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 23 April 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club S, from country E as Claimant against the club Club P, from country I as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the player C

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 23 April 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club S, from country E as Claimant against the club Club P, from country I as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the player C I. Facts of the case 1. On 15 July 2010, Club S, from country E (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club P, from country I (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an agreement (hereinafter: the transfer agreement) for the transfer of the player C (hereinafter: the player) from the Claimant to the Respondent. 2. Clause 1 par. 3 of the transfer agreement stipulated, inter alia, that: “In the event that during the Player’s employment with [the Respondent] the Player be transferred by [the Respondent] to a third party club, the Respondent hereby agrees to pay [the Claimant] 20% of any monies it receives as a consideration for the transfer of the Player to the third party club (the “Sell on Clause”). Payment of the Sell on Clause shall be made on behalf of [the Claimant] with 15 days of receipt of the sums by [the Respondent]. If requested by [the Claimant], [the Respondent] shall disclose copy of the relevant agreement executed with the third party club for the transfer of the Player”. 3. On 13 July 2011, the Respondent and Club B (hereinafter: the third club) concluded a transfer agreement (hereinafter: Club P - Club B agreement) for the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the third club. 4. The Club P – Club B agreement stipulated that the third club would pay to the Respondent the amount of EUR 1,450,000 as follows: - EUR 500,000 sporting season 2011/2012; - EUR 500,000 sporting season 2012/2013; and - EUR 450,000 sporting season 2013/2014 5. On 16 September 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent for the breach of the transfer agreement indicating that the latter had failed to pay the “Sell on Clause” and, therefore, requesting the Respondent to provide a copy of the Club P – Club B agreement as well as the payment of the 20% of any amount paid by the third club to the Respondent”. 6. Therefore, the Claimant requested a copy of the Club P – Club B agreement in order to establish the amount to which the Claimant would be entitled in view of clause 1.3 of the transfer agreement. 7. In spite of having been invited to do so by FIFA, the Respondent did not provide a copy of the transfer agreement signed with the third club. 8. On 18 July 2012, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter: SJ) decided that the Respondent must provide a copy of the Club P – Club B agreement. 9. On 11 October 2012, FIFA informed the Claimant of the economic terms of the Club P – Club B agreement establishing the transfer of the player from the Respondent to the third club. In particular, the parties were informed that the transfer compensation agreed amounted to EUR 1,450,000 payable in three instalments: (i) EUR 500,000 for the sporting season 2011/2012; EUR 500,000 for the sporting season 2012/2013; and (iii) EUR 450,000 for the sporting season 2013/2014. Subsequently, the parties were informed that the investigation phase was closed and thus, no further submissions would be admitted. 10. On 14 November 2012, the SJ partially accepted the claim of the Claimant, and decided inter alia that the Respondent had to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 200,000. 11. The findings of the relevant decision were notified to the parties on 23 November 2012. The grounds of the relevant decision were not requested by any of the parties and, in accordance with art. 15 par. 1 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the decision became final and binding. 12. On 11 October 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent for the breach of the transfer agreement indicating that the latter had failed to pay the 20% of the last instalment received from the third club in accordance with the Club P – Club B agreement and, therefore, requesting the Respondent to pay the amount of EUR 90,000, plus “the applicable interest as of 1 July 2013 until the effective payment date” and the procedural costs. 13. In this respect, the Claimant assessed that the decision of the SJ was passed before the beginning of the 2013/2014 and that, thus, only condemned the Respondent to pay the 20% of the two first instalments of the transfer fee agreed upon between the Respondent and the third club in the Club P – Club B agreement. 14. On 16 December 2013, the Respondent stated that the claim lodged by the Claimant allegedly concerned the same parties, the same contract and the same circumstances as its previous claim, which was decided on 14 November 2012 and thus, the present claim should be considered res iudicata and rejected without further consideration. 15. Furthermore, and in addition to the foregoing, the Respondent stated that it would not make sense that the SJ considered the instalment of the 2012/2013 season due, which had started only three months before the decision was passed, and, at the same time, considered premature the payment of the instalment of the 2013/2014 season. 16. Consequently, and considering that the grounds of said decision were not requested, the Respondent asserted that any interpretation of the decision is “pure speculation” since nothing in the above-mentioned decision evidenced that the SJ took into account the amounts that allegedly fell due and left the last instalment open to be claimed in the future. Therefore, according to the Respondent, it must be assumed that the SJ took into account the full claim and ruled on every request of the Claimant, including all instalments of the transfer compensation established in the Club P – Club B agreement. 17. The Respondent, then, stated that if the Claimant had considered that all the amounts requested were not awarded by the SJ, it should have requested the grounds of the decision. However, since the Claimant did not request the grounds, the decision became final and binding. 18. Consequently, the Respondent requested the rejection of the claim and that the Claimant bears all the costs of the current proceeding, as well as that it compensates the legal costs of the Respondent. 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 whether he was competent to deal with the matter in hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 par. 2 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 11 October 2013, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 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 present matter. 2. Furthermore, the Single Judge confirmed that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules 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. 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 to art. 26 par. 1 of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and again to the fact that the claim was lodged with FIFA on 11 October 2013. 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 matter 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 abovementioned facts as well as the arguments provided by the parties and the documentation contained in the file. 5. In this respect, and first of all, the Single Judge noted that on 15 July 2010 the parties concluded a transfer agreement for the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent which included a sell-on clause in the amount of 20% of any future transfer. 6. The Single Judge further noted that, on 13 July 2011, the player was transferred from the Respondent to the third club for the amount of EUR 1,450,000, payable in three instalments, two equal instalments of EUR 500,000, which were the object of a previous proceeding before the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, and a third instalment of EUR 450,000, payable in the sporting season 2013/2014, object of the present dispute. 7. Having taking into account the above, the Single Judge reverted to the arguments raised by the parties and noted that the Claimant had argued that as the Respondent had received a transfer fee from the third club due to a subsequent transfer of the player, it should therefore be entitled to receive a 20% of the total transfer fee established in the Club P – Club B agreement, in accordance with clause 1.3 of the transfer agreement between the Claimant and the Respondent, and not only from the instalments that fell due until the date of the decision adopted on the scope of the previous claim. Therefore, the Claimant highlighted that the Single Judge only granted the 20% of the instalments due on the date of the decision, i.e. 14 November 2012. 8. Concerning the arguments raised by the Respondent, the Single Judge observed that the latter had argued in essence that the amount claimed was no longer due since it was already requested by the Claimant in the previous proceedings, which was allegedly rejected by the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee. Moreover, according to the Respondent, the grounds of said decision were not requested and the decision was not appealed by any of the parties and thus, it became final and binding. As a conclusion, the Respondent argued that the matter constitutes res iudicata. 9. Considering the opposite position of the parties, the Single Judge highlighted that he had to analyse whether the present matter constitutes res iudicata. 10. First, in view of the above and on the basis of the submissions of the Claimant and the Respondent, the Single Judge was keen to underline that it remained uncontested by the parties the validity of the transfer agreement as well as that the Respondent had transferred the player against payment to the third club. 11. In this respect, the Single Judge was eager to emphasise that, in accordance with clause 1 par. 3 of the transfer agreement, the Respondent shall have paid the 20% of any transfer fee received within 15 days, and that, upon request of the Claimant, the Respondent shall disclose a copy of the agreement for the subsequent transfer of the player. 12. In this regard, the Single Judge noted that, even though requested, the Respondent did not provide a copy of the Club P – Club B agreement in the course of the investigation. 13. Furthermore, the Single Judge observed that following the decision of the Single Judge dated 18 July 2012, by means of which the Respondent was obliged to submit a copy of the Club P – Club B agreement, on 11 October 2012, the Claimant was informed about the economic terms of the transfer of the player from the Respondent to the third club and, at the same occasion, both parties were informed of the conclusion of the investigation-phase of the dispute regarding the claim for the 20% of the amount received by the Respondent in relation to the Club P – Club B agreement and that, as a result, that no further submissions would be admitted to the file. 14. Bearing in mind the aforementioned, the Single Judge considered that the Claimant, despite its various attempts, could not know the economic terms of the Club P – Club B agreement when lodging the claim as well as that it did not have the chance to amend its claim once it was informed about the economic details of the subsequent transfer of the player to the third club. 15. Furthermore, the Single Judge underlined that, in any case, the last instalment of the subsequent transfer fee established in the Club P – Club B agreement for the sporting season 2013/2014 had not fell due yet when the first decision was passed, i.e. 14 November 2012, and therefore, in that moment, the Claimant was only entitled to receive 20% of the first two instalments, respectively concerning the sporting seasons 2011/2012 and 2012/2013. 16. However, after the decision was passed by the Single Judge on 14 November 2012, the last instalment of the transfer compensation established in the Club P – Club B agreement concerning the sporting season 2013/2014 fell due. As a consequence, the Claimant became entitled to receive 20% of the last instalment in the amount of EUR 450,000, in accordance with clause 1.3 of the transfer agreement. 17. Therefore, the argument of the Respondent cannot be followed and the Claimant is entitled to claim 20% of the last instalment of the transfer compensation established in the Club P – Club B agreement, since it was not yet due and thus, not considered by the Single Judge on the decision passed on 14 November 2012. 18. On that basis, and in view of the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Single Judge held that the Respondent must fulfil the obligation it freely entered into with the Claimant by means of the transfer contract signed between the parties on 15 July 2010, and therefore, must pay to the Claimant the outstanding transfer compensation agreed upon, in the amount of EUR 90,000, considering the Club P – Club B agreement. 19. Having established the above, and on account of the fact that the Respondent had failed to pay 20% of the third instalment of the subsequent transfer fee established in the Club P – Club B agreement, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the total amount of EUR 90,000 as per clause 1 par. 3 of the transfer agreement. This amount includes the sell-on fee as provided in the aforementioned provision since, as previously established, the player was indeed transferred to the third club, for EUR 1,450,000. 20. Furthermore, and in view of the request for interest of the Claimant as well as the payment schedule provided under article 1 of the transfer contract, the Single Judge also decided that an interest of 5% per year has to be paid by the Respondent as from the due date, this is, as of 2 July 2013. 21. In view of all of the above, the Single Judge decided to accept the Claimant’s claim and held that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the total amount of EUR 90,000, plus interest as established above in point II. 20. 22. 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 and which 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. 23. Taking into account that the responsibility of the failure to comply with the payment of the transfer compensation can entirely be attributed to the Respondent and that the claim of the Claimant has been almost fully accepted, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the 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 Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is over currency of country H 100,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 15,000. 24. Considering the particular circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 8,000 and concluded that said amount has to be paid by the Respondent 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 S, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club P, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 90,000, plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 2 July 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. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 8,000 are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days of notification of the present decision as follows: 4.1. The amount of currency of country H 6,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 4.2. The amount of currency of country H 2,000 directly to the Claimant. 5. 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 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 Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives