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 26 August 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, A, country B Represented by xxxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country P Represented by Mr xxxx as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player C I.

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 26 August 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, A, country B Represented by xxxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country P Represented by Mr xxxx as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player C I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 July 2010, the club from country B, A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club from country P, B, (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded a transfer agreement for the transfer of the player C (hereinafter: “the player”), from the Claimant to the Respondent. 2. The aforesaid transfer agreement stipulated, inter alia, that: “Clause Three – Payment By the transfer herein, [the Respondent] shall pay to [the Claimant] the amount of € 100,000.00 (one hundred thousand Euros) in two installments of € 50,000.00 (fifty thousand Euros) each, due on 09/20/2010 and 03/21/2011. (…) Paragraph Two – if any installment of the payment is not paid by [B], fine in an amount equivalent to fifty percent (50%) of the contracted value shall be due.” 3. On 8 October 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract indicating that the Respondent had failed to pay a part of the transfer compensation of EUR 100,000, payable in two instalments of EUR 50,000 each on 20 September 2010 and 21 March 2011. 4. The Claimant explained that it had entered into negotiations with the Respondent in order to amend an error in the transfer agreement, however, not concerning the transfer compensation. In “an attempt to receive the overdue amount in an amicable way and as soon as possible”, the Claimant sent an invoice to the Respondent for the outstanding amount of EUR 100,000 only. On 16 June 2011, 30 June 2011 and 6 September 2011, the Respondent paid the amounts of EUR 50,000, EUR 15,000 and EUR 15,000 respectively to the Claimant. In view of the foregoing, the Claimant requested the amount of EUR 20,000 from the Respondent plus a fine of EUR 50,000 for late payment, as well as 5% interest p.a. as of 31 March 2011. 5. On 13 May 2013, the Respondent replied to the claim and stated that it had concluded an agreement with the player on 16 March 2012, according to which the latter was responsible for the payment of the outstanding transfer compensation to the Claimant. Finally, the Respondent referred to a decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, in which a penalty fee was disregarded even though the respondent club had failed to pay the entire transfer amount, and requested that the penalty fee shall be disregarded, since the Respondent has actually paid 80% of the transfer compensation. 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 Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (editions 2008, 2012 and 2014) as well as to the fact that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 8 October 2012, thus after 1 July 2008 but before 1 December 2012. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: 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 is 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 2010, 2012 and 2014 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 8 October 2012. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2010 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 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. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. First, the Single Judge acknowledged that it was undisputed between the parties that, on 1 July 2010, a transfer agreement was concluded concerning the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent. 6. Equally, the Single Judge took due note that it was undisputed between the parties that the Respondent had paid a total amount of EUR 80,000 to the Claimant. 7. Having established the above, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant maintained that it is entitled to receive the amount of EUR 20,000 from the Respondent, as well as a fine of EUR 50,000 for late payment, indicating that the Respondent had failed to pay the amount of EUR 20,000 before the due date of 21 March 2011. 8. Equally, the Single Judge took note of the Respondent’s submission that it had agreed with the player that the latter was responsible for the payment of the outstanding transfer compensation to the Claimant. 9. Finally, the Single Judge took note of the Respondent’s submission that the penalty fee shall be disregarded since it had paid 80% of the transfer compensation to the Claimant. 10. After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, taking into consideration all the aforementioned arguments, the Single Judge observed that the parties disputed the responsibility for the payment of the outstanding part of the transfer fee in the amount of EUR 20,000, as well as the applicability of the penalty fee in the amount of EUR 50,000. 11. Having said that, the Single Judge started by analysing the agreement that the Respondent had concluded with the player, in accordance with which the latter was responsible for the payment of the outstanding transfer compensation to the Claimant. 12. In this respect, the Single Judge pointed out that the Claimant was not a party to the aforementioned agreement and, therefore, such agreement cannot be opposed to the Claimant. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to the basic legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith. Consequently, the Single Judge held that, in accordance with the transfer agreement, the Respondent is responsible for the payment of the outstanding transfer compensation of EUR 20,000. 13. In this respect, the Single Judge established that no interest had contractually been agreed between the parties in relation to the transfer compensation. Consequently, the Single Judge decided to award, in accordance with the general practise of the Players’ Status Committee and considering the Claimant’s request, default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount of EUR 20,000 as of 31 March 2011 until the date of effective payment. 14. Turning his attention to the Claimant’s request for a penalty fee of EUR 50,000, the Single Judge, after a careful examination of the contents of the transfer agreement, more in particular the second paragraph of clause 3 of said agreement, emphasized that the penalty fee in the matter at hand is a fixed percentage of the transfer compensation and is, as such, not dependent on the amount of the transfer compensation that is outstanding. 15. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that a penalty fee amounting to EUR 50,000 for late payment in relation to an outstanding amount of EUR 20,000 is to be considered excessive and, therefore, cannot be enforced. 16. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant’s claim for the payment of EUR 50,000 as a penalty for the late payment of a part of the transfer fee, had to be rejected. 17. 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 20,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 31 March 2011 until the date of effective payment and that any further claims of the Claimant are rejected. 18. 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). 19. 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. 20. 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 70,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000. 21. As a result, and taking into account the particularities of the present matter as well as the degree of success, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 10,000. The Single Judge decided that thereof, the Claimant has to pay the amount of CHF 4,000 and that the Respondent has to pay the amount of CHF 6,000. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, B, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 20,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 31 March 2011 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 10,000 are to be paid within 30 days as from the date of the notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1. The amount of CHF 6,000 has to be paid by the Respondent. 5.2. The amount of CHF 4,000 has to be paid by the Claimant. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of CHF 2,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the additional amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA. 5.3. The above-mentioned amounts have to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 2. above 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: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives