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 theSingle Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 29 July 2013, by Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club M, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club C, from country E as Respondent regarding a dispute between the parties relating to the player B

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 theSingle Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 29 July 2013, by Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club M, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club C, from country E as Respondent regarding a dispute between the parties relating to the player B I. Facts of the case 1. The player B (hereinafter: “the player”) entered into an employment contract with club R (hereinafter: “club R”) until 31 December 2012. 2. On 13 February 2008, the player was loaned to Club M (hereinafter: “the Claimant”) until 31 December 2008. 3. On 14 February 2008, the player and the Claimant entered into an employment contract until 31 December 2008. 4. On 28 August 2008, the player and the Claimant signed an annex to the employment contract, by means of which the player acknowledged and accepted that the Claimant paid his debts in the total amount of EUR 24,000. Furthermore, the parties agreed that as long as the amount of EUR 24,000 had not been reimbursed, the player would not play for another club and other clubs would not be authorised to ask for his registration. 5. After the expiration of the loan agreement, club R requested the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) of the player since it had entered into a second loan agreement with club C (hereinafter: “the Respondent”). 6. On 15 January 2009, as well as on 23 February 2009, the Claimant refused to issue the ITC, since the player had not yet reimbursed the amount that the Claimant paid in advance on his behalf, plus CHF 3,800 for additional expenses. 7. On 25 February 2009, the Respondent allegedly contacted the Claimant and supposedly offered EUR 24,500 in exchange of the immediate issuance of the ITC. On the same day, the Claimant replied that it would issue the ITC only after receiving confirmation of the payment of the debt of the player, totally amounting to EUR 26,500. 8. On the same day, the Respondent sent a bank statement to the Claimant showing the payment of EUR 26,500 to the Claimant’s bank account. However, on 3 March 2009, the Claimant informed the Football Association of country E (hereinafter: “EFA”) that it had not received the payment yet, despite having received the bank statement from the Respondent. 9. On 5 January 2011, the Claimant filed a claim in front of FIFA requesting to receive from the Respondent the amount of EUR 26,500, alleging the existence of a contract by means of which the Respondent undertook to pay EUR 26,500 and the Claimant undertook to issue the ITC as soon as it received a confirmation of the payment. 10. Additionally, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent cancelled the payment after sending the bank statement. In this regard, the Claimant stated that, in so doing, the Respondent infringed art. 61 of the Disciplinary Code as well as acted in bad faith. 11. In its reply, the Respondent alleged that the Claimant took advantage of the circumstances (i.e. the end of the transfer period as well as the upcoming start of the club R in the following days). In this regard, the Respondent stated that it accepted to pay due to the circumstances, but that it intended to demand the reimbursement of the amount from the Claimant within a formal proceeding before FIFA, since it was of the opinion that the condition imposed by the Claimant was not legal. 12. Additionally, the Respondent alleged that the ITC was issued once it had provided a confirmation to the Claimant, but that some days afterwards its bank informed it that the wire transfer failed due to a wrong account number. The Respondent then supposedly contacted the Claimant and informed it about the wire transfer problem and allegedly requested the correct bank account number. The Respondent stated that this communication remained unanswered. As a consequence, the Respondent admitted to have cancelled the wire transfer. 13. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that blocking the issuance of the player’s ITC is blackmail as well as contrary to the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. In this sense, the Respondent alleged that the refusal to issue the ITC had no legal basis since there is not a “contractual dispute” in the sense of art. 2 par. 4 let. b) of Annexe 3 in combination with art. 2 par. 6 of the Annexe 3 of the aforementioned Regulations. 14. In addition, the Respondent assessed it never unconditionally undertook to pay EUR 26,500 but, on the contrary, it only accepted to pay the player’s debt due to the circumstances. 15. In its second submission, the Claimant maintained its first allegations as well as assured that the bank account number was correct. 16. In particular, the Claimant stated that the evidences provided by the Respondent prove that it knew the transfer did not go through since the bank report said “lack of provision of a proper account number” and “resignation of the customer”. Therefore, the Respondent cannot allege having acted in good faith. 17. The Claimant recalled that “un contrat est conclu lorsque deux parties ont manifesté leur volonté couvre les essentialia negotii du type d’accord visé“ as well as assessed that the present matter is a dispute in the sense of the applicable regulations, since on 28 August 2008, the player signed an annex by means of which he undertook not to authorise his registration with a different club until his debt was paid. 18. In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated its earlier arguments and stated it informed the Claimant of the incorrect bank account number on 28 February 2009. Afterwards, the Claimant issued the ITC despite allegedly having been informed of the non-payment. On 6 March 2009, the Respondent claimed that it cancelled the wire transfer, since its request of the correct bank account number supposedly remained unanswered. 19. The Respondent also stressed that it does not contest the existence of the annex to the employment contract, but its validity, since it conditions the issuance of the ITC to the payment of EUR 26,500 as well as that the annex prevented the player to play with any club, including club R, until having paid his debts, which in the opinion of the Respondent is clearly against the FIFA basic principles on the basis of the Regulations. **** 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 4 January 2011, thus before 1 December 2012 and 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 is 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 Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010 and 2012) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the claim was lodged before FIFA on 4 January 2011. 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 2 of the Procedural Rules in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 as well as art. 22 lit. f) of the Regulations, he was competent to deal with the present claim since it concerned a dispute between two clubs affiliated to two different associations. 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 noted that the Claimant and the player concluded an annex to the employment contract, by means of which the Claimant paid the debts of the player and, as a result, the player accepted not to play for any other club before reimbursing the debt to the Claimant. 6. Equally, the Single Judge underscored that, although the loan period had ended, the Claimant refused to issue the ITC to country R until the debt of the player, totally amounting to EUR 26,500, was reimbursed. 7. In addition, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant alleged that it entered into a contract with the Respondent and that said contract was concluded at the time the latter offered to reimburse the debt of the player in exchange of the issuance of the ITC and the Claimant manifested its consent. Hence, by not paying the amount of EUR 26,500, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant alleged that the Respondent was in breach of the contract. 8. In this respect, however, the Single Judge emphasised the wording of art. 9 par. 1 of the Regulations, which, inter alia, states that the ITC shall be issued free of charge without any conditions or time limit and that the consequence of a provision that limits or conditions the issuance of the ITC is that said provision is null and void. This is, in other words, that said regulation is imperative and, therefore, does not admit any kind of provision to the contrary. 9. From the foregoing facts, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant requested the payment of the debt of the player to the Respondent in order to issue the ITC in favour of the latter and that this request, therefore, violates the above-mentioned provision. Consequently, the Single Judge held that any such agreement is to be considered null and void. 10. Thus, the Single Judge held that the issuance of the ITC could not be made conditional upon the payment of the player’s alleged debt by the Respondent and, as a result, the Single Judge rejected the Claimant’s claim. 11. 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 CHF 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). 12. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant had been rejected, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant has to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 13. 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 26,500. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000. 14. In conclusion, and considering the circumstances of the case, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 5,000, which shall be borne by the Claimant. **** III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club M, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 5,000 are to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA, of which CHF 1,000 have already been paid by the Claimant. Consequently, the amount of CHF 4,000 is to be paid by the Claimant, within 30 days of notification of the present decision to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. xxxxxx: **** 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