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 in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 January 2011, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman ad interim Gerardo Movilla (Spain), member Carlos Soto (Chile), member Ivan Gazidis (England), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on a claim presented by the club T FC, as Claimant against the club FC R, as Respondent regarding solidarity contribution related to the transfer of the player A

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 in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 January 2011, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman ad interim Gerardo Movilla (Spain), member Carlos Soto (Chile), member Ivan Gazidis (England), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on a claim presented by the club T FC, as Claimant against the club FC R, as Respondent regarding solidarity contribution related to the transfer of the player A I. Facts of the case 1. The player, A (hereinafter: the player), was born on 5 June 1982. 2. According to the Football Federation F, the player was registered as a professional for the club, T F C (hereinafter: the Claimant), from 10 January 2001 until 29 July 2008. 3. The relevant sporting seasons in country F lasted from 1 July until 30 June of the following year. 4. According to the information provided by the Football Federation S, the player was registered for the club, FC R (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 14 August 2008. 5. On 22 January and 10 March 2009, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming its proportion of the solidarity contribution in connection with the definitive transfer of the player from it to the Respondent for a transfer compensation of EUR 6,000,000 payable, according to the transfer contract provided by the Claimant, in several installments as follows: - EUR 3,000,000 on or before 25 July 2008; - EUR 375,000 on 30 January, 30 April, 30 July, 30 October 2009, 30 January, 30 April, 30 July and 30 October 2010. 6. Furthermore, the relevant transfer agreement stipulates, in its clause 3, that the amount of EUR 6,000,000 is a net amount, without any deduction or participation, which does not include any right that could be claimed by another club and that the Respondent commits itself to distribute the solidarity contribution and training compensation (its original version provides for the following: “El precio de los derechos federativos, y de los economicos dimanantes de dichos derechos federativos del jugador […] se fija en […] EUROS // 6.000.000.- Euros // netos, FC R abonará al T FC sin deducción ni participación alguna, por el traspaso de los derechos federativos del jugador, la mencionada cantidad, sin quedar incluido en dicho importe cualquier derecho, concepto o participación que pudiera ser objeto de reclamación por parte de otro, y expresamente el FC R se obliga al pago y liquidación de las compensaciones de Indemnización por formación Art. 21 y Mecanismo de Solidaridad […] con entera indemnidad del T FC ”). 7. Clause 10 of the transfer agreement recalls that the transfer compensation does not include the solidarity contribution, the Respondent being responsible for the said distribution (in its original version: “En el precio del traspaso no está incluido la compensación de indemnización por Mecanismo de Solidaridad Art. 21, que como máximo es el 5% del traspaso, (del Reglamento sobre estatuto y transferencia de jugadores F.I.F.A. 12/2004), estando el FC R obligado a su pago y liquidación.”). 8. On account of the foregoing, the Claimant insisted that the parties to the transfer agreement agreed that the amount was a net amount excluding any solidarity contribution that could be due to the player’s training club(s). Furthermore, the Claimant maintained to be one of the training clubs of the player, although it was part of the relevant transfer agreement. Thus, the Claimant requested the payment of 45% of the proportion of 5% of the total transfer compensation, i.e. the payment of EUR 75,938 out of an amount of EUR 3,375,000 being the installments of the transfer compensation paid at this stage by the Respondent to the Claimant, some installments not being due yet (cf. point no. 5). 9. On 7 October 2009, the Claimant amended its claim and requested an amount of EUR 92,814, since two further installments of EUR 375,000 each had been paid by the Respondent in the meantime (on 30 April and 30 July 2009). 10. On 22 October 2009, the Respondent rejected the claim lodged by the Claimant. 11. In that regard, the Respondent held that clause 3 of the contract stipulates that the Respondent shall distribute solidarity contribution to third clubs (emphasis added by the Respondent) and added that the amount of EUR 6,000,000 paid to the Claimant included all kind of payments as well as the training of the player. Thus, the Respondent was of the opinion that the Claimant could not receive the amount of transfer compensation as well as solidarity contribution. Indeed, according to the Respondent, said solidarity contribution is provided for third clubs which are not part of the transfer agreement. Finally, the Respondent pointed out that the Claimant would have to deduct from the transfer compensation the solidarity contribution due to it. 12. On 30 July 2010, the Claimant amended, once more, its initial claim, and requested the payment of a total amount of EUR 135,000 as solidarity contribution. 13. On 4 August 2010, the Respondent reiterated its argumentation and rejected the claim, highlighting the fact that the solidarity contribution is due to the former club(s) of the player, of which the club that receives the transfer compensation, i.e. the Claimant, is excluded. The Respondent also referred to the jurisprudence, in accordance with which solidarity contribution is included in the transfer compensation. 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, the DRC took note that the present matter was submitted for the first time to FIFA in January 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 connection with art. 22 lit. 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 two clubs and concerning the distribution of the solidarity contribution in connection with the international transfer of the professional player A. 3. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered for the Respondent on 14 August 2008 and that the present claim was lodged before FIFA in January 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 2008 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, the DRC took into account that it was undisputed that the player had been transferred from the Claimant to the Respondent for the amount of EUR 6,000,000. In continuation, the Chamber noted the contents of clauses 3 and 10 of the relevant transfer agreement, according to which the amount of EUR 6,000,000 was apparently a net amount, which shall not include the solidarity contribution. Equally, the Chamber observed that according to the contract, the Respondent was responsible for the distribution of the solidarity distribution. 6. In continuation, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant requested the payment of an amount of EUR 135,000 as solidarity contribution, corresponding to 45% of the proportion of 5% of the transfer compensation of EUR 6,000,000 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 6,000,000 paid to the Claimant included all kind 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. 7. Turning its attention to the applicable Regulations, the DRC went on to recall that according to art. 21 of the Regulations in connection with Annexe 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. 8. In this respect, the Chamber emphasized that, in accordance with art. 1 of the Annexe 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. 9. 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 2006/X/XXXX Club P v/ Club H) however on the basis of the 2001 edition of the Regulations. 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…”. 10. As a consequence, the Chamber insisted that, contrary to the 2001 edition of the Regulations, the 2005 and following editions of the Regulations, a.o. the 2008 edition 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 a absolutely uniform application of the provisions on solidarity mechanism without any derogation and exception possible. 11. Therefore, the DRC confirmed its well-established jurisprudence, according to which the new club is ordered to deduct the relevant proportion of 5% of the transfer compensation and to 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). 12. In view of the foregoing considerations, as no amount was deducted from the EUR 6,000,000 agreed upon between the parties to the dispute 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. 13. 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. 14. 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, 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. 15. 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 6,000,000 net without any deduction whatsoever, said amount would, in accordance with the Regulation’s 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 6,315,789 - 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. 16. 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. 17. 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). 18. On account of all the above, the DRC concluded that the claim of the Claimant, T FC, shall be rejected. 19. In continuation, the DRC referred to 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. 20. In this respect, the DRC 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. 21. 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. 22. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings amounts to EUR 135,000 related to the final claim of the Claimant. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 20,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 23. Considering that the case at hand allowed to be dealt with following a reasonable procedure, that it case did not show particular factual difficulty but did involve a certain legal complexity, the DRC determined the final amount of costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 12,000, of which 5,000 were paid by the Claimant as advance of cost. 24. In view of the above, the DRC concluded that the remaining amount of CHF 7,000 has to be paid by the Claimant to cover the cost of the proceedings. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, T FC, is rejected. 2. The final amount of costs of the proceeding amounts to CHF 12,000, of which CHF 5,000 have already been paid by the Claimant, T FC. Consequently, the remaining amount of CHF 7,000 is to be paid by the Claimant, T FC, within 30 days of notification of the present decision to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no.: 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 Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives