F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2007-2008) – contributo di solidarietà – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2007-2008) – solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 March 2008, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman Mick McGuire (England), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member Essa M. Saleh Al-Housani (U.A.E.), member on a matter between the club A, xxxx, represented by xxxx as Claimant and the club B, xxxx as Respondent and the club C, xxxx as intervening party regarding a dispute for solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player D.

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2007-2008) - contributo di solidarietà – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2007-2008) - solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 March 2008, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman Mick McGuire (England), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member Essa M. Saleh Al-Housani (U.A.E.), member on a matter between the club A, xxxx, represented by xxxx as Claimant and the club B, xxxx as Respondent and the club C, xxxx as intervening party regarding a dispute for solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player D. I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the relevant Football Federation the player D, born on 27 August 1977, was registered with the club C during the season 1997/1998 and 1998/99 during the ages of 20 and 21. 2. According to the above-mentioned player passport the player concerned was registered with another club, xxxxx, on 30 September 1998. 3. On 28 June 2006, A, the Claimant, contacted FIFA explaining that the player concerned was registered with the club B, the Respondent, on 23 July 2004 and therefore it claimed 1% of the transfer compensation paid by the Respondent to the player’s former club as solidarity contribution for the season 1997/1998, plus 5% default interest. 4. In particular, the Claimant maintained that the Respondent paid the amount of EUR 15,000,000 in cash plus the “federative rights” of the another player R estimated at a value of EUR 6,000,000, i.e. the total amount of EUR 21,000,000 was paid. As a result, the Claimant claims EUR 105,000 as solidarity contribution, plus 5% interest as from August 2005. 5. The Respondent contacted FIFA explaining that it had already been contacted by the club C. claiming solidarity contribution for the same season 1997/1998, as the Claimant. In this sense, the Respondent explained that it is willing to pay the relevant amount of solidarity contribution, however, it has to be formally decided which club, i.e. C. or the Claimant, is actually entitled to receive the relevant solidarity contribution for the season 1997/1998. 6. Furthermore, the Respondent pointed out that no official confirmation issued by the relevant Football Federation confirms that the player was actually registered with the Claimant during the season 1997/1998. 7. According to the relevant transfer agreement remitted to FIFA the Respondent and the player’s former club agreed that the amount of EUR 18,000,000 will be paid as follows: “xxxxxxxx.” 8. Upon FIFA’s request the Respondent confirmed that it paid the amount of EUR 15,000,000 to the player’s former club as follows: 3 instalments of EUR 4,000,000 as well as the additional EUR 3,000,000. However, the Respondent deems that the amount of EUR 6,000,000 in relation to the player R cannot be considered at all, when establishing the relevant solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player D. 9. Upon FIFA’s request, the relevant Football Federation confirmed that despite having the player concerned being registered with its affiliate C for the season 1997/1998 he actually played and rendered his services to the Claimant. Moreover, the relevant Football Federation confirmed that as a matter of fact and according to its regulations, the Claimant was until the season 1997/1998 a branch of C, meaning that the Claimant is “usufructs”, for all legal matter, of the same rights and corporate entity as C. 10. C informed FIFA that during the season 1997/1998 the player concerned was contractually bound to it. In this context, the aforementioned club provided a copy of an employment contract valid as from 1 August 1997 until 31 July 2002. 11. Consequently, C insisted that it is the entitled club to receive the relevant proportion of the solidarity contribution for the season 1997/1998. Moreover, C provided a copy of a loan agreement dated 6 July 1998 and explained that the player was loaned to the Claimant in July 1998. The “loan” agreement states that C transfers the sportive rights of the player to the Claimant, without, however specifying any period of time. As compensation both clubs agreed that the Claimant will take over all responsibilities and debts of C towards a third club. 12. The Claimant explained that although the player was under contract with C and received all his salaries from C during the 1997/1998 season, the player was registered and regularly played for the Claimant during the 1997/1998 season. 13. Finally, the Claimant provided an official confirmation signed by it and C containing the names of all players, also including the player in question, which were loaned by C. to the Claimant, under the “satellite clubs regulations” during the season 1997/1998 II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 28 June 2006. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, edition 2005 (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 18 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. (d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2008) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on the present litigation with an international dimension concerning the distribution of the solidarity contribution claimed by the Claimant in connection with the transfer of the professional D during the course of a contract. 3. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with his new club on 23 July 2004, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2008), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 28 June 2006, the 2001 version of the regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The members of the Chamber started by acknowledging that the Claimant is requesting the amount of USD 105,000 as solidarity contribution plus 5% of interest in connection with the transfer of the player D to the Respondent, since it had trained the player during the season 1997/1998. 