, the Single Judge established that it was undisputed between the parties that they concluded, on 30 June 2011, an agreement regarding the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the agreement in art. 3 provided for a conditional payment of EUR 150,000 payable to the Claimant by the Respondent in case that the latter participated in the UEL and the player participated in at least 20 official games during the respective season. 6. The Single Judge also acknowledged that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent, stating that the latter had not fulfilled its payment obligation with regard to the aforementioned bonus payments of EUR 150,000 as stipulated in article 3 of the agreement, at the latest due 15 days after the conditions as stipulated in art. 5 of the agreement had been met. As a consequence, and referring to art. 3 and 5 of the agreement, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the payment of the total amount of EUR 150,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 15 July 2012. 7. In examining the Claimant’s claim, the Single Judge started by noting that it was undisputed between the parties that the player participated in more than 20 official games for the Respondent, i.e. that the first condition of art. 3 of the agreement has been met. 8. In this context, the Single Judge on the one hand took note of the argument of the Claimant which argued that the qualification phase as well as the play-off- round is part of the UEL and that the undisputed fact that the Respondent participated in the playoff round of the UEL triggered the obligation of the Respondent to pay the amount of EUR 150,000 to the Claimant. 9. On the other hand, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent, in its reply, objected to the claim and the argumentation of the Claimant, by arguing that it has only participated in the play-off-round of the UEL at which stage it was eliminated and hence failed to participate in the actual UEL. In this regard, the Single Judge also noted that the Respondent held that already the titles ”a) qualifying phase, b) play-offs and c) UEFA Europa League” indicate that the qualifying phase and the play-offs are not part of the actual UEL. Therefore, the conditions of art. 3 of the agreement have not been fully met, which is why the respective bonus payment has not fallen due. 10. Bearing in mind the aforementioned, the Single Judge highlighted that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the diverging position of the parties regarding the interpretation of the Regulations of the UEL in connection with art. 3 of the agreement, was to determine whether the play-off-round of the UEL is to be considered part of the UEL as per the wording of the agreement. 11. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled the content of the agreement, which makes reference to the participation of the Respondent in the UEL, without specifying a particular stage of the competition, i.e. the qualification phase, the play-off-round, the group stage or the knock-out stage. 12. The Single Judge then turned his attention to the relevant Regulations of the UEL and, in particular, took due note of art. 7 which outlines the different rounds which constitute the competition. In particular, art. 7.01 stipulates that the competition consists of a qualifying phase, the play-offs and the UEL. 13. In continuation, the Single Judge reverted to further provisions of the Regulations of the UEL, in particular, its art. 1 which states that the said regulations ‘’govern the rights, duties and responsibilities of all parties participating and involved in the preparation and organisation of the 2013/2014 UEFA Europa League including its qualifying phase and the play-offs (hereinafter: the competition)’’. In addition, art. 2.01 and Annex Ia stipulate that UEFA member associations may enter the winner of their national cup competition, as well as a certain number of other clubs for the competition in accordance with their position in the coefficient rankings in Annex Ia, draw up in accordance with the Annex II of these regulations. The Single Judge also acknowledged that the aforementioned Annex Ia, which contains the relevant provisions regarding the Access list of the UEL and which stipulates that the Access list for the 2013/14 UEFA club competitions includes the three qualification phases, the playoffs and the group stage. 14. In light of the above, the Single Judge deemed that it is unequivocal that the UEL is to be considered as the competition regrouping the three stages, being the qualifying stage, the play-off and then the UEL group stage and knock-out stages. Indeed, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that as from its article 1, the UEL Regulations make it clear that the UEL is inter alia constituted of the qualifying stages and not only the group stage and subsequent knock-out stages. Then, the other provisions referred to above further corroborate this assessment. 15. Therefore and since art. 3 of the agreement merely makes a general reference to the UEL, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that already the participation of the Respondent in the play-offs of the UEL qualifies as participation in the UEL as stipulated in the agreement. Consequently, the Single Judged decided that the conditions as stipulated in art. 3 of the agreement have been met. 16. In conclusion, the Single Judge decided to fully accept the Claimant’s claim and established that the Respondent had to pay to the Claimant the total amount of EUR 150,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 15 July 2012 until the date of effective payment. 17. 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). 18. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been accepted, the Single Judge concluded that the procedural costs are to be borne by the Respondent. 19. According to Annex A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the bases of the amount in dispute. 20. On that basis, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 150,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 20,000 (cf. table in Annexe A.) which have to be borne by the Respondent. 21. Considering that the case at hand did not pose particular factual difficulty and that it was adjudicated upon by the Single Judge and not the Players’ Status Committee in corpore, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 12,000. ** III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club B, has to pay the amount of EUR 150,000 to the Claimant, Club A, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, plus default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. on said amount as of 15 July 2012 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 costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 12,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club B, within 30 days as from the notification of the present decision, as follows: 4.1 The amount of currency of country H 9,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. : 4.2 The amount of currency of country H 3,000 directly to the Claimant, Club A 5. The Claimant, Club A, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club B, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under point 2 and 4.2 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 art. 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