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 Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club D, from country M as Claimant against the club, Club W, from country P as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the player O

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 Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club D, from country M as Claimant against the club, Club W, from country P as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the player O I. Facts of the case 1. On 28 July 2011, Club D, from country M (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the Club W, from country P (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded a loan agreement (hereinafter: the loan agreement) for the loan of the player O (hereinafter: the player), from the Claimant to the Respondent, from 28 July 2011 until 30 June 2012. 2. The loan agreement stipulated, inter alia, the following: “(…) §4 2. Till 31 January 2012 [the Respondent] has possibility to represent [the Claimant] written declaration of consuming right of preemption and make final transfer of the Player 3. in case of consuming right of preemption, [the Respondent] will pay additional amount of 90.000,00 Euro net (…) + VAT (if applicable) at least at 05.09.2012. (…)” 3. On 12 March 2012, the Respondent informed the Claimant via email that it would exercise its “preemption right” to definitively transfer the player, indicating that “we are ready to make this transfer definite on proposed terms. I will remind them: 90 000 Euro in 3 installments: First € 50k on an agreed date and then another € 20k during December 2012 and remaining € 20k during Feb 2013.” 4. On 25 June 2012, the parties signed an amendment to the loan agreement which stipulated the following: “(…) §1 1. In §4 point 2 shall be replaced as follows: Till 16 June 2012 [the Respondent] has possibility to represent [the Claimant] written declaration of consuming right of preemption and make final transfer of player. 2. In §4 point 3 shall be replaced as follows: In case of consuming right of preemption, [the Respondent] will pay additional amount of 90.000,00 Euro net (…) + VAT (if applicable) paid in three instalments: I. 50.000 Euro net paid at least at 31.07.2012 II. 20.000 Euro net paid at least at 30.11.2012 III. 20.000 Euro net paid at least at 28.02.2013 (…)” 5. On 1 August 2012, the parties signed a payment plan stipulating the following installments: - EUR 12,000 net to be paid until 8 August 2012, - EUR 26,000 net to be paid until 31 August 2012, - EUR 12,000 net to be paid until 10 September 2012, - EUR 20,000 net to be paid until 30 November 2012, - EUR 20,000 net to be paid until 28 February 2013. 6. On 12 December 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim at FIFA requesting payment of EUR 90,000 from the Respondent, plus interest of 5% p.a. as of 31 July 2012 (“the first day in which payment was due to the claimant club”), based on the amendment to the loan agreement. 7. In support of its claim, the Claimant stressed that it had made several attempts to amicably settle the dispute, indicating that it had not received any amounts from the Respondent. In this context, the Claimant referred to a letter from the Respondent dated 24 August 2012 in which the latter apologized for the delayed payment and informed the Claimant that it was having financial problems. 8. In spite of having been asked to do so, the Respondent never provided FIFA with its position on the claim of the Claimant, although it had been informed that, in absence of a reply, a decision would be taken on the basis of the documents already on file. 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. 1 and 2 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 12 December 2012, thus after 1 December 2012. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 edition of the Procedural Rules (hereinafter: 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 with FIFA on 12 December 2012. In view of this, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 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. 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. In this respect and first of all, the Single Judge established that it was undisputed between the parties that on 28 July 2011, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded a loan agreement for the loan of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent, from 28 July 2011 until 30 June 2012. In this context, the Single Judge noted that said agreement stipulated, inter alia, a purchase option for the Respondent, applicable until 31 January 2012, giving the Respondent the possibility to definitely transfer the Player against payment of an additional transfer compensation of EUR 90,000, payable until 5 September 2012. 6. Subsequently, the Single Judge took note that on 25 June 2012, the parties signed an amendment to the loan agreement, extending the deadline to trigger the purchase option until 16 June 2012 (sic), reiterating the transfer compensation of EUR 90,000, however providing for a payment in three installments, the first instalment of EUR 50,000 payable until 31 July 2012, the second and third instalments of EUR 20,000, each payable until 30 November 2012 and 28 February 2013 respectively. 7. Moreover, the Single Judge noted that on 12 March 2012, the Respondent informed the Claimant via email that it intended to trigger the purchase option for the definitive transfer of the player, proposing a payment in three instalments. 8. Furthermore, the Single Judge observed that on 1 August 2012, the parties signed an agreement for an amended payment plan, stipulating new payment modalities as established under I.5. above. 9. The Single Judge also acknowledged that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent, stating that the latter had not fulfilled its contractual obligations with regard to the payment of transfer compensation of EUR 90,000. As a consequence, the Claimant requested the payment of the total amount of EUR 90,000 from the Respondent, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 31 July 2012. 10. In continuation, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent, in spite of having been invited to do so, did not provide FIFA with its comments pertaining to the present matter. Therefore, the Single Judged deemed that, by doing so, the Respondent renounced to its right to defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 11. 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 documentation on file, in other words upon the documents and arguments provided by the Claimant. 12. Bearing in mind the aforementioned, the Single Judge went on to establish whether there was any payment due by the Respondent to the Claimant, based on the transfer agreement in question. 13. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled the content of the agreement, i.e. the obligation of the Respondent to pay transfer compensation in the amount of EUR 90,000, in view of the fact that the Respondent triggered the purchase option as stipulated in the loan agreement and its amendment. Equally, the Single Judge recalled that the Claimant stated that the Respondent had not made any payments to the Claimant. 14. Taking into account the above-mentioned, the Single Judge concluded that in accordance with the loan agreement, the amendment thereto and the payment plan concluded between the parties on 1 August 2012, the Respondent had to pay to the Claimant the outstanding amount of EUR 90,000. 15. Regarding the payment of default interest on the above-mentioned amount, the Single Judge concluded that the payment plan of 1 August 2012 replaced the original agreement, i.e. the amendment to the loan agreement dated 25 June 2012. Hence, the Single Judge established that interest had to be paid by the Respondent as of the due dates of the respective instalments (cf. point I.5) as it was agreed between the parties in the above-mentioned payment plan of 1 August 2012. Consequently, the Single Judge decided to only partially accept the Claimants claim for interest over the outstanding amount of EUR 90,000 and to reject any further claims lodged by the Claimant. 16. In conclusion, the Single Judge decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim, and established that the Respondent had to pay to the Claimant the total amount of EUR 90,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 12,000 as of 9 August 2012, on the amount of EUR 26,000 as of 1 September 2012, on the amount of EUR 12,000 as of 11 September 2012, on the amount of EUR 20,000 as of 1 December 2012 and on the amount of EUR 20,000 as of 1 March 2013. 17. 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 H 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). 18. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been partially accepted, the Single Judge concluded that the procedural costs are to be divided between the Claimant and the Respondent in accordance with the relevant degree of success. 19. According to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the bases of the amount in dispute. 20. On that basis, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 90,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 15,000 (cf. table in Annexe A.) 21. Considering that the case at hand did not pose particular factual difficulty and that it was adjudicated upon by the Single Judge and not the Players’ Status Committee in corpore, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 10,000. In view of the fact that the Respondent did not provide its position pertaining to the present matter, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to pay the amount of currency of country H 10,000. Given that the Claimant had paid the amount of currency of country H 3,000 at the beginning of the present proceedings, the Single Judge decided that thereof the amount of currency of country H 3,000 had to be paid to the Claimant directly. ***** III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club D, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club W, has to pay to the Claimant, Club D, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 90,000 plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: - on the amount of EUR 12,000 as of 9 August 2012, - on the amount of EUR 26,000 as of 1 September 2012, - on the amount of EUR 12,000 as of 11 September 2012, - on the amount of EUR 20,000 as of 1 December 2012, - on the amount of EUR 20,000 as of 1 March 2013. 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 claims lodged by the Claimant, Club D, are rejected. 5. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 10,000 is to be paid by the Respondent, Club W, within 30 days as from the notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1 The amount of currency of country H 7,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. : 5.2 The amount of currency of country H 3,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant, Club D. 6. The Claimant, Club D, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club W, 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 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 directive