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 2 October 2013, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club S, from country B as “Claimant” against the club Club N, from country E as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the players Player M, Player N and Player W

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 2 October 2013, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club S, from country B as “Claimant” against the club Club N, from country E as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the players Player M, Player N and Player W I. Facts of the case 1. On 22 August 2011, Club S, from country B (hereinafter: “the Claimant”) and the Club N, from country E (hereinafter: “the Respondent”) concluded three identical loan contracts (hereinafter: “the contracts”), for the temporary transfer of the country E players Player M, Player N and Player W (hereinafter: “the players”) from the Respondent to the Claimant from 25 August 2011 until 31 December 2012 (cf. article 10 of the contracts). 2. Article 1 of the contracts stated a loan fee amounting to EUR 15,000 for each of the players, payable by the Claimant to the Respondent as follows: EUR 8,500 at signature of the relevant contracts and EUR 6,500 until 1 July 2012. 3. Article 2 of the contracts stated “The payment is realised by the way of bank transfer of the above-mentioned amount to the account number, indicated by Club N”. 4. On 19 September 2012, the Claimant lodged a complaint with FIFA against the Respondent arguing that the contracts were null and void and claiming from the Respondent the reimbursement of EUR 25,000 it had paid to the later, plus a 5% annual interest from 23 August 2011 until the date of effective payment. 5. In particular, the Claimant alleged that: a) The Respondent falsely concluded the contracts without having any rights in that regard since it was only an amateur club with no professional players at all; b) The three aforementioned players were amateur players and were not registered with the country E Football Association under any employment contracts with the Respondent; c) In December 2011, the Claimant and the players M and Player N terminated their employment contracts by mutual consent and the players returned to the Respondent; d) The Claimant is not under any obligation to pay the loan fees because the Respondent was not entitled to loan the players to the Claimant; e) The payment of EUR 25,000 made by the Claimant to the Respondent on 23 August 2011 was done erroneously; f) The contracts were signed on behalf of the Respondent by its president who at that time was also a licensed players´ agent in violation of art. 6 par. 2 of the Players´ Agents Regulations; g) The contracts stated that the payments (loan fee) had to be paid into the president´s bank account in violation of art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players which states that “Entitlement to compensation cannot be assigned to a third party”. 6. In spite of having been asked to do so, the Respondent did not provide its response to the Claimant’s allegations, although it was informed that, in absence of a reply, the Players’ Status Committee would take a decision on the basis of the information and evidence at disposal. 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, and 2008 editions 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 19 September 2012, 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 and 2010 editions 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 19 September 2012. 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. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so and first of all, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent had never submitted its position to the claim lodged against it by the Claimant, despite having been asked to do so by FIFA. Therefore the Single Judge concluded that, in this way, the Respondent had renounced to its right of defence. 5. As a consequence, the Single Judge referred to art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and pointed out that in the present matter a decision shall be taken upon the basis of the documents on file, in other words upon the allegations and documents submitted by the Claimant. 6. In this respect, the Single Judge took note that on 22 August 2011, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded the contracts for the loan of the players from the Respondent to the Claimant for the period from 25 August 2011 until 31 December 2012. 7. The Single Judge analysed carefully the content of the contracts and acknowledged that the Respondent was represented by its president who signed the relevant contracts on its behalf. 8. Moreover, the Single Judge noted that the contracts established the payment of an amount of EUR 15,000 for each of the players as a loan fee, i.e. a total of EUR 45,000 and that the Claimant sent documentary evidence which proved that it had paid the amount of EUR 25,000 to the Respondent. 9. In continuation, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant lodged the matter at stake requesting the reimbursement of the above-mentioned amount of EUR 25,000 paid to the Respondent alleging that the contracts were null and void since the Respondent was not entitled to loan the players, among other reasons. 10. In addition, the Single Judge remarked that the Claimant deemed that the payments which it had made into the bank account of the Respondent´s president were in violation of the Regulations. 11. In this respect, the Single Judge focused his attention on article 2 of the contracts and remarked that said article provided that the relevant payments of the respective loan fees had to be made by the Claimant by bank transfer to a bank account indicated by the Respondent and that such bank account appeared to be the account of the president of the Respondent, Mr P. 12. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that based on article 2 of the contracts, the Respondent was entitled to decide into which bank account the Claimant should have made the relevant payments and that thus the bank account of the Respondent´s president was one valid option under the light of the contracts. 13. Furthermore, the Single Judge pointed out that the respective temporary transfers of the players were duly registered in the FIFA Transfer Matching System (TMS). 14. In light of the above, the Single Judge concluded that the contracts were valid and fully binding between the Claimant and the Respondent. 15. In continuation, the Single Judge acknowledged that based on the information provided by the Claimant in December 2011, two of the players terminated their employment contracts by mutual consent with the Claimant and returned with the Respondent. 16. For the sake of good order, the Single Judge deemed appropriate to refer to the information contained in TMS (cf. art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules) and took note that the three players did not finish the original period of the loan agreed between the Claimant and the Respondent. In this regard, the Single Judge stated that according to TMS the players were registered as follows: • Player M and Player N were registered with the Claimant on 27 August 2011 and stayed with the latter until 13 January 2012, date on which they were registered again with the Respondent; • Player W was registered with the Claimant on 27 August 2011 and stayed with the latter until 30 August 2012, date on which he was registered again with the Respondent. 17. In this context, the Single Judge was keen to emphasise that according to the long standing and well-established jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee in similar matters, in case a player is transferred from one club to another for a predetermined period, but returns to his previous club prior to the expiry of this period, it is fair and reasonable to reduce the relevant payment obligation to a pro rata proportion of the compensation which had initially been agreed upon. 18. Consequently, the Single Judge held that in the matter at hand, the overall loan fee of EUR 15,000 per player should be reduced to an amount which is proportionate to the time that each of the players had effectively spent with the Claimant. 19. The Single Judge recalled that the loan period which was originally supposed to last from 25 August 2011 until 31 December 2012 was effectively terminated for the players Player M and Player N on 13 January 2012 and for the player Player W on 30 August 2012 respectively, dates on which the players had returned to the Respondent. 20. In view of the foregoing, and taking into account that, out of the contractually agreed loan period of 493 days, the players M and Player N had remained with the Claimant for 140 days and the player Player W for 370 days, the Single Judge concluded that the relevant pro rata proportion amounts to a total of EUR 19,775 which is composed as follows: EUR 4,259 for the player M; EUR 4,259 for the player N; • EUR 11,257 for the player W. 21. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that, based on the period of time that the players remained on loan with the Claimant, the latter should have paid to the Respondent a total amount of EUR 19,775 as loan fees and that taking into account that the Claimant had already paid to the Respondent the lump sum of EUR 25,000, the Respondent should reimburse to the Claimant the amount of EUR 5,225. 22. On account of all of the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent had to reimburse to the Claimant the amount of EUR 5,225 plus an annual interest of 5% from the date of lodging the present claim and until the date of effective payment. 23. 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 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. 24. In respect of the above, the Single Judge reiterated that the Claimant’s claim is partially accepted. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant and the Respondent have to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 25. 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 25,000. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 5,000. 26. In view of the circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceeding to the amount of currency of country H 4,000. 27. Consequently, and in line with the aforementioned, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant must pay the amount of currency of country H 2,000 and the Respondent must pay the amount of currency of country H 2,000 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 S, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club N, has to pay to the Claimant, Club S, the amount of EUR 5,225, as well as 5% interest per annum on the said amount from 19 September 2012 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. If the aforementioned amount 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 claims lodged by the Claimant, Club S, are rejected. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 4,000 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 2,000 has to be paid by the Claimant, Club S. Given that the latter already paid an advance of costs in the amount of currency of country H 1,000 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 2,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, Club N, to FIFA. 5.3 The two above-mentioned amounts of currency of country H 1,000 and currency of country H 2,000 have to be paid to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XX-XXXXX: 6. The Claimant, Club S, 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