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 19 March 2013, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club T, from country F as Claimant against the club, Club G, from country T 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 19 March 2013, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club T, from country F as Claimant against the club, Club G, from country T as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player D I. Facts of the case 1. On 31 August 2010, Club A, from country F (hereinafter: the Claimant) and Club G, from country T (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded a transfer agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) concerning the transfer of the player D (hereinafter: the player) from the Claimant to the Respondent. 2. Article 3 of the agreement stipulated, inter alia, that “if the player is transferred to another club(s) during his contract(s) with Club G, Club G will pay to Club A 20% of the exchange financial value for each transfer. This (these) amount(s) is(are) due to Club A by the end of the 5th day after the day on which each the transfer is approved”. 3. On 17 September 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, stating that the latter had not fulfilled its payment obligations agreed upon in article 3 of the agreement. In particular, the Claimant held that in June 2012 the player was transferred from the Respondent to Club H, from country T, for an alleged amount of EUR 3,300,000. 4. With its claim, the Claimant requested that the Respondent shall provide a copy of the transfer agreement signed between it and Club H and, in anticipation of additional information on the financial terms of said agreement, it claimed the payment of EUR 660,000. Finally, the Claimant requested that the Respondent shall reimburse the advance of costs and that it shall bear the procedural costs. 5. In particular, the Claimant held that on 15 June 2012 it had provided an invoice to the Respondent for the payment of the amount of EUR 660,000 which, however, remained unpaid. Additionally, the Claimant provided FIFA with a copy of a letter addressed to it by the alleged legal representative of the Respondent dated 7 July 2012, by means of which the latter, informed the Claimant that it had agreed with Club H upon a transfer compensation of EUR 3,300,000 payable as follows: ¬ EUR 500,000 payable on 13 June 2012; ¬ EUR 500,000 payable on 15 August 2012; ¬ EUR 500,000 payable on 15 September 2012; ¬ EUR 500,000 payable on 15 October 2012; ¬ EUR 500,000 payable on 15 November 2012; ¬ EUR 780,000 payable on 20 January 2013; ¬ EUR 20,000 payable on 20 December 2013. Equally, with said letter the Respondent confirmed that the Claimant is entitled to receive EUR 660,000 payable in different instalments, as follows: ¬ EUR 100,000 payable 5 days after the registration date; ¬ EUR 100,000 payable on 20 August 2012; ¬ EUR 100,000 payable on 20 September 2012; ¬ EUR 100,000 payable on 20 October 2012; ¬ EUR 100,000 payable on 20 November 2012; ¬ EUR 156,000 payable on 25 January 2013; ¬ EUR 4,000 payable on 25 December 2013. 6. The Claimant, on the one hand maintained that the whole amount of EUR 660,000 is payable the latest after 5 days from the registration of the player and not in instalments, as alleged by the Respondent in their exchange of correspondence and, on the other hand, that the player had actually been registered with Club H, although the Respondent informed it several times of the contrary. 7. On 21 January 2013, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee issued a decision in accordance with which the Respondent was ordered to send to FIFA a copy of the transfer agreement it had concluded with Club H. On 19 February 2013, the Respondent provided FIFA with a copy of the relevant transfer agreement dated 8 June 2012, which confirmed the terms as indicated in par. 5 above. 8. On 26 February 2013, the Claimant reiterated its request for the payment of EUR 660,000 and added a request for interest plus damages. 9. In spite of having been asked to do so by FIFA, the Respondent never responded to the claim lodged against it. 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 17 September 2012, 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 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 2012 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 17 September 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. First of all, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant was pursuing two different claims against the Respondent; one claim for the payment of EUR 660,000 in relation to the “sell-on-clause” it had agreed upon with the Respondent in the transfer agreement concluded between the parties, the other claim regarding the payment of unspecified damages and interest. 6. In turn, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent, although having been invited to do so on two occasions, never provided FIFA with its position in connection with the claim lodged by the Claimant regarding the present matter. Therefore, the Single Judge deemed that, in this way, the Respondent renounced to its right of defence and accepted the allegations of the Claimant (cf. art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). 7. On account of the above, the Single Judge acknowledged that it was undisputed between the parties that, on 31 August 2010, a transfer agreement was concluded relating to the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent. 8. Furthermore, the Single Judge observed that it was also undisputed between the parties that said agreement stipulated a “sell-on-clause”, entitling the Claimant, in case of a subsequent transfer of the player to a third club, to receive 20% of the transfer fee paid to the Respondent, “by the end of the 5th day after the day on which each transfer is approved.” 9. In addition to that, the Single Judge noted that, on 8 June 2012, the Respondent concluded a transfer agreement with Club H, from country T, regarding the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Club H, for a transfer amount of EUR 3,300,000, of which the amount of EUR 3,280,000 had already fallen due. However, the Single Judge also took note that the last instalment of the relevant transfer fee, i.e. the amount of EUR 20,000, had not fallen due yet. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that, in application of the “sell-on-clause”, the Claimant is, to date, only entitled to receive 20% of EUR 3,280,000 from the Respondent, equalling to EUR 656,000. 10. In this respect, the Single Judge ruled that the Respondent did not provide any valid argument which would justify the non-payment of the amounts due according to the “sell-on-clause” and that, thus, the Respondent had failed to respect the terms of the transfer agreement it had entered into with the Claimant on 31 August 2010. 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 partially accept the claim of the Claimant, including the interests requested, and held that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 656,000 plus default interest as of 26 February 2013 until the date of effective payment. 12. Finally, the Single Judge addressed the Claimant’s claim to receive damages from the Respondent for an unspecified amount. In this regard, and taking into consideration there was no specification as to which further damages the Claimant had suffered, the Single Judge concluded that there was no legal basis to order that the Respondent had to pay damages to the Claimant. As a consequence of the above, the Single Judge decided that this part of the Claimant’s claim was to be rejected. 13. 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). 14. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the Claimant had been the successful party, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the full costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 15. 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 660,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country S 25,000. 16. In conclusion, and considering the conduct of the Respondent during the proceedings, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country S 22,000. 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 22,000 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 A, 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 656,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 26 February 2013 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 costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country S 22,000 are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1. The amount of currency of country S 17,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XX-XXXXX: 5.2 The amount of currency of country S 5,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances 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