F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2010-2011) – contributo di solidarietà – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2010-2011) – solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed by way of circular on 7 December 2010, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman ad interim Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Ivan Gazidis (England), member on the claim presented by the club A, as Claimant against the club D, as Respondent regarding a dispute relating to the solidarity contribution in connection with the international transfer of the player M

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2010-2011) - contributo di solidarietà – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2010-2011) - solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed by way of circular on 7 December 2010, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman ad interim Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Ivan Gazidis (England), member on the claim presented by the club A, as Claimant against the club D, as Respondent regarding a dispute relating to the solidarity contribution in connection with the international transfer of the player M I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation X (hereinafter: FFX), the player M (hereinafter: the player), on 21 June 1984, was registered with the club A, (hereinafter: the Claimant), as an amateur from 16 November 2000 and then as a professional from 1 July 2001 until 30 June 2007. 2. In the country X, the sporting season begins on 1 July and ends on 30 June [of the following year]. 3. On 17 July 2007, the club, D (hereinafter: the Respondent), N a company registered in the country V (hereinafter: the company), the Claimant and the player concluded a contract (bilingual version in R and English; hereinafter: the contract) for the player’s rights to be transferred from the Claimant to the company for an unlimited duration - on a permanent basis, i.e. a permanent transfer - so that the player could offer his services to the Respondent. Clause 1.3 of the contract stated that the transfer compensation agreed upon by the parties was of EUR 4,000,000 and that said amount is net, i.e. without any deductions whatsoever for taxes, bank commission or agent’s commission (cf. clause 2.2.1. of the contract). Clause 2.3.2. of the contract stipulated that the company had to pay this amount as follows: a) EUR 2,000,000 within five bank working days of the date on which the contract was signed; b) EUR 500,000 by 1 October 2007 at the latest; c) EUR 500,000 by 1 February 2008 at the latest; d) EUR 1,000,000 by 1 June 2008 at the latest. According to the supplementary conditions (cf. clause 3) of the contract, the parties also agreed that the company would make an additional payment to the Claimant as follows: - if the Respondent qualified for the round of 16 in the 2007/08 UEFA Champions League, the Claimant would be entitled to receive a further EUR 375,000 within 15 bank working days of the Respondent’s qualification; - if the Respondent qualified for the quarter-finals of the 2007/08 UEFA Champions League, the Claimant would be entitled to receive a further EUR 500,000 within 15 bank working days of the Respondent’s qualification; - if the Respondent finished in first place (and therefore became champions) in the Football Championship at the end of the 2007-2008 season, the Claimant would be entitled to receive a further EUR 750,000 within 15 bank working days of the end of that season (cf. clause 3.1. of the contract). - Clause 3.2 of the contract stated that if the player was subsequently transferred from the Respondent to a third club, the Claimant would be entitled to receive 20% of the difference between the transfer compensation received by the company for the transfer and the expenses incurred by the company in relation to the player. Furthermore, the company would have to make this additional payment to the Claimant within 15 bank working days of receipt of the transfer compensation in relation to any subsequent transfer of the player. 4. On 18 July 2007, the Claimant and the Respondent signed a document drafted in language X named “[…]” (i.e. a “financial transfer agreement” in English language; hereinafter: the agreement), in which the two parties agreed, but only on the express conditions that the player and the Respondent reached an agreement, and that the Claimant and the player amicably rescinded the contract that bound them, as follows: 1 - The Respondent would pay the Claimant a “principal, definitive transfer compensation” of EUR 4,000,000 (four million euros), exclusive of tax and payable in the following instalments: - EUR 2,000,000 (two million euros) upon signature, - EUR 500,000 (five hundred thousand euros) on 1 October 2007, - EUR 500,000 (five hundred thousand euros) on 1 February 2008, - EUR 1,000,000 (one million euros) on 1 June 2008. 2 - The Respondent would transfer 5% of the “principal and additional transfer compensation” - for the player’s transfer from the Claimant to the Respondent - to Club E, a club affiliated to the Football Federation Z (hereinafter: FFZ), in accordance with a partnership agreement between the Claimant and the Club E dated 4 January 2002. The Respondent would transfer this amount by the date specified in this agreement. 3 - The Respondent would pay the 5% solidarity contribution stipulated in Annexe 5 of the FIFA regulations in addition to (emphasis added) the “principal, definitive and additional transfer compensation” for the player. 4 - The Respondent would pay the Claimant “additional transfer compensation” of 20% of any profit, exclusive of tax, if the player was transferred from the Respondent to another club, payable within 15 days of the player’s transfer. 