F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee / Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori – club vs club disputes / controversie tra società – (2019-2020) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 26 February 2020

Decision of the Single Judge

of the Players’ Status Committee

passed on 26 February 2020,

by

Roy Vermeer (The Netherlands)

Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee,

on the claim presented by the club,

Collins Edwin Sports Club, Nigeria,

represented by Mr Sylvanus Obi

as Claimant

against the

Bursaspor, Turkey,

as Respondent

regarding a contractual dispute in relation to

the player Paschal Onyedika Okoli

I. Facts of the case

1. On 14 July 2017, the Turkish club, Bursaspor (hereinafter: the Claimant or Bursaspor), sent a transfer offer (hereinafter: the offer) to the Nigerian club, Collins Edwin Sports Club (hereinafter: the Respondent or Collins) regarding the definitive transfer of the player, Paschal Onyedika Okoli.

2. In particular, Bursaspor offered to pay to Collins the following:

- EUR 90,000 as transfer fee including training compensation;

- “future sell-on percentage of 15% from player next transfer”.

3. In addition, the Claimant stipulated in the offer that upon receipt of a written acceptance, it would transfer the above-mentioned amount of EUR 90,000 to Collins.

4. On 14 July 2017, Collins replied in writing to the offer (hereinafter: the acceptance letter) specifying that it agreed to the following terms:

- EUR 75,000 as transfer fee;

- EUR 15,000 as training compensation;

- A sell-on of 15%.

5. The Respondent added that upon receipt of the payment it would “issue a receipt on a clearance for the player”.

6. In accordance with the documentation on file, on 14 July 2017, the player and Bursaspor signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2020.

7. On 22 August 2017, Collins put Bursaspor in default, requesting the payment of EUR 90,000 as per the accepted offer, and gave until 31 August 2017 for Bursaspor to pay.

8. On 30 November 2017, Collins reiterated its default, without providing a deadline for payment.

9. On 11 December 2018, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA for outstanding remuneration requesting the total amount of EUR 90,000 as “its own share as transfer fee”.

10. Collins further requested that the procedural costs be at the expense of Bursaspor as well as reimbursement of the advance of costs in the amount of CHF 2,000 and of its legal costs of EUR 10,000.

11. Collins provided the player passport issued by the Nigeria Football Federation alleging that the player was registered with the club as from 1 January 2015 as an amateur until 7 July 2017.

12. In its reply, the Respondent Respondent requested to dismiss the claim in its entirety and that all cost should be borne by Collins.

13. The Respondent argued that the “offers” sent via e-mail to the Claimant did not constitute an actual transfer agreement or official document and therefore the player was transferred without any transfer fee.

14. According to the information available in the Transfer Matching System (hereinafter: TMS), there is no transfer instruction regarding the transfer of the player as a professional from Collins to Bursaspor.

15. According to the information available in the TMS, the first transfer instruction regarding the player was a temporary transfer from Bursaspor to the Bosnian club, NK Celik Zenica, on 10 February 2018. In particular, according to the player’s passport uploaded within said transfer instruction by the Turkish Football Federation, the player was apparently registered as an amateur between 10 February 2017 and 28 July 2017 with Bursaspor, and became a professional with the Respondent on 28 July 2017.

16. According to the information available in the TMS within the transfer instruction regarding the return from loan of the player from the aforementioned Bosnian club to Bursaspor, the employment contract signed between the player and Bursaspor was signed and valid as from 14 July 2017.

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 took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 11 December 2018 and presented for decision on 26 February 2020. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 2019 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 referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 and 4 in combination with art. 22 lit. c) of the January 2020 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he shall adjudicate on an employment-related dispute between two clubs that has an international dimension.

3. As a consequence, the Single Judge is the competent body to decide on the present litigation involving a Nigerian club and a Turkish club regarding an alleged breach of transfer agreement.

4. In continuation, 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 January 2020 edition 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 11 December 2018. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the June 2018 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance (cf. art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations).

5. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started his analysis by acknowledging the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties as well as the documents contained in the file. 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. In particular, the Chamber recalled that, in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in the TMS.

6. In this respect and first of all, the Single Judge acknowledged that, on 14 July 2017, the Respondent an offer to the Claimant, in which it proposed, inter alia, the amount of EUR 90,000 for the registration of the player.

7. In particular, the Single Judge noted that within the offer, Bursaspor stipulated that upon acceptance of the offer, it would proceed to the wiring of EUR 90,000 to the Claimant.

8. What is more, the Single Judge remarked that on 14 July 2017, the Claimant formally accepted the offer.

9. Subsequently, the Single Judge took note that in his initial claim to FIFA, Collins had maintained that despite its default notices, Bursaspor never proceeded to the payment of the EUR 90,000 it had agreed to pay as transfer compensation for the transfer of the player.

10. In continuation, the Single Judge observed that, for its part, the Respondent deemed that the offer sent by email did not constitute a transfer agreement and that as such, no transfer compensation could be due.

11. As a preliminary remark, the Single Judge remarked that it was undisputed between the parties that the Respondent had made a transfer offer to the Claimant on 14 July 2017 for the registration of the player of an amount of EUR 90,000.

12. Then, the Single Judge observed that the transfer of the player was not in TMS. In this respect, the Single Judge referred to art. 1, par. 5 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, according to which “the use of TMS is a mandatory step for all international transfers of professional and amateur players (both male and female) within the scope of eleven-a-side football, and any registration of such a player without the use of TMS will be deemed invalid.”

13. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that it was undisputed that the player signed his first professional contract with Bursaspor on 14 July 2017.

14. Nevertheless, the Single Judge noted that this was in contradiction with the player’s passport issued by the Turkish Football Federation later uploaded within the transfer of the player on loan to NK Celik Zenica on 10 February 2018.

15. Also, the Single Judge remarked that the Turkish Football Federation had indicated that the player was registered as an amateur between 10 February and 28 July 2017 with Bursaspor.

16. In addition, the Single Judge pointed out that the player was, according to the player’s passport of the Nigerian Football Federation, registered with the Claimant until 10 July 2017.

17. In view of the above timeline of events and contradictory information between the player’s passports, the Single Judge determined that, based on the evidence at his disposal, the player was registered with Bursaspor on 14 July 2017.

18. What is more, the Single Judge was keen to highlight that if the player would have indeed been registered since February 2017 with Bursaspor, the Respondent would have had no interest in making a transfer offer on 14 July 2017 in order to secure his registration.

19. Having determined the date of registration with the Respondent, the Single Judge then thoroughly reviewed the offer made by the Respondent to the Claimant on 14 July 2017.

20. In particular, the Single Judge noted that the offer contained the essential terms of a transfer agreement, that is to say a clear and unambiguous offer for financial compensation against the registration of the player. What is more, the Single Judge remarked that the offer was inclusive of training compensation, and that Bursaspor stipulated that upon agreement it would process to the payment of the proposed amount.

21. On the other hand, the Single Judge remarked that Collins had accepted the offer on 14 July 2017, but never received the compensation offered by the Respondent, despite several reminders.

22. Irrelevant of the apparent misuse of TMS by Bursaspor, having not inputted the registration of the player as a professional on 14 July 2017, date of signing of the player’s professional contract, the Single Judge deemed that by offering such terms, the Claimant had a legitimate expectation that upon acceptance of the terms of the offer the Respondent would pay the proposed amount.

23. What is more, the Single Judge emphasized that the legitimate expectation was reinforced by the signing of a professional contract on 14 July 2017 by the player and the Respondent.

24. In view of the above, the Single Judge determined that the offer and its acceptance de facto constituted a valid transfer agreement between the parties, and that as such, the Claimant was entitled to EUR 90,000 as the agreed compensation for the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent.

25. Taking into account all the above considerations, the Single Judge decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and ordered the Respondent to pay the amount of EUR 90,000 to the Claimant.

26. What is more, the Single Judge rejected the Claimant’s request for the reimbursement of procedural and legal costs.

27. 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).

28. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Respondent is the party at fault. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to bear the entire costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA.

29. 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 90,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000.

30. 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 10,000. Moreover, in line with his aforementioned considerations and taking into account the degree of success, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of CHF 8,000 as to be paid by the Respondent.

*****

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

1. The claim of the Claimant, Collins Edwin Sports Club, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, Bursaspor, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 90,000.

3. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.

4. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly, preferably to the e-mail address as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the amount mentioned under point 2. above.

5. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts in accordance with point 2. above to FIFA to the e-mail address psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if need be, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).

6. In the event that the amount due in accordance with point 2. 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 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 (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

7. The ban mentioned in point 6. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.

8. In the event that the aforementioned sum 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 FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

9. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 8,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Bursaspor Football Club, as follows:

a. The amount of CHF 6,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. 18-02684/msc:

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

b. The amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant.

*****

Note related to the publication:

The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, 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 Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).

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). 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. 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

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer