F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee / Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori – players’ and match agents disputes / controversie agenti di calciatori – (2020-2021) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 January 2021

Decision of the

Single Judge of the Players' Status Committee

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 January 2021,

regarding a contractual dispute concerning the player Saba LOBJANIDZE

BY:

Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member

CLAIMANT:

RANDERS FC, Denmark

Represented by Mr. Jesper Hansen

RESPONDENT:

MKE ANKARAGUCU, Turkey

Represented by Mr. Yasar Tolgu Bozkurt

I. FACTS

1. On 29 January 2020, the Claimant and the Respondent signed a transfer agreement for the transfer of the player Saba Lobjanidze from the Claimant to the Respondent for an amount of EUR 175,000, to be paid in two instalments as follows:

- EUR 87,500 on 1 February 2020;

- EUR 87,500 on 1 March 2020.

2. In addition, the transfer agreement stipulates that ‘any late payment is subject to a 10% interest fee per year’.

3. What is more, the transfer agreement also stipulates that ‘when the player has played in 10 official games for ASK, RFC will invoice EUR 25,000. Payment within a week of receiving invoice’.

4. Moreover, the transfer agreement holds a clause stipulating that ‘if ASK (i.e. the Respondent) does not get relegated in the 20192020 season a further EUR 25,000 is to be paid from ASK to RFC (i.e. the Claimant), RFC will send invoice when it is a mathematical certainty that ASK cannot get relegated. Payment within a week after receiving the invoice’.

5. On 8 July 2020, the Claimant sent an invoice to the Respondent for the amount of EUR 25,000 with a payment date of 15 July 2020, because the player was fielded in 10 official matches for the Respondent. According to the Claimant, said amount was only paid on 16 September 2020.

6. On 5 August 2020, the Claimant sent an invoice to the Respondent for the amount of EUR 25,000, as on 29 July 2020, the Turkish Super Lig ‘cancelled relegation for the season 2019/2020’.

7. On 6 August 2020, the Respondent answered that it was not relegated due to ‘the decision of the TFF Board of Directors’ and that therefore, the amount of EUR 25,000 is not owed to the Claimant.

8. On 17 September, 2 October and 19 October 2020, the Claimant put the Respondent inter alia in default for the amount of EUR 25,000 as bonus payment for not getting relegated, the last time, on 9 October 2020, providing a 10 days’ deadline to remedy its default, however to no avail.

9. On 13 November 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent, claiming the following amounts:

- EUR 25,000 as conditional transfer fee for the Respondent not getting relegated in the season 2019/2020, plus 10% interest p.a. on said amount as from 15 July 2020 until the date of effective payment;

- 10% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 87,500 as second instalment of the transfer fee as from 1 March 2020 until 31 March 2020;

- 10% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 25,000 as bonus for the player being fielded in 10 official games as from 15 July 2020 until 16 September 2020.

10. The Claimant further clarifies that the interest as per the points 2. and 3. above amounts in total to EUR 1,749.16 as of 6 November 2020.

11. In its claim, the Claimant explains that the Respondent in both the 2019/2020 and the 2020/2021 season played in the highest Turkish league, the Turkey Super Lig.

12. Therefore, the Claimant is of the opinion that is entitled to the amount of EUR 25,000 as the Respondent did not get relegated. In this respect, the Claimant argues that ‘in the transfer agreement there is no league position tied to the bonus payment but only the fact that if the Respondent don’t get relegated the Claimant is entitled to a bonus payment’.

13. Also, the Claimant points out that the second instalment of the transfer fee in the amount of EUR 87,500 was only paid on 31 March 2020, whereas it had to be paid on 1 March 2020, as a result of which it is entitled to 10% interest on the amount of EUR 87,500 for the period between 1 March and 31 March 2020.

14. Moreover, the Claimant argues that the amount of EUR 25,000, for the player being fielded in 10 official matches, was only paid on 16 September 2020, whereas it had to be paid on 15 July 2020, as a result of which it is entitled to 10% interest on the amount of EUR 25,000 for the period between 15 July 2020 and 16 September 2020.

15. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent argues that its club ‘did not achieve sportive success and fell into a lower league at the end of the 2019-2020 season’, as it finished on the last place in the table of Turkish Super Lig in the 2019/2020 season.

16. In addition, the Respondent argues that the TFF decided on 29 July 2020 to continue competing in the Super League in the 2020-2021 season for all teams that were dropped from the Super League due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Note: a copy of a screenshot from a website dated 29 July 2020 confirming said circumstance, is on file). As a result, the Respondent deems that the bonus to stay in the league should not be paid, as it was not the result of sportive success.

17. Moreover, the Respondent argues that it paid the second instalment of EUR 87,500 on 30 March 2020 to the Claimant.

II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE PSC

1. First of all, the Single Judge of the PSC (hereinafter also referred to as Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the June 2020 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.

2. Subsequently, the Single Judge of the PSC referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and emphasised that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. f) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Single Judge of the PSC is competent to deal with matters which concern employment-related disputes with an international dimension between two clubs affiliated to different associations.

3. In continuation, the Single Judge of the PSC analysed which edition of the Regulations of the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable to the present matter. In this respect, the Single Judge of the PSC confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and considering that the claim was lodged on 26 October 2020, the June 2020 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand.

4. With the above having been established, the Single Judge of the PSC entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, it started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. However, the Single Judge of the PSC emphasized that in the following considerations it will refer only to facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

5. Having said this, the Single Judge of the PSC acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed a transfer agreement for the transfer of the player Saba Lobjanidize from the Claimant to the Respondent for an amount of EUR 175,000, payable in two instalments of EUR 87,500 each, the first one on 1 February 2020 and the second one on 1 March 2020.

6. Moreover, the parties agreed upon a bonus for non-relegation of the Respondent for an amount of EUR 25,000, as well as a bonus payment of EUR 25,000, in case the player would play in 10 official games or more for the Respondent.

7. The Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, maintaining that the Respondent has overdue payables towards him in the total amount of EUR 25,000 (bonus for not getting relegated), plus 10% interest p.a. on said amount as from 15 July 2020. Furthermore, the Claimant also asked 10% interest p.a. on the amounts of EUR 87,500 for the period between 1 March and 31 March 2020, as well as on the amount of EUR 25,000 (bonus for playing in 10 official games) for the period between 15 July and 16 September 2020.

8. In this context, the Single Judge of the PSC took particular note of the fact that, on 17 September 2 October and 9 October 2020, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the

aforementioned amounts, on 9 October 2020 setting a time limit expiring on 19 October 2020 in order to remedy the default.

9. Consequently, the Single Judge of the PSC concluded that the Claimant had duly proceeded in accordance with art. 12bis par. 3 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the creditor (player or club) must have put the debtor club in default in writing and have granted a deadline of at least ten days for the debtor club to comply with its financial obligation(s).

10. Subsequently, the Single Judge of the PSC took into account that the Respondent, for its part, held that the sell-on fee of the sell-on fee is not due, as the Respondent was relegated because of its lack of sportive success, but that only as per the decision of the TFF, it was granted permission to continue to compete in the Turkish Super League in the 2020-2021 season. What is more, the Respondent explained that it paid the second instalment of EUR 87,500 already on 30 March 2020.

11. In this regard, and taking into account the documentation presented by the Respondent in its defence, the Single Judge of the PSC decided to partially accept the arguments put forward by the Respondent.

12. First of all, the clause referring to the 10% interest p.a. in case of late payment appears to only refer to a possible late payment of the two instalments of EUR 87,500 each, and can therefore not be applied to any other amounts claimed.

13. Furthermore, in accordance with the documentation submitted by the Respondent it can be noted that the Respondent already paid the amount of EUR 87,500 on 30 March 2020, as a result of which the interest of 10% p.a. should only be awarded for the period between 2 March and 29 March 2020.

14. However, the Single Judge of the PSC deemed that bonus of EUR 25,000 for the Respondent not getting relegated, can be awarded. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the transfer agreement in this respect only stipulates that the condition for said amount falling due, is that the Respondent does not get relegated. The clause does not specify how this “non-relegation” should be achieved (either by means of a sportive performance or a more “technical” decision of the TFF).

15. As a result, also in view of the lack of clarity of said clause, the Single Judge of the PSC decided to accept this part of the claim of the Claimant, and award the amount of EUR 25,000. However, no interest as per the considerations in II./12. shall be awarded.

16. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the Single Judge of the PSC established that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s remuneration in the total amount of EUR 25,000, as well as 10% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 87,500 as from 2 March 2020 until 29 March 2020.

17. In addition, the Single Judge of the PSC established that the Respondent had delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis.

18. Consequently, the Single Judge of the PSC decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant overdue payables in the total amount of EUR 25,000, as well as 10% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 87,500 as from 2 March 2020 until 29 March 2020.

19. Moreover, the Single Judge of the PSC decided that any further request filed by the Claimant is rejected.

20. In continuation, taking into account the consideration under number II./15. above, the Single Judge of the PSC referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations which stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.

21. The Single Judge of the PSC established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations he has competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. Therefore, and in the absence of the circumstance of repeated offence, the Single Judge of the PSC decided to impose a warning on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.

22. In this connection, the Single Judge of the PSC wished to highlight that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty in accordance with art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations.

23. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, the Single Judge of the PSC referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.

24. In this regard, the Single Judge of the PSC pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.

25. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge of the PSC decided that, in the event that the Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

26. Finally, the Single Judge of the PSC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.

REF 20-01651

Page 9 of 10

III. DECISION OF THE PLAYERS' STATUS COMMITTEE

1. The claim of the Claimant, Randers FC, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, MKE Ankaragucu, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amounts:

- EUR 25,000 as outstanding remuneration;

- 10% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 87,500 as from 2 March 2020 until 29 March 2020.

3. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.

4. A warning is imposed on the Respondent.

5. The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.

6. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with this decision to psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).

7. In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the Respondent within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:

 1.

The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods. The aforementioned ban mentioned will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.

(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

2.

In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.

For the Players' Status Committee:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer

NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:

According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.

NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:

FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 20 of the Procedural Rules).

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Fédération Internationale de Football Association

FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland

www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777