5 - The Respondent would pay the Claimant “additional transfer compensation” of EUR 375,000 (three hundred and seventy-five thousand euros), exclusive of tax, if the Respondent qualified for the group stage of the 2007/08 UEFA Champions League (i.e. the matches following the third preliminary round), payable within 15 days of the club’s qualification. 6 - The Respondent would pay the Claimant “additional transfer compensation” of EUR 500,000 (five hundred thousand euros), exclusive of tax, if the club D qualified for the round of 16 of the 2007/08 UEFA Champions League, payable within 15 days of the club’s qualification. 7 - The Respondent would pay the Claimant “additional transfer compensation” of EUR 750,000 (seven hundred and fifty thousand euros), exclusive of tax, if the Respondent finished in first place of the championship at the end of either the 2007-2008 or the 2008-2009 season, payable within 15 days of the end of the season in which the Respondent finished at the top of the league. 5. On 27 July 2007, the Football Federation X issued the International Transfer Certificate (hereinafter: ITC) to the Football Federation of Y (FFY). The Football Federation Y then registered the player with its affiliated club on the same day. 6. The Respondent did not progress past the group stage in the 2007/08 UEFA Champions League season. 7. At the end of the 2007/08 season, the Respondent finished in second place in the (country Y) national league championship. 8. In a statement dated 11 August 2008 and signed by its president, B, the Club U, gave the Claimant permission to receive, on its behalf, the five per cent (5%) of the transfer compensation for the player to which it was entitled under the terms of article 2 of the agreement (cf. point I/4.2. above). 9. In a letter dated 9 January 2009, the Normalisation Committee stated that E (E), a club affiliated to its national association, had become Club U (U) following a change of name in 2003-2004. 10. In a letter addressed to the Respondent on 17 March 2009, the Claimant issued the Respondent with formal notice to pay the sum of EUR 371,875, corresponding to the payments allegedly due to it by 26 March 2009. 11. In a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt sent to the Football Federation X on 30 March 2009, the Claimant asked the Football Federation X to contact FIFA to ensure that the Respondent paid the total solidarity contribution owed to the Claimant, i.e. EUR 371,875 plus interest and damages for late payment. According to the Claimant, the Respondent owed this amount on the basis of the agreement for the following reasons: - Article 2 - the sum of EUR 218,750 corresponding to 5% of the principal transfer compensation of EUR 4,000,000, and 5% of the additional compensation specified in article 5 of EUR 375,000 in the light of the statement from Club U that had given the Claimant permission to receive the 5% on its behalf. The Claimant claimed that it had already paid Club U the amount to which the latter was entitled. - Article 3 - the sum of EUR 153,125 corresponding to the solidarity contribution due to the Claimant in accordance with the FIFA player’s passport. In this regard, the Claimant has informed FIFA that the Respondent is claiming that this 5% was included in the transfer compensation, whereas according to the Claimant, article 3 states that the 5% solidarity contribution would be paid by the Respondent in addition to the principal and additional compensation. The Claimant also informed the Football Federation X that in accordance with article 7 [of the agreement], the Respondent would owe the Claimant additional compensation of EUR 750,000 if the Respondent finished the 2008-2009 season as league champions, in which case articles 2 and 3 would apply again. 12. On 15 April 2009, the Football Federation X contacted FIFA, on behalf of its affiliated club, to lodge a complaint with the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) in view of the Respondent’s failure to respond to its letter dated 17 March 2009. The amount being claimed from the Claimant is of EUR 317,875, to which should be added the sum of EUR 750,000 due to the provisions laid down in articles (2) and (3) of the transfer agreement. 13. In a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt dated 16 June 2009, the Claimant confirmed to the Football Federation X that it was still owed the following amount in solidarity contribution by the Respondent: 2 - Additional compensation for U, article 2: EUR 256,250 3 - Solidarity contribution, article 3: EUR 179,375 - amounting to a total of EUR [435,625] 14. In a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt dated 10 July 2009, the Claimant asked the Football Federation X to order the Respondent to pay the sum of EUR 179,375 corresponding to the outstanding solidarity contribution, plus damages and interests for late payment as well as procedural costs. The Claimant stated that the Respondent was refusing to pay the solidarity contribution for the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent, even though article 3 of the agreement stated that the solidarity contribution would be paid by the Respondent in addition to the “principal and additional compensation”. The Claimant stated that the Respondent owed the sum of EUR 179,375 as a solidarity contribution in accordance with the player passport, calculated as follows: EUR 70,000 unpaid = 3.5% of the 2,000,000 instalment due on 18 July 2007 and received on 19 July 2007 EUR 13,123 unpaid = 3.5% of the 375,000 instalment due on 30 August 2007 and received on 19 September 2007 EUR 17,500 unpaid = 3.5% of the 500,000 instalment due on 1 October and received on 24 December 2007 EUR 17,500 unpaid = 3.5% of the 500,000 instalment due on 1 February 2008 and received on 8 December 2008 EUR 35,000 unpaid = 3.5% of the 1,000,000 instalment due on 1 June 2008 and received on 5 June 2008 EUR 26,250 unpaid = 3.5% of the 750,000 instalment due on 15 June 2009 that was still outstanding. 