F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2015-2016) – controversie tra società – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2015-2016) – 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 24 November 2015, by 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 relating to the Player E I.

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2015-2016) – controversie tra società – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players’ Status Committee (2015-2016) – 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 24 November 2015, by 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 relating to the Player E I. Facts of the case 1. On 14 January 2014, the club from country B, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed a loan agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) for the loan of the “federative rights” of the Player E (hereinafter: the player) to the Respondent from 12 January 2014 until 31 December 2015. 2. Additionally, according to clause 1.2.) of the agreement, the Claimant transferred 25% of the “economic rights” of the player to the Respondent. 3. According to clause 2.1.) of the agreement, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent the amount of EUR 2,125,000 “until 31 December 2014”. 4. Clause 2.2.) of the agreement provided that “the amount to be paid by [the Respondent] to [the Claimant], may be settled by conceding the Economic Rights and/or the temporary concession of Federative Rights of Athletes registered at [the Respondent] to the [Claimant], as long as both clubs agree on the temporary concession of the athletes and/or the respective percentages of Economic Rights until 20 December 2014. Should [the Respondent] and [the Claimant] not reach an agreement until 20 December 2014, [the Respondent] will be forced to pay the amount mentioned in [clause 2.1.)]”. 5. Clause 2.3.) of the agreement stipulated that “should [the Respondent] not pay the amount set in clause 2.1.) in the date set there-until 31 December 2014- [the Respondent] will have to pay [the Claimant] a daily fine of EUR 2,000 until the amount determined in that clause is fully paid. Both parties acknowledge that the value for the fine was set after negotiation and that it was deemed and accepted as fair, in the interest and for the protection of both parties”. 6. On 23 March 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent requesting from the latter the payment of the amount of EUR 2,125,000, plus ”EUR 2,000 per day as penalty clause as of 1st January 2015 until total and effective payment is made” as well as interest as from 1 January 2015 until the effective payment. 7. According to the Claimant, despite having sent the relevant invoice for the payment, the Respondent failed to pay the amount stipulated in the agreement. Furthermore, the Claimant alleged that the parties never reached any settlement in the sense of clause 2.2.) of the agreement. Additionally, the Claimant maintained that, despite various communications with the Respondent, the latter never proceeded with the payment. 8. On 11 May 2015, the Respondent replied to the claim lodged against it and stated that it faced some “momentary financial issues”. The Respondent explained to be willing to settle the matter amicably and, in this context, offered the definitive transfer of two players of the Respondent to the Claimant or an option of “first refusal” for another player. 9. On 3 July 2015, the Claimant informed FIFA that it rejected the offer made by the Respondent. The Claimant further specified that the possibility included in clause 2.2.) of the agreement already expired on 20 December 2014. 10. On 6 October 2015, and after the closure of the investigation phase, the Respondent submitted a further unsolicited correspondence. 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 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) were applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 of the Procedural Rules as well as to the fact that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 23 March 2015. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the 2015 edition of the 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 Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and, on the other hand, once again to the fact that the claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 23 March 2015. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2015 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand. 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 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. In this context, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent’s correspondence of 6 October 2015 was only received after notification of the closure of the investigation of the matter at hand. As a result, and in line with art. 9 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, the Single Judge decided not to consider said correspondence and to take a decision upon the basis of those documents that were provided prior to the closure of the investigation-phase. 5. Having established the aforementioned, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant maintained that it was entitled to receive EUR 2,125,000 from the Respondent, indicating that the Respondent had not yet paid the amount due in accordance with art. 2.1.) of the agreement. Equally, the Claimant deemed that it was entitled to a “penalty clause” of EUR 2,000 per day of delay in accordance with art. 2.3.) of the agreement as well as interest as from 1 January 2015. 6. In continuation, the Single Judge observed that, in its reply, the Respondent did not dispute that the amount of EUR 2,125,000 was indeed still outstanding in accordance with art. 2.1.) of the agreement. In fact, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent confirmed having “financial issues” and that it offered the Claimant an amicable settlement by transferring various players to the Claimant, which offer had been explicitly rejected by the Claimant in its correspondence of 3 July 2015. 7. Having duly examined the argumentation and documentation put forward by the parties in the present matter, the Single Judge first of all concluded that the Respondent did not dispute that it still owed the Claimant the amount of EUR 2,125,000 on the basis of art. 2.1.) of the agreement. In this respect, the Single Judge emphasised that the rights of the Claimant could not be affected by the financial situation of the Respondent and that the Claimant was under no obligation to accept the proposal made by the Respondent on 11 May 2015. Consequently, the Single Judge determined that, in accordance with the basic legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Respondent has to pay the Claimant the aforementioned amount of EUR 2,125,000. 8. In continuation, the Single Judge addressed the remaining requests of the Claimant, namely, its requests that the Respondent is condemned to pay a fine corresponding to EUR 2,000 per day as a “penalty clause” as well as interest as from 1 January 2015 until the effective payment. 9. Having duly examined art. 2.3.) of the agreement, the Single Judge considered that he could not grant the Claimant’s request for a “penalty” of EUR 2,000 per day of delay. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the “penalty” of EUR 2,000 per day of delay was to be applied “until the amount [of EUR 2,125,000] is fully paid”. As such, the Single Judge was of the view that said construction should rather be considered as default interest, which, in the present matter corresponds to an interest rate of more than 35% per year. The Single Judge found such an interest rate excessive and, in view of the fact that the Claimant also requested interest on the outstanding amount, decided to award 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 2,125,000 as from 1 January 2015 until the date of effective payment. 10. On account of all the above, the Single Judge determined that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the total amount of EUR 2,125,000, plus an interest at a rate of 5% per year on the said amount as from 1 January 2015 until the date of effective payment. 11. 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). 12. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the Claimant’s claim is only partially accepted, the Single Judge concluded that both the Claimant as well as the Respondent have to bear a part of the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 13. 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 2,125,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 14. In conclusion, and considering the particularities of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 20,000. Furthermore, and in line with his aforementioned considerations and taking into account the degree of success, the Single Judge decided that the amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid by the Claimant and the amount of CHF 15,000 by the Respondent. ***** 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, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, the total amount of EUR 2,125,000 plus an interest at a rate of 5% per year on the said amount from 1 January 2015 until the date of effective payment. 3. If the aforementioned sum, 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. 4. 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: 4.1 The amount of CHF 15,000 have 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 4.2 The amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid to the Claimant, Club A. 5. The Claimant, Club A, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club C, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under point 2. and 4.2 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 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 Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives