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 16 March 2016, 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 16 March 2016, 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 28 August 2015, the club from country B, Club A (hereinafter: Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: Respondent), signed a transfer agreement (hereinafter: the loan agreement), for the temporary transfer of the player from country B, Player E (hereinafter: the player), from the Claimant to the Respondent until 30 June 2016. 2. According to art. 2 of the loan agreement, the parties agreed upon a transfer fee of EUR 150,000 net for the loan of the player, from which 5% shall be deducted for the distribution of the solidarity contribution, thus totalling the amount of EUR 142,500 net to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant by 21 September 2015. 3. Art. 2 of the loan agreement also provided that in the event of non-payment by the Respondent within the aforementioned deadline, the latter shall pay a penalty equivalent to 5% of the transfer fee. 4. On 15 October 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of the nonpayment of the amount of EUR 150,000, granting said club a deadline of ten days to remedy the default. 5. On 20 October 2015, the Respondent informed the Claimant that it would proceed to the payment of the amount due as soon as the National Bank of country D provides them a “special permission” for such international payment. 6. On 21 October 2015, the Claimant requested the Respondent to set an estimated date on which it should receive the relevant “special permission”. In reply, on 23 October 2015, the Respondent estimated that it should take two weeks at the latest. 7. By correspondence dated 4 November 2015, the Claimant sent a final default notice to the Respondent, setting a deadline of ten days to proceed to the payment of EUR 150,000, otherwise the Claimant would seize FIFA. 8. On 26 November 2015, the Claimant lodged a complaint before FIFA against the Respondent, explaining that the latter had still not paid the transfer fee in the amount of EUR 142,500 for the loan of the player as well as the penalty of 5% of the transfer fee due to the non-payment within the agreed time-limit. 9. As a result, the Claimant claimed from the Respondent the total amount of EUR 150,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as “from the date of the breach of the Loan Agreement”. The Claimant also requested the imposition of sporting sanctions on the Respondent as per art. 12bis of FIFA Regulations and all legal costs incurred by the Claimant to be paid by the Respondent. 10. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not provide its position as to the matter at stake. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter also referred to as: the Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with 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 (edition 2015). Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 26 November 2015, thus after the aforementioned rules entered into force (1 April 2015), the Single Judge concluded that the 2015 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) was applicable to the matter in hand. 2. 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 2015 edition 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 26 November 2015. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2015 edition of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter as to the substance. 3. 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 lit. f) 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 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 case as well as the documents contained in the file. 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. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the parties had signed a transfer agreement on 28 August 2015, according to which the player would be loaned by the Claimant to the Respondent until 30 June 2016 for the amount of EUR 142,500 net to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant by 21 September 2015. 6. Likewise, the Single Judge observed that the loan agreement provided a penalty equivalent to 5% of the transfer fee in case of non-payment by the Respondent within the stated time-limit. 7. Thereafter, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, stating that the Respondent had paid neither the transfer fee for the loan of the player, nor the penalty for the default of payment of the said transfer fee. 8. The Single Judge further underlined that the Respondent had been given the opportunity to reply to the claim submitted by the Claimant, but that the Respondent had failed to present its response in this respect. In this way, the Single Judge deemed that the Respondent renounced to its right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 9. Bearing in mind the aforementioned, the Single Judge concurred that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, he shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 10. In view of the above, and starting with the amount of compensation claimed by the Claimant under article 2 of the loan agreement, the Single Judge pointed out that it remained uncontested that such an amount, which represented the transfer compensation agreed upon between the parties for the loan of the player, was never paid by the Respondent. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of EUR 142,500 was still outstanding and should therefore be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant in compliance with the loan agreement. 11. The Single Judge then turned his attention to the request of the Claimant as to the penalty of 5% over the transfer compensation. In this respect, after having once more analysed the content of article 2 of the loan agreement and in view of the total amount of transfer compensation agreed between the parties, i.e. EUR 150,000 including the 5% solidarity contribution, the Single Judge deemed that it was uncontested by the Respondent that the Claimant was entitled to a penalty fee in the amount of EUR 7,500, in addition to the payment of the transfer compensation of EUR 142,500. 12. As to the Claimant’s claim relating to “5% interest p.a. as from the date of the breach of the Loan Agreement”, and in consideration of the above-mentioned point II.11 and the well-established jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee, the Single Judge decided to reject such request insofar as the parties did not seem to have contractually agreed upon a default interest in addition to the aforementioned penalty fee. 13. Subsequently, considering that the Claimant requested legal expenses, the Single Judge referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to Players’ Status Committee’s long-standing and well-established jurisprudence, in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Players’ Status Committee. Consequently, the Single Judge decided to reject the Claimant’s request relating to legal expenses. 14. On account 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 150,000, i.e. EUR 142,500 as outstanding transfer compensation and EUR 7,500 as penalty for default of payment as per art. 2 of the loan agreement. 15. Finally and for the sake of good order, the Single Judge turned his attention to the Claimant’s request relating to the imposition of sporting sanctions on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis of the Regulations. In this respect, the Single Judge decided that said article was not applicable to the matter at hand and thus rejected the Claimant’s request in this regard. 16. 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). 17. On account of the above, and considering that the claim of the Claimant had been partially accepted and that the Respondent was the party at fault, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent had to bear the entire 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. 18. On that basis, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings was EUR 150,000. Consequently and taking into account that the total amount in dispute in the present matter was over CHF 150,000 and below CHF 200,000, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponded to CHF 20,000. 19. In conclusion, and in view of the particular circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 20,000 and decided that such amount had 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 A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, Club A, the total amount of EUR 150,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision. 3. In the event that the aforementioned amount is not paid within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any other claims lodged by the Claimant, Club A, are rejected. 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 notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1 The amount of CHF 16,000 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 5.2 The amount of CHF 4,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant, Club A. 6. The Claimant, Club A, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club C, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 5.2 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 art. 58 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: Marco Villiger Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives