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 23 September 2014, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England), Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club A, country B as “Claimant” against the club Club C, country D as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the Player E. 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 23 September 2014, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England), Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club A, country B as “Claimant” against the club Club C, country D as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the Player E. I. Facts of the case 1. On 14 March 2011, the Club A from country B (hereinafter: “the Claimant”) and the Club C from country D (hereinafter: “the Respondent”) signed a transfer contract (hereinafter: “the contract”), in connection with the transfer of the Player E (hereinafter: “the player”) from the Claimant to the Respondent. 2. Point 1.1 of the contract stated that: “The scope of this Transfer Agreement [i.e. the contract] is to reflect the accordance of the Parties for the temporary and definitive transfer of Player from Club A … to Club C …, upon payment of a compensatory amount (the “Transfer Fee”)”. 3. Point 1.1.1 of the contract stated that: “Upon payment of the entire Transfer Fee, the temporary transfer shall automatically convert into a permanent transfer of Player to Club C [i.e. the Respondent]”. 4. Point 3.1 of the contract stated that: “For the transfer of the Player, Club C [i.e. the Respondent] agrees to pay a net Transfer Fee in the total net amount of EUR 1,200,000”. 5. Point 3.2 of the contract stated that: “The net amount of EUR 1,200,000 shall be paid by Club C [i.e. the Respondent] in accordance with the following schedule: 1) 600,000E … within 07 days upon execution of this Transfer Agreement; b) 600,000E … by no later than 30 August 2011”. 6. Point 4.1.1 of the contract stated that: “Club A [i.e. the Claimant] hereby undertakes to issue the ITC of Player in favour of Club C [i.e. the Respondent], valid until 30 august 2011, within 03 (three) business days upon receipt of the payment of the first instalment, provided that the Football Association of country D or Club C formally and properly request it to the Football Association of country B”. 7. Point 4.2 of the contract stated that: “Once Club C [i.e. the Respondent] has performed its payment obligations in relation to the second instalment in accordance with Section 3.2. above, Club A [i.e. the Claimant] shall issue the definitive ITC to Club C and the temporary transfer of the Player shall be automatically converted into a permanent transfer”. 8. Point 4.3 of the contract stated that: “If Club C [i.e. the Respondent] fails to comply with the payment of the second instalment of the Transfer Fee, once the temporary ITC?s expire, on 30 August 2011, the Player shall return to Club A [i.e. the Claimant]”. 9. Point 4.4 of the contract stated that: “The return of the player to Club A [i.e. the Claimant] does not waive Club C [i.e. the Respondent] from its payment obligation towards Club A, which will remain entitled to claim the entire transfer fee from Club C”. 10. Point 4.4.1. of the contract stated that: “For all effects, the return of the Player to Club A [i.e. the Claimant] shall function as if the Player had been loaned to Club C [i.e. the Respondent], which shall remain liable for the payment of the entire Transfer Fee to Club A, regardless of the Player?s return to Club A”. 11. Point 4.5.1. of the contract stated that: “The parties recognize that the TMS data shall be initially inserted as a temporary transfer of the Player to Club C [i.e. the Respondent] and only upon timely payment of the entirely Transfer Fee by Club C the Parties shall amend the TMS and reflect the permanent transfer of Player to Club C”. 12. On 8 October 2012, the Claimant lodged a complaint with FIFA against the Respondent requesting the payment of the outstanding amount of EUR 600,000 plus 5% interest per year from 30 August 2011 until the date of effective payment as well as 10% legal costs and expenses incurred related to this claim. 13. In particular, the Claimant alleged that, in July 2011, the Respondent informally contacted the Claimant and informed that it “was not satisfied with the player?s services and was willing to (i) terminate the employment agreement and (ii) return the Player to the Claimant, defaulting the payment of the second instalment of the Transfer Fee due on 30 August 2011”. Furthermore, the Claimant argued to have sent an email to the Respondent informing that the employment agreement with the player had nothing to do with the transfer agreement. 14. The Claimant explained that the player was released, in October 2011, by the Respondent and transferred to the club from country F, Club G. 15. Finally, the Claimant argued that the player failed to return to the Claimant but, anyway, even if the player would return to the latter, according to the contract the second instalment should be due and paid by the Respondent. 16. The Respondent rejected categorically the Claimant?s complaint by stating that the transfer compensation was, according to the contract, divided in two parts of EUR 600,000 each, the first amount of EUR 600,000 to be paid for the temporary transfer of the player and the second amount of EUR 600,000 for the definitive transfer of the player to the Respondent. 17. The Respondent was of the opinion that it had no obligation to pay the Claimant the second instalment since the player was not permanently transferred to the Respondent after the loan period. The Respondent further maintained that, shortly after his arrival, the player had repeatedly mentioned that he could not adapt to life in country D and three months after his arrival, the player had returned to country B and never came back. 18. Moreover, the Respondent explained to have already paid the sum of EUR 600,000 to the Claimant for three months of loan and had no intention to pay EUR 1,200,000 since the player left. The Respondent further explained that the Claimant and the player?s agency “H” contacted Club G, which eventually signed the player. In this respect, the Respondent stated that it did not receive any compensation for the subsequent of the transfer to Club G. 19. In view of the aforementioned, the Respondent requested FIFA to reject the Claimant?s claim and to decide that the Respondent is not obliged to pay any additional sum to the Claimant. Alternatively, if FIFA would decide that the Respondent is obliged to pay the Claimant any additional amount, the Respondent asked to reduce the amounts requested by the Claimant and deduct the sums already received by the latter for the subsequent transfer of the player to Club G. The Respondent also requested the Claimant to pay CHF 15,000 to cover the legal fees as the latter clearly acted in bad faith in this proceeding. 20. The Claimant reiterated its previous allegations and added that its initial complaint is indisputably based on a simple analysis of the contract. The Claimant deemed that the Respondent should not be released from its obligation to pay the total transfer compensation. 21. Finally, the Claimant alleged that the player?s career history in the Transfer Matching System (TMS) clearly demonstrated that the player did not come back to the Claimant and that the Claimant did not receive any compensation after the player?s transfer to the Respondent. 22. The Respondent presented its final position and reiterated its previous statements of defence. The Respondent alleged that the Claimant, together with its partner H, had “full power” over the player?s transfers even without him being registered with the Claimant. 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 case in 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 2012 and 2014). Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 8 October 2012, thus before the aforementioned rules entered into force (1 December 2012), the Single Judge concluded that the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution (hereinafter: “the Procedural Rules”) is applicable to the matter in hand. 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, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the 2014, 2012 and 2010 editions of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged with FIFA on 8 October 2012. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2010 edition of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance. 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the present matter, the Single Judge started by acknowledging the above mentioned facts of the dispute, the arguments of the parties as well as the documentation contained in the file. 5. In this respect and to start with, the Single Judge acknowledged that, on 14 March 2011, the Claimant and the Respondent signed a transfer agreement (hereinafter: the contract) for the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent. 6. The Single Judge remarked that according to the contract it seemed that the parties agreed on a temporary transfer of the player with an option for the Respondent to acquire the services of the player on a definitive basis involving the payment of a total transfer amount of EUR 1,200,000 payable in two equal parts of EUR 600,000, each one. 7. In continuation, the Single Judge took note that both parties had antagonistic positions in relation to the amounts to be paid to the Claimant by the Respondent for the transfer of the player. 8. In this respect, the Single Judge took note that, in its claim to FIFA, the Claimant had requested from the Respondent the payment of the second instalment amounting to EUR 600,000 agreed in the point 3.2 of the contract plus interests, in accordance with the point 4.4.1. of the contract. 9. Equally, the Single Judge remarked that, for its part, the Respondent had rejected the Claimant?s complaint and alleged that the parties contractually agreed on a loan of the player to the Respondent with an option to a definitive transfer for an additional amount of EUR 600,000. Moreover, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent deemed that since the relevant definitive transfer never took place, the sum requested by the Claimant amounting to EUR 600,000 should not be due. 10. With the aforementioned considerations in mind, the Single Judge was keen to emphasise that the wording of the contract was not sufficiently precise and clear enough to clarify whether such additional amount of EUR 600,000 would be due by the Respondent to the Claimant for the transfer of the player. 11. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge decided to refer to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS) under the light of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations. 12. In this respect, the Single Judge acknowledged that, according to TMS (Transfer References numbers 28904 and 28952), the player was transferred from the Claimant to the Respondent on loan from 14 March 2011 to 30 August 2011. Moreover, the Single Judge noted that the player was registered with the Respondent on 29 March 2011. 13. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that according to TMS, the player?s International Transfer Certificate was issued on 28 March 2011 by the Football Association of country B in favour of the Football Association of country D without specifying whether the relevant transfer of the player was on loan or definitive. 14. The Single Judge further acknowledged that, according to TMS, both parties have agreed on a transfer compensation of EUR 1,200,000 payable in two instalments of EUR 600,000 each, the first one due on 24 March 2011 and the second one with no specific due date. 15. Moreover, the Single Judge noted, from the information contained in TMS that, although the Respondent paid to the Claimant an amount of EUR 600,000 on 21 March 2011, the second instalment of EUR 600,000 remained outstanding. 16. The Single Judge further remarked that there were two documents enclosed to TMS one from the Respondent stating that the employment contract with the player was terminated on 30 August 2011 and the other one from the Claimant stating that the employment contract with the player, which was valid from 29 July 2008 until 28 July 2012, was rescinded on 31 August 2011. 17. Furthermore, the Single Judge took note that according to TMS, the player was transferred “out of contract” from the Respondent to his new club, Club G, “free of payment” being registered by the latter on 6 October 2011. 18. In this context and for the sake of good order, the Single Judge underlined that in cases of loan the appropriate procedure is the following one, once the loan of a player is finished, an ITC should be issued by the association where the club in which the player was on loan in favour of the association where the club with which still the player have an employment tie. After that step the player would be in a position to be transferred to a third club. 19. In this specific case, the Single Judge underlined that after expiry of the player?s loan with the Respondent, the Football Association of country D should have issued an ITC in favour of the Football Association of country B for registering the player back with the Claimant and only afterwards the player would be in a position to be transferred to a third club. 20. In continuation, the Single Judge focused his attention to the Respondent?s allegation that the contract established in its point 4 that the payment of the first instalment (EUR 600,000) was for the loan of the player and that the second instalment (EUR 600,000) should have only been paid by the Respondent if the player was transferred on a definitive basis to the latter. 21. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that despite of the provisions in the contract, the TMS reflected that the transfer of the player was on a loan basis from the Claimant to the Respondent and involving a total amount of EUR 1,200,000. The Single Judge remarked that for the sake of legal security it is not possible to have one reality in the agreements concluded between clubs and another one in TMS. 22. In this context the Single Judge was keen to emphasize that the use of TMS is mandatory for all stakeholders as from 1 October 2010 and that they should act with good faith inserting the relevant information clearly and appropriately. 23. Furthermore, the Single Judge pointed out that it is a very common practice that clubs agree on transfer of players on loan with the option to a definitive transfer afterwards. However, in those cases clubs stipulate very clearly the loan fee and the additional amount to be paid in case the relevant club would exercise the relevant option. Moreover, the Single Judge added that all this information should be reflected accordingly in TMS. 24. On account of all the above, the Single Judge stated that he did not have other option than to conclude that the player was transferred on a loan basis from the Claimant to the Respondent from 14 March 2011 until 30 August 2011 for a total amount of EUR 1,200,000. 25. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the second instalment amounting to EUR 600,000 remained unpaid by the Respondent and hence the latter should be liable to pay this amount to the Claimant. 26. In continuation, the Single Judge focused his attention to the Claimant?s demand for interests from 30 August 2011. 27. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that in TMS there was no indication of the second instalment?s due date. However, the Single Judge remarked that according to the point 3.2 of the contract the relevant instalment was due on 30 August 2011. 28. Moreover, the Single Judge stated since the due date of the second instalment stated in the contract was not contested by the Respondent, the requested interest should apply as from the day after of the relevant due date, i.e. 31 August 2011. 29. Furthermore and with regard to the Claimant’s request for legal costs, the Single Judge decided to reject such request is not granted in proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee in accordance with article 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules. 30. In view of all the above, the Single Judge decided to partially accept the claim of the Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 600,000 as outstanding loan fee plus a 5% annual interest as from 31 August 2011. 31. 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 the proceedings before the Players? Status Committee, including its Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. 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. 32. In this regard, the Single Judge reiterated that the Claimant’s claim is partially accepted and that the Respondent is the party at fault. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 33. 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. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 600,000. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 34. In view of the circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceeding to the amount of CHF 20,000. 35. Consequently, and in line with the aforementioned, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of CHF 20,000 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 A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, Club A, the amount of EUR 600,000 plus 5% interest per year on the said amount from 31 August 2011 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Club A, are rejected. 4. If the abovementioned amount, plus interest as established above, 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. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 20,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club C, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1 The amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant, Club A. 5.2 The amount of CHF 15,000 has to be paid directly to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XXXX: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 6. The Claimant, Club A, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club C, directly and immediately of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 5.1 above are to be made and to notify 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: rt 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