F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee / Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori – club vs club disputes / controversie tra società – (2017-2018) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 6 March 2018

Decision of the

Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 6 March 2018,

by

Geoff Thompson (England)

Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee,

on the matter between the club,

Club A, Country B

as Claimant

and the club,

Club C, Country D

as Respondent

regarding a contractual dispute between the parties

and relating to the player, Player E

I. Facts of the case

1. On 8 September 2012, the player of Country B, Player E (hereinafter: the player) and the club of Country B, Club A (hereinafter: Club A or Claimant) concluded an employment agreement, valid as from 9 September 2012 and 8 September 2017, according to which the player was entitled to receive a monthly salary of 40,000 in the currency of Country B (approximately EUR 15,556 on 8 September 2012).

2. On 28 May 2015, the player was loaned by Club A to the club of Country B, Club F, for the period between 21 May 2015 and 30 November 2015, in order to provide him ‘with more experience’.

3. On 17 September 2015, the club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: Club C or Respondent) made an offer to Club A for the transfer of the player on a loan basis to its club.

4. On 18 September 2015, Club A allegedly terminated the loan of the player with Club F, ‘so that the player could be transferred to Club C’.

5. On 20 September 2015, Club A and Club C signed an agreement (hereinafter: the loan agreement), by means of which the player was loaned by Club A ‘free of charge’ to Club C for the period between 21 September 2015 and 30 June 2016.

6. Article 5.6 of the loan agreement stipulates as follows: ‘It is hereby agreed between the Parties that in any case of infringement of the Agreement by any Part, the Part who infringe the agreement shall be obliged to pay to the other, the amount of EUR 1,000,000.00 (one million euros) as an agreed compensation without the need to prove any damages’.

7. Article 5.7 of the loan agreement holds the following clause: ‘Club C and/or the player cannot terminate this instrument or the new player contract without the formal written consent of Club A, otherwise Club C will have to pay to Club A, gross wages of player stipulated in the employment agreement signed between player and Club A, in the period between the termination date and the date of 30.06.2015, and also pay the fine stipulated in clause 5.6’.

8. Moreover, article 16.4 of the loan agreement stipulates the following: ‘This agreement shall come into effect upon signature (and, if applicable, seal) of the parties’.

9. What is more, also on 20 September 2015, Club C and the player signed an employment contract, valid between 21 September 2015 and 30 June 2016.

10. Article 13 of the employment contract holds the following clause: ‘This contract shall be deemed valid on signature by the two parties and after the player registered with the Football Association of Country D to this the two parties and witnesses have signed on the day and date specified above’.

11. Club A holds to have completed the administrative procedure in the Transfer Matching System (TMS) on 21 September 2015, 2:47 a.m. However, on 21 September 2015 in the evening, it noted that Club C had not yet confirmed the transfer of the player in the TMS.

12. What is more, also on 21 September 2015, Club A received an email from Club C, in which it explained that it ‘cancelled the TMS procedure because the player did not arrive to Country D at 21/09/2015 which was mentioned in the contract so we could not have time to finish our internal procedures with Football Association of Country D’.

13. Furthermore, according to Club A on 21 September 2015, Club C sent a letter to Club A, in which it explained that the player did not join Club C ‘till this moment (22/09/2015), which make a great violation for the triple loan agreement signed by the parties’. Furthermore, Club C pointed out that ‘our triple loan agreement is terminated because of the essential violation by the player for not coming in the agreed date for registration, which was agreed in loan agreement’.

14. As a result of the foregoing, Club A holds that Club C unilaterally terminated both the loan agreement and the employment contract with the player without just cause. In addition, Club A holds to have put Club C in default on 23 September, 1 October and 6 November 2015, urging it to comply with the loan agreement or to pay the amount overdue as per article 5.6 of the transfer agreement, however to no avail.

15. On 14 December 2015, Club A lodged a claim against Club C in front of FIFA, requesting the payment of the following amounts:

 EUR 1,000,000, based on article 5.6 of the transfer agreement, as compensation for the unilateral termination of the transfer agreement, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 September 2015;

 EUR 105,235 as ‘mandatory labor benefits, that is, 13th salary, vacation and bonus, which Club A will have to pay during the months the player would be under the transfer agreement with Club C’, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 September 2015. Club A specifies the amount of EUR 105,235 as follows:

- 1 partial salary in the amount of 13,333.33 in the currency of Country B related to the period between 21 September 2016 and 30 September 2016;

- 9 monthly salaries of 40,000 in the currency of Country B related to the period between October 2016 and June 2017;

- a proportional amount of 20,000 in the currency of Country B as 13th instalment and a proportional amount of 44,444.45 in the currency of Country B as vacation remuneration.

Club A explains that the abovementioned amounts correspond to the total amount of 437,777.78 in the currency of Country B or, on 10 December 2015, corresponding to EUR 105,235. In addition, Club A requests for sporting sanctions to be imposed on Club C, as well as that Club C has to pay procedural costs.

16. In its claim, Club A points out that the reason brought forward by Club C to not complete the player’s transfer on loan in the TMS, cannot be upheld. In this respect, Club A explains that the loan agreement does not hold a clause ‘requiring the athlete to be at the territory of Country D on September 21, 2015’. Moreover, Club A argues that the player did not need to be ‘physically present’ in order for Club C to enter the correct data in the TMS.

17. Finally, Club A argues that Club C’s arguments that the player had to enter the territory of the Country D in order to be able ‘to register in the Football Association of Country D’ cannot be upheld, as these administrative formalities are solely at the risk of Club C.

18. In its reply dated 17 March 2016 to Club A’ claim, Club C explains that it wanted to sign a new striker ‘before the end of the Transfer Window in the Country D by Monday 21st of September 2015, by 5:00 pm’, and that ‘whoever the nominated player is, his ability to relocate in the city of Country D, before the deadline of the transfer windows, is a must’. According to Club C, the player was ready and ‘capable to relocate to the Country D immediately […]’.

19. According to Club C, on 17 September 2015, it sent an offer for concluding a loan agreement to Club A, which informed Club C on 18 September 2017 that it agreed with said loan offer.

20. Furthermore, Club C highlights that in the period between 18 September and 20 September 2015, it further negotiated with Club A the exact conditions of the loan. Moreover, Club C points out that it spoke to the player’s agent, Player’s agent G, and re-confirmed that the player needed to be in the Country D by Sunday 20th of September 2015, at the latest.

21. In continuation, Club C explains that on 20 September 2015, it signed the definitive loan agreement and that on this day, the player ‘has already confirmed the terms of his employment agreement’. Moreover, Club C holds that the player confirmed that he would arrive ‘before Monday the 21st of September 2015 to execute his obligations as a professional football player’ and that for this reason, both the loan agreement and the employment contract started on 21 September 2015.

22. With regard to the arrival of the player in the Country D, Club C argues that the player postponed his arrival twice and that this caused serious problems, as ‘the Football Association of Country D regulations requires attaching the entry stamp into the Country D of the player’s passport to finalize the registration’. After Club C found out that the player had delayed his arrival in the Country D for the third time, until 22 September 2015, it concluded that ‘the very reason of the loan agreement is now futile and entirely defeated, as it will be impossible for the player to be entitled to play with Club C’.

23. As a result, Club C argues that – due to the player’s failure to arrive by 21 September 2015, 5:00 pm at the latest, which was allegedly one of the most important contractual obligations – it had no other choice than to terminate the loan agreement.

24. Moreover, Club C argues that – despite the player having failed to arrive in the Country D – it tried to complete the registration of the player. In this respect, Club C refers to the fact that on 21 September 2015, at 3:55 pm and 4:18 pm, it tried to register the player in the registration system for transfers in the Country D, however said registration could not be finished, ‘due to the absence of the entry permit stamp on the player passport’. Moreover, Club C states that the registration system in the Country D indicated the following: ‘Please attach the entry permit stamp on the passport’.

25. In this respect, Club C holds that the fact that it ‘tried to proceed with the registration of the player in the Football Association of Country D is a sufficient proof of Club C’s good will, intent and need to get the player’. Moreover, Club C states that it ‘was badly damaged on the sports level due to the unprofessionalism’ of the player.

26. With respect to the claim of Club A, Club C argues that the clause on which Club A bases its claim for the payment of EUR 1,000,000 (article 5.6 of the loan agreement), should be read in the whole context of the agreement.

27. In view of the foregoing, Club C considers the penalty amount of article 5.6 of the loan agreement as disproportionate, also because the loan transfer of the player was ‘free of charge’.

28. Moreover, Club C indicated that Club A did not suffer ‘losses serious enough to justify such a high penalty’, because:

- the real value of the loan contract for Club A only amounts to EUR 105,235 as ‘gross wages salary for the player from 21 September 2015 t0 30 June 2016 […] that Club A would have saved’ and;

- the player was loaned to the club of Country B, Club H, between January 2016 and 31 December 2016, as a result of which Club A only had to pay salaries to the player in the months of October, November and December 2015.

29. As a result of the foregoing, Club C requests subsidiarily, in case the DRC would conclude that the loan agreement was terminated without just cause, to reduce the penalty to 20% of EUR 1,000,000.

30. In addition, regarding the wording of clause 5.7 of the loan agreement, Club C argues that it follows from said clause that if Club C would have terminated the contract without just cause, quod non, it would only need to pay ‘the gross wages salaries from the termination date (21.09.2015) to 30.06.2015’ (cf. point II.42 below). Said amount is to be considered reasonable and proportionate, according Club C.

31. Moreover, Club C argues that the player was on loan with Club F at least between 30 June 2015 and 21 September 2015, in which period he was entitled to receive a salary of 30,000 in the currency of Country B, and that the player’s salary with Club A amounted to 40,000 in the currency of Country B. As a result, Club C considers that Club A effectively only paid the player a salary of 10,000 in the currency of Country B, for the period between 30 June 2015 and 21 September 2015 in total amounting to 30,000 in the currency of Country B or EUR 7,145. Said amount should, according to Club C, be taken into account as indemnification based on article 5.7 of the loan agreement.

32. In conclusion, Club C primarily requests for the rejection of Club A’ claim, as well as that Club A should be ordered to pay procedural costs and legal expenses ‘beard by Club C’. Subsidiary, Club C requests for the reduction of the penalty amount of EUR 1,000,000 to ‘a maximum of 20%’ and to rule ‘the indemnification based on article 5.7 be applied’.

33. In its replica, Club A explained that the fact that the player did not arrive in the Country D on 21 September 2015 cannot be considered as a just cause to terminate the loan agreement. This is due to the fact that there was no contractual provision included in the loan agreement, requiring the player to be in the territory of the Country D on 21 September 2015. What is more, according to Club A, Club C is responsible for taking all necessary measures during a player’s transfer in order to comply with the regulations of the Football Association of Country D.

34. Moreover, Club A states that Club C’s allegation that it verbally informed Player’s agent G that the player should be present in the Country D on 21 September 2015 ‘has no relation with Club A whatsoever’.

35. In addition, Club A explains that the alleged fact that the Football Association of Country D regulations do not allow a club to register a player if he is not present in the Country D does not render the loan agreement and the employment contract without effect.

36. Regarding the clauses in article 5.6 and 5.7 of the loan agreement, Club A argues that these clauses are valid and binding to the parties, as said clauses were discussed and agreed upon between them. Subsequently, Club A states that the ratio behind the penalty clause in article 5.6 of the loan agreement is ‘to encourage compliance with contractual obligations’. Moreover, according to Club A, the compensation clause in article 5.7 aims at ‘replacing the calculation of the losses of the general terms set out in the contract, creating an appropriate legal certainty, in order that it is not committed’.

37. Furthermore, Club A argues that the penalty clause in article 5.6 cannot be considered as excessive, as said clause ‘reflects an amount absolutely payable in the football market, especially for clubs of Country D, and also it is not even close to the amount of a transfer fee that Club A could get for the player […]’.

38. In its duplica, Club C argues that article 17 of the FIFA Regulations is only applicable to disputes between clubs and players, and not to disputes between two clubs. As a result, Club C argues that whatever the outcome of the case may be, no sporting sanctions can be imposed on Club C.

39. In addition, Club C states that it acted bona fide during the negotiations, because (1) it signed the employment contract and sent it to the player before he left Country B and (2) because it deposited the player’s visa to enter the Country D at the airport on 20 September 2015.

40. Moreover, Club C referred to article 119 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, which stipulates as follows: ‘An obligation is deemed extinguished where its performance is made impossible by circumstances not attributable to the obligor’. Based on this article, Club C deems that the execution of both the contract and the loan agreement became impossible ‘by circumstances not attributable to Club C’ and that it terminated the loan agreement with just cause.

41. Further, Club C reiterates that the clause in article 5.6 of the loan agreement is disproportionate and referred to the following aspects:

- the duration of the agreement (which was to run for 9 months) and the gravity of non-compliance (as it allegedly did everything that was in its power to ‘welcome the player’);

- the violation itself (Club C holds that there is no intentional or mala fide violation) and the effective damages (Club A only suffered losses amounting to EUR 29,880 as salaries for October, November and December 2015);

- the proportionality between the damages and the penalty amount (in this specific matter, according to Club C, the damages amount to EUR 29,880 and the penalty amounts to EUR 1,000,000).

42. In relation to article 5.7 of the loan agreement, Club C argues that Club A’ request to receive the amount of EUR 105,235, corresponding to the salaries between 21 September 2015 and 30 June 2016 cannot be upheld, as the clause in article 5.7 only refers to the date of 30 June 2015. Finally, Club C concludes that ‘the effective real cost for Club A in relation to the termination of the loan agreement is EUR 29,880’.

43. In conclusion, Club C reiterates its primary request, but amends its subsidiary request, requesting:

- to reduce the penalty under clause 5.6 of the loan agreement ‘to a sum considered to be proportional […]’;

- to decide that the indemnification based on article 5.7 can only be applied to the period between the termination date and 30 June 2015, or to the period between 21 September 2015 and 31 December 2015.

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 present matter. In this respect, he took note that the matter was submitted to FIFA on 14 December 2015. Consequently, the 2015 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter in hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).

2. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 in combination with art. 22 lit. f) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2015, 2016 and 2018), he is competent to deal with the matter at sake since it concerns a dispute between two clubs affiliated to two different associations.

3. Furthermore, 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 confirmed that in accordance to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the 2015, 2016 and 2018 editions of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and considering that the present claim was lodged with FIFA on 14 December 2015, the 2015 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the present matter as to the substance.

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. The Single Judge however 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 of all, the Single Judge acknowledged that Club A, being of the opinion that a valid transfer agreement has been concluded with Club C for the transfer of the player, claims the amount of EUR 1,105,235 plus interest to be paid by Club C. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that Club A had provided FIFA with a copy of the transfer agreement for the transfer of the player, duly signed by Club A, Club C and the player, which stipulated, inter alia, the following:

- “Club A hereby agrees to release ATHLETE [the player] to Club C free of charge in accordance with the provisions as set out in this Agreement”;

[…]

- “5.6 It is hereby agreed between the Parties that in any case of infringement of the Agreement by any Part, the Part who infringe the agreement shall be obliged to pay to the other, the amount of EUR 1,000,000.00 (one million euros) as an agreed compensation without the need to prove any damages”;

[…]

- “5.7 Club C and/or the player cannot terminate this instrument or the new player contract without the formal written consent of Club A, otherwise Club C will have to pay to Club A, gross wages of player stipulated in the employment agreement signed between player and Club A, in the period between the termination date and the date of 30.06.2015, and also pay the fine stipulated in clause 5.6”;

[…]

- “16.4 This agreement shall come into effect upon signature (and, if applicable, seal) of the parties”.

Consequently, according to Club A, Club C breached a valid loan agreement concluded between the parties by terminating it on 22 September 2015, alleging the impossibility to register the player in the Country D and to execute the loan agreement and the employment contract. Club A argues that the reasons given by Club C for not respecting the loan agreement cannot be upheld and, as a consequence, Club C needs to pay a contractual penalty as well as compensation for the breach of the loan agreement.

6. As for Club C’s position with regard to the claim, the Single Judge noted that the latter had argued that it had validly terminated the loan agreement on 22 September 2015, since the player had not arrived on the territory of the Country D by 21 September 2015. In this respect, Club C points out that since the player did not timely arrive in the Country D, he did not get an entry stamp in his passport, and as a result, could not validly be registered with the Football Association of Country D. Consequently, Club C deemed that the execution of the transfer agreement – and of the employment contract – became impossible and that it had a valid reason to unilaterally terminate said agreement on 22 September 2015. In conclusion, FIFA should primarily reject the claim of Club A.

7. On account of the above, the Single Judge considered that he first had to determine whether or not a transfer agreement had been validly concluded between Club A and Club C for the transfer of the player.

8. In this respect, the Single Judge first of all wished to point out that, in order for a transfer agreement to be considered as valid and binding, apart from the signature of all parties involved, it should contain the essentialia negotii of a legal agreement, such as the parties to the contract and their role in the transfer of the player, the date of the transfer, whether the transfer was made on a loan or definitive basis, and the eventual compensation payable by the buying party to the selling party, if any.

9. After a careful study of the transfer agreement, the Single Judge concluded that all such essential elements are included in the pertinent transfer agreement, in particular, the valid signature of all parties and the fact that the contract establishes that on 21 September 2015, the player would be transferred from Club A to Club C, on loan basis and free of charge, for the period between 21 September 2015 and 30 June 2016.

10. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the transfer agreement, in article 16.4, clearly stipulates that it shall be valid upon signature and, if applicable, seal of the parties involved, as well as that the last page of the transfer agreement, contains the signatures of Club A, Club C and the player. What is more, the transfer agreement does not hold any further clauses providing for conditions that needed to be fulfilled in order for the transfer agreement to be valid. In particular, the transfer agreement does not hold a clause stipulating that the player needed to be present on the territory of the Country D by no later than 21 September 2015 and/or needed to be validly registered in the Country D, in order for the transfer agreement to be valid.

11. On account of the above, the Single Judge concluded that the loan agreement not only contains all the essentialia negotii but it also fulfils the only condition for validity stipulated in it – in article 16.4 –, namely it contains the signatures of all contracting parties. It is uncontested that Club C did not comply with the terms of the loan agreement, as it terminated it on 22 September 2015, for the reasons previously mentioned related to the player’s non-registration with the Football Association of Country D, which is not a condition for the validity of the loan agreement.

12. At this point, the Single Judge pointed out that the parties agreed upon a transfer on loan without the payment of any compensation. However, he also noted that two clauses were inserted in the agreement, stipulating the consequences of a breach of the agreement, i.e. clauses 5.6 and 5.7, upon which Club A bases its claim. In particular, Club A requests that Club C be held liable to pay compensation of EUR 1,000,000 as laid down in article 5.6 of the transfer agreement, as well as the amount of EUR 105,235 as mandatory labor benefits it had to pay to the player, after the transfer agreement was not executed, based on article 5.7 of the transfer agreement.

13. First of all, the Single Judge noted that based on article 5.6 of the transfer agreement, “in any case of infringement of the agreement by any part”, the infringing party had to pay an amount of EUR 1,000,000 to the other party without the need to prove any damages. The Single Judge acknowledged the arguments of both parties in respect of this clause and, after analysing the relevant provision contained in the transfer agreement, concluded that the payment of a lump sum of EUR 1,000,000, triggered by any type of non-compliance with the agreement, without any need to prove actual damages, in relation to a loan without any monetary value, is to be considered as manifestly disproportionate and exorbitant, and as such, cannot be enforced.

14. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed the contents of article 5.7 of the transfer agreement, and noted that said article provides for the obligation of Club C to compensate Club A for the remuneration it had to pay to the player between the termination date of the transfer agreement and 30 June “2015”, in case Club C would terminate the transfer agreement during its course. First of all, the Single Judge understood that said clause contained a clerical mistake, and the real intention of both parties was to establish the date of 30 June 2016 instead of 30 June 2015, as the transfer agreement was only signed on 20 September 2015, that is, almost three months after the date of 30 June 2015, and was valid until 30 June 2016.

15. In addition, taking into account that the parties had agreed upon a transfer free of charge, the fact that the contents of article 5.7 were expressly stipulated in the transfer agreement and agreed upon by both parties, as well as the fact that the clause establishes an amount which the Single Judge considered as a proportionate estimation of the actual damages suffered by Club A, the Single Judge decided that such clause was indeed applicable to the case at hand.

16. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that, from the employment agreement concluded between Club A and the player on 8 September 2012 and valid until 8 September 2017, it can be established that the value of said contract in the period between 22 September 2015 and 30 June 2016 amounted to 372,000 in the currency of Country B.

17. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that Club A claimed an amount of EUR 105,235 as compensation for the damages it allegedly suffered based on article 5.7 of the agreement. The Single Judge however was eager to emphasise that, in accordance with the well-established jurisprudence in this respect, he cannot grant any damages allegedly suffered by Club A in EUR, as Club A and the player had agreed upon payment of the player’s remuneration in currency of Country B.

18. In conclusion, the Single Judge decided to partially accept the claim of Club A and determined that the penalty clause contained in article 5.6 of the transfer agreement concluded between the parties should be disregarded and that, as an alternative and in accordance with article 5.7 of the transfer agreement, Club C is liable to pay to Club A the total amount of 372,000 in the currency of Country B, plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from the date Club A’ claim was lodged, i.e. 14 December 2015, until the date of effective payment.

19. 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).

20. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the claim of Club A had been partially accepted, the Single Judge concluded that both Club A as well as Club C had to bear a part of the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA.

21. 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 1,105,235. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000.

22. In conclusion, and considering that the case at hand did pose some particular factual difficulties, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 22,000. Moreover, in line with his aforementioned considerations and taking into account the degree of success of the parties, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of CHF 7,000 has to be paid by Club A and the amount of CHF 15,000 by the Club C, to cover the costs of the present proceedings.

III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee

1. The claim of Claimant, Club A, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of 372,000 in the currency of Country B, plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 14 December 2015 until the date of effective payment.

3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned number 2. is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA 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 22,000 are to be paid, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, as follows:

5.1. The amount of CHF 7,000 has to be paid by the Claimant, of which CHF 5,000 have already been paid as advance of costs. Consequently, the amount of CHF 2,000 is to be paid by the Claimant.

5.2. The amount of CHF 15,000 has to be paid by the Respondent.

5.3. The above-mentioned amounts in points 5.1 and 5.2 have to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case XXX:

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 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

For the Single Judge of the

Players’ Status Committee:

Omar Ongaro

Football Regulatory Director

Encl. CAS Directives