15. In the (sporting) season 2008/09, the Respondent won the league title of the (country Y) national championship. 16. In a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt dated 22 February 2010 and addressed to the Football Federation X, the Claimant updated its claim and asked the Football Federation X to ask the FIFA DRC to order the Respondent to pay the following: 1 - the main sum of EUR 179,375. 2 - the sum of CHF 5,000 as advance of procedural costs. 3 - the sum of EUR 17,609.08 as interest for late payment. 4 - the sum of EUR 15,000 as damages and interest as the Claimant had not received the amounts to which it was entitled, and in the light of the current global financial situation. 17. On 26 March 2010, the Respondent answered by claiming that it had reached an agreement with the Claimant on 17 July 2007 in relation to the transfer of the player, which had led to the contract being signed by the parties to the transfer in question. According to the provisions of this document, the transfer compensation agreed upon by the parties for the transfer of the player was of EUR 4,000,000. This amount, which according to the Respondent included all of the necessary solidarity contribution payments to the Claimant, had been paid on time and in its entirety in accordance with the contract and the instructions of the Claimant. Consequently, the Respondent had been completely surprised by the Claimant’s demand for an additional solidarity contribution payment, which the Respondent believed to be incorrect in this case. 18. The Respondent stated that, after taking all of these facts into account, it could consider the possibility of making a solidarity contribution payment to the Claimant, but only if the latter reimbursed 5% of all of the payments it had received in relation to the transfer in question (solidarity contribution fund). If the Claimant did this, the Respondent would then be able to meet the Claimant’s demand in relation to the distribution of the relevant proportion of the 5% solidarity contribution for the transfer of the player to the Respondent, as laid down in the regulations. 19. Furthermore, the Respondent also believed it necessary to state that the original document had been the transfer agreement dated 17 July 2007, which stipulated the conditions for the player’s transfer to the Respondent as well as the appropriate payments, all of which had been made (cf. point I.3 above). The Respondent also stated that the Claimant had explained that the document drafted in language X (i.e. the agreement), which had been sent by the Claimant afterwards, had been necessary due to internal reasons of the Claimant. Consequently, the Respondent considers the English version of the document, which was signed by all of the parties in the transaction, to be the valid contract. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (also referred to as the DRC or the 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 15 April 2009, thus after 1 July 2008. Consequently, the 2008 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 at hand (cf. art. 21 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 d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010), the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on disputes relating to the solidarity mechanism between clubs belonging to different associations. As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber confirmed that it was the competent body to decide on the present litigation involving country X as well as a country Y club and concerning the distribution of the solidarity contribution claimed by the Claimant in connection with the international transfer of the professional player, M (hereinafter: the player), during the course of his contract. 3. Furthermore, taking into consideration that the player was registered with his new club, i.e. the Respondent, on 27 July 2007, and considering that the present claim was lodged before FIFA on 15 April 2009, 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 (editions 2010, 2009 and 2008), the 2005 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the 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 and started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well as the documentation submitted by the parties. 5. In this respect, first and foremost, the Chamber established that the parties had signed two distinct documents on 17 July 2007, respectively 18 July 2007, both pertaining to the transfer of the player, and that one document was drafted in language R and English while the other was drafted in language X. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber took note of the Respondent’s objections, according to which it considered the English version of the document, which was signed by all of the parties in the transaction, to be the valid text of the contract. 6. In this context, the Chamber therefore acknowledged that one of the central issues of the case at hand would be to establish which one of the agreements concluded between the parties is valid and legally binding on them. 7. Considering the above argument raised by the Respondent, the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that the agreement signed by both parties (respectively the President of the Respondent and the General Manager of the Claimant) on 18 July 2007 had to be considered as a novation, since it replaced the contract dated 17 July 2007 concluded between the Respondent, the company, the Claimant and the player, and that, creating a new agreement, it annulled all the legal effects of the precedent contract, concluded on the day before. Indeed, the Chamber was firmly convinced that the parties’ intention was obviously to extinguish the contract signed on 17 July 2007 and to substitute it for the agreement signed on 18 July 2007. 8. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the “[…]” (i.e. a “financial transfer agreement” in English language; hereinafter: the agreement) is the only agreement binding the parties in this dispute. The Chamber also referred to the decision passed by the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee concerning another dispute between the parties, passed on 16 November 2010, in which the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee had come to the same conclusion. 9. Furthermore, the Chamber took due note of the contents of the contract concluded between the Respondent, the company, the Claimant and the player on 17 July 2007, in particular of its first clause (1.1.), according to which the Claimant “represents that it is the sole and exclusive owner of the 100% of the transfer (federative) rights […] for the professional football player M”. 10. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that since 1 September 2001, the date of entry into force of the completely reviewed version of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2001), the concept of the so-called “federative rights” to players does not exist anymore. It was replaced by the principle of maintenance of contractual stability between the contracting parties (cf. Chapter VIII, art. 21 and the following of the Regulations [edition 2001] and Chapter IV, art. 17 and the following of the Regulations). 11. Finally, the DRC took into account that it was undisputed - independently of which document between both the contract and the agreement was to be considered as valid - that the player had been definitively transferred from the Claimant to the Respondent for the amount of EUR 4,000,000 plus some conditional payments. In continuation, the Chamber noted the contents of clause 2.2.1 of the contract as well as clause 1 and 3 of the agreement, according to which the main amount of EUR 4,000,000 was apparently a net amount, which shall not include the solidarity contribution. Equally, the Chamber observed that according to clause 3 of the agreement, the Respondent was responsible for the distribution of the solidarity distribution. 12. The latter considerations having been established, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant requested the payment of an amount of EUR 179,375 as solidarity contribution, corresponding to 70% of the proportion of 5% of the transfer compensation of EUR 5,125,000 paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rejected the claim maintaining that the transfer compensation of EUR 4,000,000 paid to the Claimant included all kinds of payments to the Claimant as well as the training of the player. Thus, the Respondent was of the opinion that the Claimant could not receive a transfer compensation as well as solidarity contribution, since, according to the Respondent, said contribution is due to third clubs which trained the player and are not part of the transfer agreement. 13. In view of the contents of the Claimant’s claim and the Respondent’s respective answer, the DRC first of all turned its attention to the applicable Regulations and recalled that according to art. 21 of the Regulations in connection with Annex 5 of the Regulations, if a professional player moves during the course of a contract, 5% of any compensation, not including training compensation paid to his former club, shall be deducted from the total amount of this compensation and be distributed by the new club as solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in the training and education of the player in proportion to the number of years the player has been registered with the relevant clubs between the sporting seasons of his 12th and 23rd birthday. In this respect, the Chamber wished to stress that, based on the evidence put at its disposal in the present matter, and in particular the player passport issued by the Football Federation X, the Claimant undisputedly participated in the training and education of the player and thus that the Claimant is entitled to a proportion of the solidarity contribution. 14. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber emphasised that, in accordance with art. 1 of the Annex 5 of the Regulations as well as in line with the goals and the spirit of the provisions governing the solidarity mechanism, the deduction of a proportion of 5% of the total transfer compensation paid to the player’s former club is absolutely mandatory. Consequently, the Chamber confirmed its unanimous and unequivocal position that the clubs could not derogate to the aforementioned mandatory provision and, consequently, could not provide in a private agreement for another system of calculation and distribution of the solidarity mechanism. 15. In this context, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to mention that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) passed a decision related to this issue (CAS XXXX/X/XXXX I v/ H), however on the basis of the 2001 edition of the Regulations [for the Status and Transfer of Players]. The Chamber acknowledged that the 2001 edition of the Regulations stipulated in its art. 25 as well as in art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations governing the Application of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players that “…, a proportion of 5% of any compensation paid to the former club will be redistributed as a solidarity contribution to the clubs involved in the training and education of the player…”. 16. As a consequence, the Chamber insisted that, contrary to the 2001 edition of the Regulations, the 2005 edition of the Regulations, applicable to the matter at hand, expressly and clearly stipulate that a proportion of 5% shall be deducted from the total transfer compensation in order for the new club to distribute the relevant proportion of solidarity contribution. This amendment of the Regulations reinforces, in the Chamber’s view, that the legislator strongly wished an absolutely uniform application of the provisions on solidarity mechanism without any derogation and exception possible. 17. Therefore, the DRC confirmed its well-established jurisprudence, according to which the new club shall deduct the relevant proportion of 5% of the transfer compensation and distribute it as solidarity contribution to the potential training club(s) in strict application of the Regulations. In other words, bearing in mind that parties to a transfer agreement are not allowed to derogate to the mandatory provisions regarding solidarity mechanism, the Chamber considered that the parties to the present dispute were not permitted to determine that the amount of transfer compensation amounted to a sum net without deduction of the relevant solidarity contribution(s). 18. In view of the foregoing considerations, as no amount was deducted from the amount of EUR 5,125,000 apparently paid by the Respondent to the Claimant for the transfer of the player, the Chamber highlighted that the Claimant already undisputedly received 100% of the total transfer compensation agreed upon for the transfer of the player. 19. In other words, the Claimant also received 100% of the 5% of the transfer compensation earmarked for the solidarity contribution that is to be distributed to clubs involved in his training and education. 20. Based on all of the above, and recalling that the solidarity contribution cannot be added to the agreed transfer compensation but, on the contrary, has to be deducted from such compensation, the Chamber considered that the Claimant has already received the solidarity contribution relating to the relevant transfer of the player and possibly received more than it is entitled to, should there be other clubs that contributed to the training and education of the player. 21. Likewise, the DRC was eager to illustrate the foregoing considerations by explaining that if, contrary to the above, the Respondent had to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 4,000,000 net without any deduction whatsoever, said amount would, in accordance with the Regulations’ provisions on the distribution of solidarity contribution, constitute in reality only 95% of the total transfer compensation - which would then amount in total to EUR 4,210,526 - due to the fact that the Respondent would be responsible to deduct and distribute the pertinent proportion of 5% to the training club(s) as solidarity contribution in line with the contents of the Regulations. 22. Such a way of calculation - in clear contradiction with the Regulations - would endanger the uniformity of the whole system of solidarity mechanism, create confusion as well as an unjustified inequality of treatment between training clubs and finally compromise the security and the foreseeability of law. 23. On a side note, the Chamber was eager to point out that, since the provisions on solidarity mechanism are not aimed to enable the enrichment of neither the new nor the former club of the player, in accordance with the foregoing considerations and its long-lasting jurisprudence, in the presence of a solidarity contribution claim lodged by a third training club, the former club, i.e. the Claimant, could be ordered by the competent deciding body, to reimburse to the new club, i.e. the Respondent, the relevant proportion of 5% of the transfer compensation that the latter has to distribute to the said training club(s). 24. On account of all the above, the DRC concluded that the claim of the Claimant shall be rejected. 25. In continuation, the deciding authority referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which in the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Chamber relating to disputes regarding solidarity mechanism costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings. 26. In this respect, the Chamber reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is rejected. Therefore, the Claimant has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 27. 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. 28. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings amounts to EUR 179,375 related to the claim of the Claimant. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 29. Considering that the case at hand allowed to be dealt with following an extraordinary procedure, that the case was adjudicated by the Chamber, that the present matter showed particular factual difficulty and involved specific legal complexity, the Chamber determined the final amount of costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 25,000, of which CHF 5,000 were paid by the Claimant as advance of costs, in accordance with art. 17 of the Procedural Rules. 30. In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the amount of CHF 20,000 has to be paid by the Claimant to cover the costs of the present proceedings. ** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, A, is rejected. 2. The final amount of costs of the proceeding amounts to CHF 25,000, of which CHF 5,000 have already been paid by the Claimant, A. Consequently, the amount of CHF 20,000 is to be paid by the Claimant, A, within 30 days as of notification of the present decision into the following FIFA bank account, with a clear reference to the case no. XX-XXXXX/xxx: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 63 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