5. In this context, the Chamber took due note that the Respondent had never disputed its obligation to pay the relevant proportion of solidarity contribution for the season 1997/1998. However, due to the specificities of the present matter, namely the fact that two different clubs are affirming towards the Respondent having trained the player during season 1997/1998, the Respondent requested that a formal decision should be taken, so as to avoid any possible erroneous payments. 6. In view of the above, the members of the Chamber concluded that primarily it needed to be established whether the player concerned had been effectively trained by the Claimant during the relevant season 1997/1998. 7. In this respect, the Chamber took into account all documentation and submissions remitted by the Claimant and C as well as the fact that the relevant Football Federation confirmed that despite having the player concerned being registered with its affiliate C for the season 1997/98 he actually played for the Claimant. 8. In light of the above, the members of the Chamber underlined that as further established in the art. 25 of the Regulations, a proportion of 5% of any compensation paid to the previous club will be distributed to the club(s) involved in the training and education of the player (emphasis added). This distribution will be made in proportion of the number of years the player has been registered with the relevant clubs between the ages of 12 and 23. 9. In this context, the Chamber emphasised that, for the present matter, irrespective of the fact for which club the player concerned was actually registered within the relevant Football Federation, the crucial element to determine which club should be compensated for the player’s training, is the club which has effectively been involved in the training and education of the player. Particularly, considering that training compensation should benefit the clubs that have actually contributed and invested in the training of a player. 10. As a result, the members of the Chamber unanimously concluded that based on all documents at disposal the Claimant has been the club that has been involved in the training and education of the player in question during the season 1997/1998. Consequently, the Claimant is entitled to receive the relevant proportion of solidarity contribution for the season 1997/1998. 11. In continuation, the Chamber turned its attention to the amount of compensation paid by the Respondent to the player’s former club at the basis of the relevant calculation of the amount due to the Claimant. 12. In this respect, the Chamber took due note that, on the one hand, the Claimant deems that the compensation paid in relation to the transfer of the player concerned amounts to EUR 21,000,000. On the other hand, the Respondent deems that the amount of EUR 6,000,000 in relation to the player R cannot be considered at all and thus, the compensation to take into account to calculate the proportion of solidarity contribution amounts to EUR 15,000,000. 13. In view of the above, the Chamber emphasised that according to the relevant transfer agreement signed between the Respondent and the player’s former club, the aforementioned parties agreed on a transfer compensation amounting to EUR 18,000,000, equivalent to the value assigned to the player R of EUR 6,000,000 and three instalments of EUR 4,000,000, plus a potential increment of maximum EUR 3,000,000 subject to the fulfilment of several conditions. 14. The Chamber, following its general principles already applied in previous similar cases, concluded that the amount of 5% to be distributed as a solidarity contribution shall be calculated from the entire value of the transaction, not only from the financial amount factually paid as a transfer compensation. 15. The Chamber placed emphasis to the fact that applying the distribution of the 5% due as solidarity contribution merely to the tangible amount of money remitted would contravene the ratio itself of the solidarity mechanism. This is, since it would lead to a circumvention of the principles of the Regulations which aim to support and encourage clubs in investing in the training and educating of young players and thus should be rewarded for such investment. 16. As a result, the Chamber decided that the relevant amount of solidarity contribution due to the Claimant has to be calculated based on the total transfer compensation amounting to EUR 21,000,000. 17. Having thus been established that the transfer compensation based on which the solidarity contribution should be calculated amounts to EUR 21,000,000, the Chamber turned its attention to the calculation of the relevant amount. 18. The Chamber made further reference to art. 10 of the Regulations governing the Application of the Regulations, which provides the figures for the distribution of the solidarity contribution, according to the time the player was effectively trained by the clubs involved. 19. In this respect, the Chamber referred, on the one hand, to the above points 7-10 according to which it had been established that the relevant period of time to take into account is the season 1997/1998, when the player was between the age of 20 and 21. On the other hand, the Chamber considered that the Claimant is requesting the amount of EUR 105,000 plus 5% interest. 20. As a result, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant is entitled to receive the amount of EUR 105,000 corresponding to 10% of 5% of EUR 21,000,000. 21. Finally, and with regard to the claimed interest the Chamber concluded that considering the specificities of the present matter, particularly with regard to the ambiguity of the player’s registration and his actual training activity, which led to the uncertainty of the Respondent with regard to the training club for the specific season 1997/1998, the Claimant’s claim in this respect is to be rejected. 22. Taking into account all of the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant 10% of the 5% of the transfer compensation paid in relation to the transfer of the player D from the player’s former club to the Respondent, i.e. the amount of EUR 105,000. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent has to pay the amount of EUR 105,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected. 4. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline an interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiring of the fixed time limit and the present matter shall be submitted upon the parties request to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee so that the necessary disciplinary sanctions may be imposed. 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. 6. According to art. 61 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives