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 28 August 2013, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club G, from country T as “Claimant” against the club Club N, from country S as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and 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 28 August 2013, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club G, from country T as “Claimant” against the club Club N, from country S as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the player J. I. Facts of the case 1. On 26 August 2011, Club G, from country T (hereinafter: “the Claimant”) and the Club N, from country S (hereinafter: “the Respondent”) concluded a loan contract (hereinafter: “the contract”), for the temporary transfer of the country C Player J (hereinafter: “the player”) from the Claimant to the Respondent for the 2011/2012 sporting season. 2. Point 2.1.1 of the contract stated that “The loan compensation payable by Club N [i.e. the Respondent] for the temporary transfer of the Player pursuant to this Agreement shall be the net amount of EUR 400,000.00- (four hundred thousand euros) payable before 15 October 2011.” 3. Point 2.1.5 of the contract stated that “Club N [i.e. the Respondent] does not pay the loan compensation until 15 October 2011 at the latest a penalty fee amounting to EUR 1,000 (one thousand Euros) per day shall be applicable from the due date until the effective date of payment.” 4. On 22 November 2011, the Claimant lodged a complaint with FIFA against the Respondent for breach of the contract. In this respect, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the payment of the following items: a) EUR 400,000 as outstanding loan compensation to be paid directly to the Claimant; b) Alternatively, to pay EUR 200,000 to the Claimant and EUR 200,000 to the player; c) To condemn the Respondent to pay a penalty fee in the amount of EUR 1,000 per day from 15 October 2011 until the effective date of payment, “with the default interest at the rate of 5% per annum”; d) Procedural costs. 5. In particular, the Claimant stated that: a) On 18 and 26 October 2011, it sent two letters to the Respondent claiming the outstanding payment of EUR 400,000. In those letters, the Claimant stated that it owed the player the amount of EUR 257,136. As a consequence, the Claimant proposed to the Respondent to pay EUR 200,000 on its behalf to the player and the remaining amount of EUR 200,000 to the Claimant directly; b) On 17 November 2011, the Respondent sent a draft agreement to the Claimant signed by the Respondent containing the terms of the proposition made by the Claimant in its letters of 18 and 26 October 2011. However, the Claimant did not agree with the terms and conditions established in the draft. 6. On 2 January 2012, the Respondent informed FIFA that the parties were trying to resolve the matter amicably and that they would informed FIFA as soon as an agreement was reached. 7. On 30 December 2011 and on 9 January 2012, the Claimant sent two unsolicited letters to FIFA stating that they were informed that the Respondent had made a payment to the player for an amount of EUR 200,000 on their behalf and thus the amount of EUR 200,000, plus the contractually agreed penalty, remained outstanding. Moreover, the Claimant informed FIFA that the Respondent was contesting the validity of the penalty requested under the contract alleging that it was contrary to country S Law. 8. On 20 January 2012, the Respondent claimed that they had already fulfilled their financial obligations towards the Claimant in accordance with the contract. In particular, the Respondent alleged that on 5 December 2011, it had paid to the player an amount of EUR 200,000 and that on 15 January 2012, it had transferred to Club G the remaining amount of EUR 200,000. In support of its allegations, the Respondent provided a copy of the relevant bank transfer orders. 9. The Claimant presented its reaction to the above-mentioned position and stated that the transfer of money made by the Respondent on 15 January 2012 was in fact received on 20 January 2012 and only represented EUR 199,000. Therefore, the Claimant argued that the amount of EUR 1,000 remained outstanding. Moreover, and in view of the fact that the loan compensation had become outstanding on 15 October 2011 but was allegedly only paid on 20 January 2012, the Claimant claimed from the Respondent the amount of EUR 96,000 as penalty under point 2.1.5 of the contract for the 96 days of delay in the payment (i.e. 96 days x EUR 1,000 per day). 10. On 27 February 2012, the Respondent presented its final position by reiterating its previous statements and reiterating its concerns with regard to the calculation of the penalty, “based on the fact that the total amount was paid in two instalments with 41 days separating between them”. 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 whether he was competent to deal with the case in hand. In this respect, the Single Judge confirmed that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 of the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 as well as art. 22 lit. f) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he was competent to deal with the matter at stake which concerns a dispute between two clubs affiliated to different associations. 2. Furthermore, the Single Judge analysed which Procedural Rules are applicable to the matter in hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 22 November 2011, the Single Judge concluded that the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: “the Procedural Rules”) is applicable to the matter in hand. 3. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be 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 present claim was lodged with FIFA on 22 November 2011. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2010 edition of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance. 4. Having established his competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge turned his attention to the substance of the present matter and carefully considered and analysed the arguments and documents presented by the parties during the investigation. 5. First and foremost, the Single Judge started by taking note that on 26 August 2011 the Claimant and the Respondent concluded the contract in relation to the player which stipulated that the loan compensation of EUR 400,000 had to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant “before 15 October 2011”. 6. Moreover, the Single Judge acknowledged that, during the present proceedings, the parties had agreed that half of the aforementioned amount (i.e. EUR 200,000) would be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant and the other half (i.e. EUR 200,000) directly to the player as compensation for a debt the Claimant had towards the latter. 7. Secondly, the Single Judge took note that the Respondent had provided FIFA with documentary evidence demonstrating that the loan compensation, i.e. EUR 400,000, had been paid by the Respondent as follows: - EUR 200,000 to the player on 5 December 2011 in cash; - EUR 200,000 to the Claimant on 15 January 2012 via a bank transfer. 8. In this respect, the Single Judge underlined that the Claimant had argued having received on 20 January 2012 from the Respondent an amount of EUR 199,000 instead of EUR 200,000 and had thus requested from the Respondent the remaining amount of EUR 1,000. 9. At this stage, the Single Judge pointed out that the Claimant had not submitted any documentary evidence proving the aforementioned allegation. Consequently, in view of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which provides that “Any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof” and based on the evidence at disposal, the Single Judge held that it could not be concluded that the Respondent had only paid EUR 199,000 instead of EUR 200,000. 10. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant´s request for EUR 1,000 as outstanding loan compensation should be rejected. 11. In continuation, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant also requested from the Respondent the payment of EUR 96,000 as penalty fee, i.e. EUR 1,000 per day, based on the point 2.1.5 of the contract. In this regard, the Single Judge pointed out that even though the penalty requested by the Claimant was contractually agreed by the parties, it was still open to him to analyse if said clause should be considered valid and binding. 12. As a consequence, the Single Judge started by stating that a “penalty fee” of EUR 1,000 per day implied an annual penalty of EUR 365,000 and that this amount represented 91.25% of the total loan compensation (EUR 400,000). In view of this, the Single Judge concluded that the penalty fee contractually agreed by the parties appeared to be disproportionate and should therefore be reduced. 13. In this regard, the Single Judge held that the penalty provided under point 2.1.5 of the contract was comparable to an interest rate charged for default in payment since both penalties (i.e. fix penalty per day or default interest) aim at compensating the creditor for the delay in receiving the relevant payment from the debtor. 14. In light of the foregoing and in view of the circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge held that an amount of EUR 200 per day, which represented one- fifth of the daily penalty requested by the Claimant, seemed to be an appropriate and justified penalty in order to compensate the Claimant for the late payment by the Respondent. In this context, the Single Judge underlined that such an amount was also in line with the maximum level of interest rate applicable under Swiss law. 15. Having established the aforementioned, the Single Judge reiterated that the agreed due date for the payment of the loan compensation was 14 October 2011 at the latest, and that, based on the documentary evidence at disposal, the payment of the loan compensation was made by the Respondent on 15 January 2012. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the penalty fee (EUR 200 per day) should apply on 93 days of delay and that said penalty should thus amount to EUR 18,600 (i.e. EUR 200 x 93). 16. In view of all the above, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is only partially accepted and that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 18,600 as penalty fee for the delay in payment of the loan compensation agreed upon between the parties in the contract signed on 26 August 2011. 17. Finally, 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 the 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 costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties´ degree of success in the proceedings and are normally to be paid by the unsuccessful party. 18. In this regard, the Single Judge reiterated that the Claimant’s request was partially accepted. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that both parties have to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 19. 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. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 97,000. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 15,000. 20. Considering the circumstances of the present matter and the amount of submissions that had to be analysed, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 14,000. 21. In conclusion, and in line with the aforementioned, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant must pay the amount of currency of country H 6,000 and the Respondent must pay the amount of currency of country H 8,000 in order to cover the costs of the present proceedings. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players´ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club G, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club N, has to pay to the Claimant, Club G, the amount of EUR 18,600, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, an interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiry of the fixed time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Club G, are rejected. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 14,000 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 6,000 has to be paid by the Claimant, Club G. Given that the latter already paid an advance of costs in the amount of currency of country H 5,000 at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant has to pay the remaining amount of currency of country H 1,000 to FIFA. 5.2 The amount of currency of country H 8,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, Club N, to FIFA. 5.3 The two above-mentioned amounts of currency of country H 6,000 and currency of country H 8,000 have to be paid to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XX-XXXXX: 6. The Claimant, Club G, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club N, directly and immediately of the account number to which the remittance under point 2 above is to be made and to notify 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 Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives