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 2 October 2013, on the claim presented by the club, Club C, from country S, as Claimant against the club, Club M, from country R, as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player D

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 2 October 2013, on the claim presented by the club, Club C, from country S, as Claimant against the club, Club M, from country R, as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player D I. Facts of the case 1. On 12 January 2012, the club C from country S (hereinafter: “Claimant”), and the club M from country R (hereinafter: “Respondent”), signed a transfer agreement (hereinafter: “Transfer Agreement”) for the transfer of the player D (hereinafter: “the player”), from the Claimant to the Respondent, for a transfer compensation of EUR 800,000. 2. Article 1 of the Transfer Agreement reads as follows: “The transfer amount of the player is 800,000 Euro (eight hundred thousand Euro) Net which [the Respondent] will pay to [the Claimant] as follows: 1.1. 200,000 /two hundred thousand / EUR Net at the moment of the signing of the present contract 1.2. 200,000 /two hundred thousand / EUR Net not later than 30 of March 2012 1.3. 200,000 /two hundred thousand / EUR Net not later than 30 of June 2012 1.4. 200,000 /two hundred thousand / EUR Net not later than 30 of August 2012”. 3. On 25 April 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent, requesting the payment of the second, third and fourth instalment of the transfer compensation, totally amounting to EUR 600,000, plus an interest of 5% p.a., and the procedural and legal costs and expenses. 4. In this regard, the Claimant stated that it had unsuccessfully requested the payment of the different instalments several times. In this respect, it assessed that the Respondent only replied to those requests on 29 May 2012 by justifying the late payment due to “the ongoing match-fixing and incentive bonus issues in country R” as well as general financial difficulties and proposing a “revised payment plan”, which the Claimant would accept upon payment of the second instalment of the transfer compensation on 1 June 2012. However, the Claimant asserted that the second instalment was never paid and, therefore, despite the exchange of correspondence between the parties for the reschedule of the payments, the payment dates remained unchanged. 5. On 12 July 2013, the Respondent replied to the claim by asserting that the first instalment was paid on time and that the other instalments were not paid due to the fact that “match-fixing and incentive bonus scandal broke out in country R”, “resulting Super League broadcaster payments to clubs in Football Federation of country R not sent”. 6. In addition, the Respondent stated that it had always showed good faith by proposing a reschedule of the payments. However, said club is of the opinion that the Claimant “exhibited an attitude malevolent” for not having specified “the actual event nor including the petition. Namely, many articles sent to us via mail or fax several times, making payments otherwise the boards will go on FIFA failed to be reported”. 7. Furthermore, the Respondent underscored the bad faith of the Claimant by questioning the election of the legal representative of the latter since it chose the same counsel as the player when he terminated his employment contract with the Respondent with alleged just cause. 8. On 26 July 2013, the Claimant secondly and lastly underlined that it had not received the annexes referred to by the Respondent as well as that “in the case there is something else in the annexes that may imply payment of any of the next three instalment due under the Transfer Contract it shall be deemed objected by the Claimant and any evidence in such direction could be only forgery”. 9. In addition, the Claimant reiterated its previous submissions. In particular, it pointed out that the facts alleged by the Respondent as justification for failing to pay the remaining instalments of the transfer compensation cannot be understood as force majeure. As a result, it maintained in full its request. 10. As to the allegations of bad faith due to the fact the player and the Claimant chose the same legal counsel, the Claimant’s legal representative stated that there is no bad faith, illegal conduct nor conflict of interests. In this regard, he also stated that the matter between the Claimant and the Respondent and the matter between the Respondent and the player are independent from each other. 11. On 2 August 2013, FIFA requested the Respondent to provide the enclosures referred to in its submissions. 12. On 2 September 2013, the Respondent insisted on the bad faith of the Claimant and its legal counsel and requested the rejection of “all claims and demands against the party”. 13. As to the missing annexes the Respondent referred to in its first submission, and in spite of having been invited by FIFA to provide them, said club stated that “Now we ask, attachments petition Since we did not reach them, then how about whether or not the present case of a relevance are they doing? You leave a comment. Here mislead the policy be covered” as well as that “Article 2 of the petition club [Respondent] (…)proof of payment are submitted with payment and your club fraud accused to comment that it is a fake. We do not accept this, and this is definitely a bad idea, and returned to them are unfounded”, and failed to enclose any document. ***** 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 25 April 2013, thus after 1 December 2012. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 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 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 Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the claim was lodged with FIFA on 25 April 2013. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 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 matter 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 acknowledged that it was undisputed between the parties that a transfer agreement was concluded on 12 January 2012 relating to the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent for a transfer compensation amounting to EUR 800,000, payable in 4 equal instalments of EUR 200,000 each. 6. Furthermore, the Single Judge observed that the Claimant indicated that the Respondent had only paid the Claimant the amount of EUR 200,000 and that, consequently, the Respondent still owed the Claimant the amount of EUR 600,000. 7. Moreover, the Single Judge took note that, in its reply, the Respondent did not dispute that a debt existed towards the Claimant, but that, due to its financial situation resulting from the match-fixing scandal in country R, it had not yet been able to pay the Claimant. 8. In this respect, the Single Judge ruled that the Respondent did not provide any valid argument which would justify the non-payment of the agreed transfer compensation and that, thus, the Respondent had failed to respect the terms of the transfer agreement it had entered into with the Claimant on 12 January 2012. In particular, the Single Judge emphasized that the Claimant’s rights under the transfer agreement could not be affected by the apparent difficult financial situation of the Respondent. 9. In continuation, the Single Judge considered that there was no ground whatsoever to conclude that the Claimant acted in bad faith by appointing the same legal representative as the player. 10. Consequently, the Single Judge held that, in accordance with the basic legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Respondent has to fulfill its contractual obligations towards the Claimant. Therefore, the Single Judge decided to accept the claim of the Claimant, including the interest requested, and held that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 600,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 25 April 2013 until the date of effective payment. 11. As to the Claimant’s request for procedural and legal compensation, the Single Judge decided to reject such request in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules. 12. 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). 13. 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 Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 14. 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 600,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 15. In conclusion, and in view of the circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 20,000. Consequently, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of CHF 20,000 has to be paid by the Respondent in order to cover the costs of the present procedure. ***** III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, club C, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, club M, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 600,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 25 April 2013 until the date of effective payment. 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 claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 20,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, within 30 days of notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1 The amount of CHF 15,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. xxxxxxxx: 5.2 The amount of CHF 5,000 to the Claimant. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is 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 directives