F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2014-2015) – controversie tra società – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2014-2015) – 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 14 January 2015, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club K, from country T as Claimant against the club, Club G, from country I as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the player F

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2014-2015) – controversie tra società – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2014-2015) – 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 14 January 2015, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club K, from country T as Claimant against the club, Club G, from country I as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the player F I. Facts of the case 1. On 15 July 2013, Club K, form country T (hereinafter: the Claimant) and Glub G, from country I (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an agreement (hereinafter: the transfer agreement) for the transfer of the player F (hereinafter: the player), from the Respondent to the Claimant. The agreement stipulated that “the final and definitive transfer shall be free of charge.” 2. Also on 15 July 2013, the Claimant and Club G signed a second agreement titled “private agreement” which, inter alia, stipulates the following: “1. [The Respondent] shall contribute to the expenses of [the Claimant] will incur in the scope of the player’s transfer, by paying a total gross amount of EUR 550,000. 2. Said amount will be paid by [the Respondent] as follows: a. €200’000/00 by no later than 15th October 2013 b. €175’000/00 by no later than 15th July 2014 c. €175’000/00 by no later than 15th July 2015” 3. On 26 December 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim at FIFA and, after amending its claim, requested from the Respondent the payment of the outstanding first two instalments stipulated in the private agreement, payable as follows: - EUR 200,000 plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 15 October 2013, - EUR 175,000 plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 15 July 2014. 4. In support of its claim, the Claimant stated that despite having sent the respective invoices to the Respondent, the latter club failed to comply with its contractual obligations. In this regard, the Claimant provided copies of the relevant invoices it sent to the Respondent. 5. In its reply, the Respondent contested the competence of the Players’ Status Committee, arguing that the private agreement only mentions the “reimbursement of expenses”, i.e. a matter “which does not have anything to do with players’ transfers and football regulations.” 6. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that the Claimant did not sufficiently specify which exact expenses have to be reimbursed, which is why the latter club’s request should be deemed groundless. 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 were applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 of the 2012 and 2014 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) as well as to the fact that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 26 December 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 acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of the Players’ Status Committee, indicating that the relevant contract which is labelled “private agreement” only mentioned the “reimbursement of expenses”, i.e. a matter which is not connected to a player transfer. In this regard, the Single Judge recalled the contents of the private agreement and emphasized that the payment obligation arising from said agreement is directly linked to the transfer of the player from the Respondent to the Claimant as it refers to expenses incurred in the scope of the transfer of the player. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the private agreement stipulated that its clauses “form an essential part of this agreement”, i.e. that both the transfer agreement and the private agreement need to be considered as a whole. Consequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 in combination with art. 22 lit. f) of the 2014 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he is competent to deal with the matter at sake since it concerned a transfer related dispute between two clubs affiliated to two different associations. 3. Furthermore, 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 confirmed that in accordance to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the 2014 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and considering that the present claim was lodged with FIFA on 26 December 2013, the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the present matter as to the substance. 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. However, the Single Judge emphasized that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and the documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. In this respect, and first of all, the Single Judge noted that the parties had concluded, on 15 July 2013, a transfer agreement for the transfer of the player from the Respondent to the Claimant. The Single Judge further noted that the transfer agreement stipulated that “the final and definitive transfer shall be free of charge”. 6. Furthermore, the Single Judge remarked that also on 15 July 2013, a second agreement labelled “private agreement” was concluded between the parties and by means of which the Respondent agreed to “contribute to the expenses of [the Claimant] will incur in the scope of the player’s transfer, by paying a total gross amount of EUR 550,000”, thereof the amount of EUR 200,000 payable by no later than 15 October 2013, the amount of EUR 175,000 by no later than 15 July 2014 and the amount of EUR 175,000 by no later than 15 July 2015. 7. Moreover, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent basically argued that the Claimant has not sufficiently specified which exact expenses have to be reimbursed in connection with the transfer of the player from the Respondent to the Claimant. 8. In view of the above and after a thorough analysis of the documentation provided by the Claimant, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant had substantiated his claim pertaining to the outstanding payments with sufficient documentary evidence. In particular, the Single Judge pointed to the fact that the private agreement did not provide for the obligation of the Claimant to further specify which expenses have actually fallen due, given that the private agreement already stipulated a specific lump sum which is payable by the Respondent to the Claimant. 9. Consequently, and in accordance with the general 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 entered into with the Claimant by means of the agreement signed between the parties, and therefore, must pay to the Claimant the outstanding amounts agreed in connection with the transfer of the player. 10. In this regard, the Single Judge recalled the final request of the Claimant and concluded that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amounts of EUR 200,000 and EUR 175,000 in accordance with articles 2.a. and 2.b. of the private agreement. 11. In continuation, and in view of the request for interest of the Claimant as well as the payment schedule provided under article 2 of the private agreement, the Single Judge decided to only partially accept the Claimant’s request and to award interest at a rate of 5% p.a. on the first instalment of EUR 200,000 as of 16 October 2013 and on the second instalment of EUR 175,000 as of 16 July 2014. 12. In view of all of the above, the Single Judge decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and held that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 200,000 plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 16 October 2013 until the date of effective payment, as well as the amount of EUR 175,000 plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 16 July 2014 until the date of effective payment. 13. Finally, 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. 14. Taking into account that the responsibility of the failure to comply with the payment of the amounts as agreed as in the private agreement 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. 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 EUR 375,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 15. 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 15,000 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 K, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. 3. The Respondent, Club G, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the following amounts: a. The amount of EUR 200,000 plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 16 October 2013 until the date of effective payment, b. The amount of EUR 175,000 plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 16 July 2014 until the date of effective payment. 4. If the aforementioned amounts plus interest are 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 5. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected. 6. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 15,000 is to be paid by the Respondent, within 30 days as from the notification of the present decision, as follows: a. The amount of currency of country H 5,000 by the Respondent to the Claimant. b. The amount of currency of country H 10,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 7. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 3. and 6.a. 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 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