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 theBureau of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 19 March 2014 in the following composition: Sunil Gulati (USA), Deputy Chairman Geoff Thompson (England), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Luis H. Bedoya (Colombia), member Pare Salmon (Tahiti), member on the claim presented by the club Club R, from country M as “Claimant” against the club Club I, from country S as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen 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 theBureau of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 19 March 2014 in the following composition: Sunil Gulati (USA), Deputy Chairman Geoff Thompson (England), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Luis H. Bedoya (Colombia), member Pare Salmon (Tahiti), member on the claim presented by the club Club R, from country M as “Claimant” against the club Club I, from country S as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties and relating to the player O. I. Facts of the case 1. On 6 August 2008, Club R, from country M (hereinafter: the Claimant) and Club I, from country S (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded a loan agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) for the transfer of the player O (hereinafter: the player) from the former to the latter for the 2008/2009 season and for an amount of USD 500,000 payable in two instalments as follows (cf. art. 2 of the agreement): a. USD 300,000 “upon the arrival of Player O [i.e. the player] to Club J, passing medical examination, signing the contract and receiving the International Certificate (ITC) that enables the player to play for country S’s Football Federation”; b. USD 200,000 on 15 January 2009. 2. On 10 June 2009, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent arguing that the latter had not fulfilled its contractual obligations. 3. In this respect, the Claimant explained to have accepted to transfer the player on loan to the Respondent turning down some other offers, in particular, one from Club V. The Claimant further argued to have tried to implement the agreement requesting the Respondent to provide the player with the flight ticket and the visa “as to allow him to travel to country S”. Since the Respondent had apparently never replied, the Claimant “decided to field the player in a friendly match […]”. For this reason, the Respondent had informed the Claimant that it “did not wish to implement the necessary formalities for the transfer of the player because Mr O [i.e. the player] had taken part in the friendly match mentioned above, and that such match had taken place after the signature of the loan contract”. The letter dated 21 August 2008 stated the following “please be advised that we [i.e. the Respondent] are no longer interested to conclude the transfer of Player O [i.e. the player] for the sport season 2008-2009 because you have enlisted the said player to play in an official match during the Elite International Championship that took place at country S on Saturday 15.8.1429H (16.8.2008) against Club I in spite of your awareness that you have no right to enlist the said player in a friendly official match as of 15.8.2008. 4. The Claimant was of the opinion that the Respondent had not given any “valid reasons whatsoever justifying their decision to refuse the execution of the contract [i.e. the agreement]” causing “big damage” to the Claimant which was not able to find another club interested in the player “the transfer market being almost closed when Club I [i.e. the Respondent] has finally indicated that it would finally not take the player”. 5. Consequently, the Claimant requested the “amount for which the contract [i.e. the agreement] had been concluded between the parties”, i.e. USD 500,000, plus USD 5,000 to “cover the costs of the procedure which Club R [i.e. the Claimant] has been forced to launch before FIFA”. 6. On 14 October 2009, the Respondent reacted to the Claimant’s complaint by sending the letter dated 21 August 2008 it had sent to the Claimant, in which it was stated that the Respondent was no longer interested to conclude the transfer of the player for the 2008-2009 football season since the player had already participated in a friendly match with the Claimant after the conclusion of the agreement. 7. On 1 March 2010, the Claimant reiterated its previous allegations and underlined that the parties had signed a “perfectly valid loan contract” and, therefore, argued that the Respondent had to fulfil its contractual obligations. 8. On 21 March 2010, the Respondent deemed that the Claimant had committed a violation of the agreement. In this respect, the Respondent explained that the player “failed to arrive to country S on the specific date 15/08/2008” as per the agreement and “participated in a formal match on 16/08/2008 in the International top Championship in country S” with the Claimant. Finally, the Respondent stated that the agreement was not even approved by the country S Football Federation. 9. For all the abovementioned reasons, the Respondent had “no desire to perform the contract procedures with the player” and was of the opinion that the Claimant could not request any kind of compensation. 10. In its last position, the Claimant reiterated its previous statements and added that the player had not flown to country S as per the agreement because, “in violation of its contractual obligations, Club I [i.e. the Respondent] has not reacted at all to the repeated requests of […] Club R [i.e. the Claimant] to provide the player with his flight tickets and with his visa, without which he was unable to enter the country S territory”. The Claimant further argued that the player had the right to “keep himself fit whilst participating in a friendly match whilst waiting for his convocation and his documents from his future employer [i.e. the Respondent].” 11. In its last comments in the matter at stake, the Respondent reiterated its previous statements of defence and emphasised again that the Claimant “has no right to ask for any compensation”. II. Considerations of the Bureau of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Bureau of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter also referred to as: the Bureau) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter in hand. In this respect, it 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). Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 10 June 2009, thus before the aforementioned rules entered into force (1 December 2012), the Bureau 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) was applicable to the matter in hand. 2. Furthermore, the Bureau confirmed that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 and art. 22 f) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, as well as art. 34 par. 6 of the FIFA Statutes, it was competent to deal with the present matter since it concerned a dispute between two clubs affiliated to different associations. 3. Subsequently, the Bureau 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, it referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the 2009, 2010 and 2012 editions of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and, on the other hand, to the fact that the claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 10 June 2009. In view of the foregoing, the Bureau concluded that the 2008 edition of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter as to the substance. 4. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Bureau started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments provided by the parties and the documentation contained in the file. 5. In this regard, and first of all, the Bureau noted that the parties had signed a loan agreement on 6 August 2008, according to which the player would be transferred on a loan basis from the Claimant to the Respondent for the 2008/2009 football season. 6. In continuation, the Bureau noted that, based on the information received from the Claimant during the course of the present investigation, the Respondent had not registered the player and that such an allegation had never been questioned by any of the parties. 7. Furthermore, the Bureau acknowledged that according to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (hereinafter: TMS), it could be established that the player had continuously been registered with the Claimant during the 2008/2009 football season. 8. Equally, the Bureau deemed appropriate to underline that since the player had always been registered with the Claimant during the period in question, the latter had always been able to use the services of the player. In view of the foregoing, the Bureau concluded that during the originally agreed and predetermined loan period, which was supposed to last for the 2008/2009 football season, the player had continuously been registered with the Claimant. 9. In continuation, the Bureau took note that, on the one hand, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent had not fulfilled its obligations derived from the loan agreement and as a consequence claimed the amount of USD 500,000 as outstanding loan fee, and, on the other hand, based on the information contained on TMS as well as the documents provided by the Respondent, it could be established that the player had never been registered with the Respondent and at all relevant times with the Claimant. 10. Based on the above-mentioned considerations and taking into account the documentation available on file, the Bureau held that the main question to be addressed in relation to the aforementioned claimed amount of USD 500,000 was whether the player had been transferred to the Respondent and, in particular, whether the Claimant should be entitled to receive any compensation for the loan of the player to the Respondent. 11. In this context, the Bureau 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 club 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. Furthermore, the Bureau held that such an amount has always to be proportionate to the time the player had effectively spent with another club and that it has to be paid to the previous club as compensation for the period the player had effectively not been registered with the latter one. 12. In this respect, the Bureau recalled that the loan period which was originally supposed to last for the 2008/2009 football season was effectively never started as the player had always been registered with the Claimant and that the latter had still been able to use the services of the player. In view of this, and taking into account that the amount for the relevant loan fee has to be proportionate to the time the player had effectively spent with the Respondent as well as to the period the player had effectively not been registered with the Claimant, the Bureau concluded that the relevant pro rata proportion does not amount to anything at all. 13. As a consequence and considering that the player had always been registered with the Claimant, the Bureau held that no loan compensation was ever due by the Respondent to the Claimant. 14. In view of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Bureau concluded that the Claimant should not be entitled to any amount and consequently, decided to reject the complaint of the Claimant in its entirety. 15. Finally, the Bureau 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, 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 and are normally to be paid by the unsuccessful party. 16. In respect of the above and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been rejected, the Bureau concluded that the latter has to bear the entire costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 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 Bureau held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings was USD 500,000. Consequently, the Bureau concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 17. In conclusion, and in view of the circumstances of the present matter, the Bureau determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 12,000. Consequently, the Bureau of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of currency of country H 12,000 has to be paid by the Claimant in order to cover the costs of the present procedure. III. Decision of the Bureau of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club R, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 12,000 are to be paid by the Claimant, Club R. Given that the Claimant, Club R, has already paid the amount of currency of country H 5,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the latter has to pay the amount of currency of country H 7,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision to the following bank account with reference to case no.: ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to article 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 Bureau of the Players’ Status Committee: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives