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 21 January 2013, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club D, from country P as “Claimant” against the club Club R, from country B as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the player S.

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 21 January 2013, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club D, from country P as “Claimant” against the club Club R, from country B as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the player S. I. Facts of the case 1. On 11 July 2006, Player S, from country B (hereinafter: “the player”) concluded an employment contract with the Club D, from country P (hereinafter: “the Claimant”), valid until the end of the 2010/2011 football season, with a net monthly salary of EUR 7,538.64. 2. On 25 August 2008, the Claimant and the Club R, from country B (hereinafter: “the Respondent”) concluded a loan contract (hereinafter: “the contract”), for the temporary transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent for the period from 25 August 2008 until 31 December 2008. 3. According to clause III of the contract, “The TRANSFEREE [i.e. the Respondent] shall not pay anything to the TRANSFEROR [i.e. the Claimant] for this temporary transfer”. 4. According to clause IV of the contract, “1.- The parties to this agreement including and particularly the CONSENTING PLAYER, declare and agree that the TRANSFEROR shall not be required to pay any amount in relation to this transfer to the CONSENTING PLAYER and the CONSENTING PLAYER declares that the TRANSFEROR has complied fully and timeously with its legal and contractual obligations to him. 2.- During the transfer period […], the TRANSFEREE shall pay the player´s salary in full, personal and employment accident insurance and air travel. 3.- The TRANSFEREE shall be responsible for the accommodation of the CONSENTING PLAYER and his family in an apartment”. 5. According to clause VI of the contract, “1.- For any other purposes the sum of 250,000 Euros is hereby fixed as the minimum amount of damages payable by the TRANSFEREE to the TRANSFEROR, in the event of the transfer of the CONSENTING PLAYER, without the express consent of the TRANSFEROR, and without prejudice to such greater sum as may be adjudged as due in respect of the CONSENTING PLAYER´S contractual, federation and financial rights. 2.- The abovementioned sum shall also be adopted for the purposes of the payment of damages to the TRANSFEROR in the event of the loss, by the TRANSFEREE, of the CONSENTING PLAYER´S contractual, federation and financial rights, during the contractual period defined in no. III – the general conditions governing the transfer of the consenting player. 3.- Breach of any of the conditions imposed by the TRANSFEROR on the TRANSFEREE by this agreement, which enables or does not enable, the release of the CONSENTING PLAYER to another sports association, with or without just cause, shall also render the TRANSFEREE immediately liable to pay the abovementioned sum to the TRANSFEROR”. 6. On 18 September 2009, the Claimant lodged a complaint with FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract. In this respect, the Claimant stated that the Respondent had failed to fulfil all of its financial obligations towards the player. Therefore, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the payment of the following items: a) EUR 250,000 as compensation under clause VI, points 1 and 3 of the contract; b) EUR 30,154.56 (EUR 7,538.64 x 4) as reimbursement of 4 monthly salaries (from September 2008 until December 2008), which were allegedly due by the Respondent to the player; c) An undefined amount for travel expenses and accommodation; d) Interests of 5% p.a. from 1 January 2009 until effective payment; e) Procedural costs. 7. In particular, the Claimant stated that: a) on 15 December 2008, the player had sent a fax to the Respondent informing the latter that it had not fulfilled any of its financial obligations towards him and requesting a flight ticket to return to his original club in country P (i.e. the Claimant); b) it was “forced” to negotiate with the player his return to country P, in particular, the payment of all his outstanding salaries that were contractually established in order to prevent him from unilaterally terminating their employment contract with all the financial losses that such decision would entail; c) on 5 January 2009, the Claimant had contacted the Respondent requesting it to comply with the obligations towards the player on the basis of the contract; d) on 19 June 2009, the Claimant had sent a fax to the Respondent stating “You have however failed entirely to honour your said commitment and have not made any payments. As this club has been prejudiced, both directly because of the increased costs in respect of the athlete, which should have been borne by you, and indirectly because of the professional devaluation, lack of performance/training frequency/playing of the Player, please take notice that we intend to file a claim with FIFA”. 8. On 1 October 2010, the Respondent presented its position in relation to the present claim and rejected it categorically. In particular, the Respondent stated that it had not signed the contract and that it was completely unaware of its existence until it had received the present claim. In addition, the Respondent alleged that the Claimant had never contacted the Respondent to complain about what had allegedly occurred in December 2008. 9. Moreover, the Respondent stated that, on 22 August 2008, it had concluded an employment contract with the player in country B, valid from 22 August 2008 until 31 December 2008, for a monthly salary of currency of country B 1,500. 10. With regard to the Claimant´s request for salaries, flight tickets and accommodation for the player, the Respondent claimed that it had “assumed only to pay part of the athlete´s salary” in accordance with the employment contract it had concluded with the player. 11. On 18 July 2011, the Claimant presented its reaction to the above-mentioned position and stated that the Respondent had acted in bad faith as it had itself confirmed that the player was loaned by the Claimant to the Respondent until 31 December 2008. In addition, the Claimant stated that it was clear from the analysis of the contract that it was duly signed by all three parties on all the pages, i.e. the Claimant, the Respondent and the player. 12. The Claimant further alleged that the Respondent had failed to provide any evidence proving that it had fulfilled its financial obligations towards the player in accordance with the contract. 13. Furthermore, the Claimant enclosed the following documents: a) copy of a fax dated 1 September 2008 sent by the Claimant to the country P Football Federation enclosing a copy of the contract for its registration; b) copy of the international transfer certificate (ITC) issued by the country P Football Federation on 2 September 2008 in favour of the country B Football Association for the loan of the player; c) receipts regarding the player´s accommodation in country B and flight tickets written in country P; d) receipt dated 31 December 2008 for the flight ticket country B-country P-country P paid directly by the Claimant for an amount of EUR 1,477.29; e) receipt signed by the player as “Compensation for revocation and temporary cession – Season 2008/09” for an amount of EUR 8,000 apparently paid by the Claimant. 14. On 19 December 2011, the Respondent presented its final position and reiterated its previous allegations. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter also referred to as: “the Single Judge”) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at 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 f) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he was competent to deal with the present matter since it concerned a dispute between two clubs affiliated to different associations. 2. Furthermore, the Single Judge analysed which Procedural Rules are applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 par. 1 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 18 September 2009, 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 at 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 of the 2012, 2010 and 2009 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 18 September 2009. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2008 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance. 4. His competence 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 focussed his attention on the Respondent´s allegation that it had never signed the contract and had not even been aware of its existence. In this respect, the Single Judge carefully analysed the contract and took note that its last page bore three different signatures, allegedly of the Claimant, the Respondent and the player. The Single Judge then pointed out that the alleged signatures of the Claimant and the Respondent were next to each other and the player´s signature was below and separated from the rest. In addition, the Single Judge noted that from the wording of the contract, the Claimant and the Respondent were represented by their respective presidents, Mr As for the Claimant and Mr L for the Respondent. 6. In continuation, the Single Judge focused his attention on the content of the form dated 22 August 2008 issued by the country B Football Federation, which contained the terms of the employment contract signed by the player and the Respondent and which was sent to FIFA by the latter during the course of the present proceedings. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the relevant form bore the signature of the player and the Respondent´s President and that the latter’s signature was identical to one of the two signatures affixed on the contract above the player’s signature. 7. At this stage, the Single Judge deemed appropriate to remark that during the course of the investigation in the present matter the Respondent had not contested the authenticity of any signature but had simply alleged to have not signed the contract. 8. Moreover, the Single Judge noted that the country B Football Federation´s form mentioned that the player would be transferred to the Respondent on a loan basis, i.e. “2. Contrato empréstimo”. Therefore, the Single Judge also expressed the view that it seemed quite improbable that the Respondent would not have been aware of the existence of the contract. 9. In view of the above, and based on the documentation at disposal in the file, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that on 25 August 2008, the Claimant and the Respondent had indeed concluded the contract for the temporary transfer of the player. 10. Secondly, the Single Judged focussed his attention on the Claimant´s request and took note that the latter was claiming from the Respondent, on the one hand, certain amounts based on the employment contract dated 22 August 2008 concluded between the player and the Respondent (i.e. four monthly salaries, travel and accommodation expenses), and on the other hand, the amount of EUR 250,000 as compensation for damages based on clause VI, (points 1 and 3) of the contract. 11. The Single Judge started by analysing the Claimant´s demand based on the employment contract dated 22 August 2008. In this respect, the Single Judge was eager to emphasise that the obligations emerging from the aforementioned employment contract only concerned two parties, i.e. the player and the Respondent. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that this part of the Claimant’s claim should be rejected as it was based on a contractual document to which it was not a party. In this context, the Single Judge was keen to underline that any claim for non-fulfilment of the terms of the employment contract between the Respondent and the player should have been lodged by either the former or the latter and not by the Claimant. 12. In continuation, the Single Judge focussed his attention on the Claimant´s demand for EUR 250,000 as compensation for damages based on clause VI (points 1 and 3) of the contract. 13. In this respect, and after a careful perusal of the wording of clause VI of the contract, the Single Judge stated that it appeared that the aim of this clause was to compensate the Claimant, i.e. “the TRANSFEROR”, in case of a transfer of the player from the Respondent to another club without the consent of the Claimant and/or if any other action exercised by the Respondent would affect the Claimant’s rights over the player. 14. As a consequence, the Single Judge concluded that the compensation for damages provided for in clause VI of the contract was only applicable in case the Respondent would transfer the player to a third party, i.e. another club, without the express consent of the Claimant. 15. Therefore, and in view of the fact that the player was not transferred to any other club during his loan with the Respondent and had in fact come back to the Claimant at the end of said loan, the Single Judge concluded that the request of the Claimant to be awarded damages on the basis of clause VI of the contract cannot possibly be accepted. 16. In view of all the above, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant should be rejected in its entirety. 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 respect of the above, the Single Judge reiterated that the Claimant’s claim is rejected. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant has 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 above currency of country H 200,000. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 20. In view of the considerable amount of submissions that had to be analysed as well as considering that a number of factual and legal complexities had to be addressed, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 25,000. 21. Consequently, and in line with the aforementioned, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant must pay the amount of currency of country H 25,000 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 D, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings amounting to currency of country H 25,000 are to be paid by the Claimant, Club D. Given that the latter has already paid the amount of currency of country H 5,000 as advance of costs at the beginning of the present proceedings, the Claimant, Club D, has to pay the amount of currency of country H 20,000, within 30 days as from the dated of notification of the present decision to the following bank account, with reference to case nr.: ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 63 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