F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2011-2012) – contributo di solidarietà – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2011-2012) – solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 1 March 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Michele Colucci (Italy), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Ivan Gazidis (England), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member on the claim presented by the club C, as Claimant against the club A, as Respondent regarding a dispute relating to the solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player E.

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2011-2012) - contributo di solidarietà – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2011-2012) - solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 1 March 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Michele Colucci (Italy), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Ivan Gazidis (England), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member on the claim presented by the club C, as Claimant against the club A, as Respondent regarding a dispute relating to the solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player E. I. Facts of the case 1. The country B player, E (hereinafter: the player), was born on 17 April 1986. 2. According to the player passport issued by the Football Association B (“Football Association B”; hereinafter: the FAB) in June 2007, the player was registered with its affiliate, Club X (hereinafter: Club X), from 28 September 2000 until 4 September 2002, and then with another of its affiliates, Club C (hereinafter: the Claimant), from 5 September 2002 to 28 February 2007. 3. Equally, the Football Association B informed FIFA, by means of said player passport, that the country B sporting season follows the calendar year. Therefore, it starts in January and ends in December of each year. 4. On 23 June 2007, the country S, Club A (hereinafter: the Respondent), and the country R club, Club Z (hereinafter: Club Z) signed a “Pre-agreement”, by means of which both contractual parties declared that they wanted to conclude an agreement for the definitive transfer of the player from Club Z to the Respondent, and that the Respondent would pay to Club Z the total amount of EUR 500,000 as transfer fee. 5. According to the S Football Federation (SFF), the player was registered with its member club, i.e. with the Respondent, on 24 August 2007. 6. On 17 September 2007, Club X lodged a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), requesting from the Respondent to pay the amount of USD 17,187.50 as solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player from Club Z. 7. Club X alleged in particular that the Respondent acquired the “federative and economic rights” of the player from Club Z, paying the amount of USD 2,500,000. Therefore, considering that the Respondent allegedly paid said amount for the player’s transfer, Club X is allegedly entitled to receive the aforementioned amount of USD 17,187.50 corresponding to 13.75% of the solidarity contribution. 8. On 10 October 2007, the Claimant also submitted a formal claim to the DRC against the Respondent, due to the latter club’s alleged non-compliance with the distribution of the solidarity contribution, allegedly due in connection with the transfer of the player from Club X, and requested from the Respondent the payment of an amount of USD 19,110 allegedly due to it, or, alternatively, to proceed with the payment of the amount corresponding to 38.22% of the total amount due to it as solidarity contribution, for the transfer of the player’s “federative rights”, in case the amount agreed would be higher than USD 1,000,000. 9. The Claimant asserted in particular that based on the amount agreed between the Respondent and Club Z for the transfer of the player’s “federative rights”, which would have allegedly been disclosed by non-official media sources as being of USD 1,000,000, the Respondent should have distributed 5% of such amount (i.e. the amount of USD 50,000) in concept of solidarity contribution to all the player’s training clubs. 10. In August 2007, due to the Respondent’s alleged non-compliance with the spontaneous distribution of the solidarity contribution within the 30 days’ time limit, the Claimant allegedly attempted to contact the Respondent’s directors, both by phone and fax, in order to request the payment of the amount considered due and payable to the Claimant. 11. Unfortunately, all the attempts to solve this matter amicably and to receive the payment were allegedly ignored by the Respondent. 12. In reply to Club X claim, the S Football Federation asserted on behalf of the Respondent that the latter club had reached an agreement with Club Z regarding a “complete” transfer of the mentioned player to it, in pursuance of the agreement dated 23 June 2007 (cf. point I./4. above), agreement which shows that the distribution of the solidarity contribution of the player was included in the total payment of the transfer fee. 13. Upon receipt of the S Football Federation’s position, FIFA informed all the parties concerned about the jurisprudence of the DRC in similar matters in accordance with which the player’s new club, in casu the Respondent, is ordered to remit the relevant proportion(s) of the 5% solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in the player’s training, in casu to Club X, in strict application of the relevant provisions of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations). At the same time, the player’s former club, in casu Club Z, is ordered to reimburse the same proportion(s) of the 5% of the compensation that it received from the player’s new club. 14. By means of a correspondence dated 11 June 2008, the S Football Federation informed FIFA that the Respondent had allegedly contacted Club X, requesting the latter club’s complete bank details in order for it to settle the payment of 5% as solidarity contribution in favour of Club X. However, the Respondent received a letter from the legal representative of Club X, requesting the payment of an amount of EUR 3,437 which allegedly equals to 5% of the transfer fee. The S Football Federation therefore asked FIFA to indicate to them what the Respondent should do in order to comply with its payment obligation. 15. Upon receipt of the S Football Federation’s position, FIFA confirmed, on 13 June 2008, to the latter Federation that its affiliated club could proceed to the respective payment of the solidarity contribution to Club X. 16. On 21 June 2008, the Respondent transferred the amount of EUR 25,000 to Club X, apparently corresponding to the entire 5% solidarity contribution. 17. By means of a correspondence dated 15 December 2008 and allegedly sent to the legal representative of the Claimant, the S Football Federation informed the latter club that the Respondent paid the total solidarity contribution (i.e. the amount of EUR 25,000) to Club X upon a so-called “decision” issued by FIFA on 29 May 2008, sent to the Football Association R and to the S Football Federation as well, ordering at the same time Club Z to pay back the same amount to the Respondent, which allegedly did not receive anything from Club Z on that date in an alleged disrespect by the latter club Z of FIFA’s “decision”. 18. On 21 January 2010, the Respondent lodged a claim for the reimbursement of the solidarity contribution with FIFA against Club Z, requesting the reimbursement of the amount of EUR 21,726 corresponding to EUR 25,000 minus EUR 3,437 apparently corresponding to the payment which it should have paid to Club X. 19. By means of a correspondence dated 22 April 2010, the S Football Federation informed FIFA that it received a letter from the Respondent stating that, in principle, it would not mind settling the payment of the share of solidarity contribution due to the Claimant; however, the Respondent maintained its previous position and kindly requested FIFA to assist it to retrieve its right, and to oblige Club Z and Club X to return the amount stipulated in the claim submitted to FIFA in order to enable them to fulfil its obligations and settle the required payment. ** II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereainafter also referred to as: the Chamber or the DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 10 October 2007. Consequently, the 2005 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at stake (cf. art. 18 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules in conjunction with art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber). 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 2010), 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 country B club, Club C, in connection with the transfer of the professional player, Mr E, to the country S club, Club A, during the course of a contract. 3. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with his new club, i.e. with the Respondent, on 24 August 2007, 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), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 10 October 2007, the 2005 edition of the regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter in 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 first of all recapitulated that, pursuant to art. 21 and art. 1 par. 1 of Annex 5 of the Regulations, if a professional is transferred before the expiry of his contract, 5% of any compensation, with the exception of training compensation, paid to his former club shall be deducted from the total amount of this compensation and distributed by the new club as a solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in his training and education over the years. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that the solidarity contribution will reflect the number of years (calculated pro rata if less than one year) he was registered with the relevant club(s) between the seasons of his 12th and 23rd birthdays. 5. In continuation, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant claims solidarity contribution for the training of the player during the period from 5 September 2002 to 28 February 2007, allegedly corresponding to 38.22% of the 5% solidarity contribution. The Dispute Resolution Chamber furthermore considered that the Claimant concretely requests from the Respondent the payment of the amount of USD 19,110 due to it, or, alternatively, to proceed with the payment of the amount corresponding to 38.22% of the total amount due to it as solidarity mechanism, for the transfer of the player from Club Z to the Respondent in case the amount agreed between the two latter clubs would be higher than USD 1,000,000. 6. In this regard, the Chamber took due note that the Football Association B confirmed that the player, born on 17 April 1986, was registered with the Claimant from 5 September 2002 to 28 February 2007. 7. Equally, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant requested payment of the solidarity contribution in relation to the transfer of the player for 114 days of the season 2002, the complete/full seasons 2003, 2004 and 2005, as well as 128 days of the season 2006 and 59 days of the season 2007. 8. Furthermore and from the transfer agreement received from the Respondent, the Chamber duly noted that on 23 June 2007, Club Z and the Respondent concluded an agreement regarding the transfer of the player, according to which a transfer compensation of EUR 500,000 was due by the Respondent to Club Z. 9. The Chamber took due note of the arguments raised by the Respondent in answer to the claim, and in particular the fact that the latter does not contest owing solidarity contribution to the Claimant and even expressed its willingness to proceed to the payment of the relevant amount, provided however that it receives a reimbursement of the amount in question from either Club Z or Club X. 10. In view of the arguments raised by the Respondent, the Chamber first of all underlined that the Respondent acknowledges, in principle, its obligation to pay a proportion of the solidarity contribution to the Claimant. 11. Regarding his claim for reimbursement of the corresponding amount, the Chamber held that Club X cannot be viewed as being liable to reimburse the amount of EUR 25,000 which was paid by the Respondent to the said Club C. Indeed, this amount was paid by the Respondent in consideration of the player having been trained by Club X, however the Respondent seems to have erroneously proceeded to the payment of the entire 5% solidarity contribution in favour of Club X, whereas the player was also trained, between the period comprehended between his 12th and 23rd birthdays, by other training clubs, and in particular, also by the Claimant. In other words, Club X was in fact only entitled to a portion of the 5% solidarity contribution. 12. In this regard, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that such misunderstanding cannot be reproached on Club X, which could legitimately believe that the amount which it received from the Respondent corresponded to its respective portion of the solidarity contribution. Therefore, the Chamber rejected the argument of the Respondent regarding its claim for reimbursement of the amount which it paid to Club X. 13. In addition and for the sake of good order, the Chamber wished to stress that FIFA’s letter dated 29 May 2008 (cf. point I. 13. above) does by no means constitute a decision. This letter was sent to the parties of the dispute, as well as to Club Z, in order to remind them of the jurisprudence of the DRC in similar cases and it invited the Respondent to proceed to the payment of the solidarity contribution apparently due to Club X (in the context of a pending claim of the latter club, which was later on solved amicably). The Respondent, however, acting upon FIFA’s recommendation, seems, as previously explained, to have misinterpreted such recommendation by proceeding to remit the entire 5% solidarity contribution to Club X. 14. As to the Respondent’s claim for reimbursement against Club Z, the Chamber duly noted that, in a parallel procedure, the Respondent had lodged a claim regarding said reimbursement in front of FIFA’s Players’ Status Committee (cf. point I. 18. above). Therefore, it unanimously concluded that such matter is, at the time of passing the present decision, pending with the latter FIFA deciding body, and consequently ruled that it cannot pronounce itself on the claim in question. 15. In view of all of the above, and on the basis of art. 21 and art.1 of Annex 5 to the Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the Respondent was indeed liable to pay solidarity contribution to the Claimant for the training and education of the player E during his period of registration with the Claimant. 16. Turning its attention to the calculation of the solidarity contribution due to the Claimant, the DRC recalled that the Claimant had requested the amount of USD 19,110 due to it, or, alternatively, to proceed with the payment of the amount corresponding to 38.22% of the total amount due to it as solidarity mechanism, for the transfer of the player from Club Z to the Respondent in case the amount agreed between the two latter clubs would be higher than USD 1,000,000. 17. In this regard, the Chamber reiterated that the transfer amount agreed between Club Z and the Respondent amounted to EUR 500,000. 18. Consequently, and in particular considering art. 1 of Annex 5 to the Regulations and the period the player was registered with Club C, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to that Club C is entitled to receive the claimed proportion of 38.22% of the 5% solidarity contribution, that is, the amount of EUR 9,555. 19. The Dispute Resolution Chamber thus concluded its deliberations by deciding that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Respondent must pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 9,555 as solidarity contribution. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected. ** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club C, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club A, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 9,555 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. Any further requests filed by the Claimant are rejected. 4. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the above-mentioned 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 request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and decision. 5. The Claimant, Club C, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club A, 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. ** 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