F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) – contributo di solidarietà – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) – solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 August 2012, by Mr Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on a matter between the club Club F, from country B and the club Club N, from country P and the club Club C, from country B as Intervening party regarding a dispute relating to the calculation of solidarity contribution in connection with the player J.

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) - contributo di solidarietà – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) - solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 August 2012, by Mr Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on a matter between the club Club F, from country B and the club Club N, from country P and the club Club C, from country B as Intervening party regarding a dispute relating to the calculation of solidarity contribution in connection with the player J. I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the country B Football Federation, the player J (hereinafter: the player), born in January 1983, was registered with the country B Club F (hereinafter: Club F), from 12 January 2005 until 31 December 2006. 2. On 17 July 2007, Club V, from country B (hereinafter: Club V), Club D, from country P (hereinafter: Club N) and the player signed an agreement of “partial definitive cession of the contractual, federative and economical rights of the professional football athlete” (hereinafter: the transfer agreement), by means of which, according to clause II, Club V ceded to Club N 50% of the above-mentioned rights. 3. The clause III of the transfer agreement established that for the present definitive assignment Club V would be entitled to receive from Club N the amount of EUR 200,000 to be paid in six instalments, due on the following dates: - 23 July 2007, the sum of EUR 50,000; - 31 August 2007, the sum of EUR 50,000; - 31 January 2008, the sum of EUR 25,000; - 31 March 2008, the sum of EUR 25,000; - 30 June 2008, the sum of EUR 25,000; - 31 July 2008, the sum of EUR 25,000. 4. According to clause V of the transfer agreement, the parties agreed that Club V would be responsible for the payment of any amounts to any other entity, regulated by FIFA, either for indemnification, compensation or solidarity mechanism. 5. On 12 August 2009, Club F lodged a claim at FIFA against Club N, requesting the payment of the solidarity contribution corresponding to 0.9849% of the total transfer compensation agreed upon between Club V and Club N, which amounted to EUR 200,000. Club F provided a copy of the transfer agreement, which stipulated the above-mentioned transfer compensation. Additionally, Club F required default interest at a rate of 5% per annum since the date on which the payment should have been done. 6. In its response, Club N stated that under clause V of the transfer agreement signed between the relevant parties it was agreed that Club V would be responsible for any payments or any values, including the solidarity contribution. 7. In view of the above, FIFA informed the parties involved about the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) applied in similar matters in accordance with which the player’s new club is ordered to remit the relevant proportion(s) of the 5% solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in the player’s training and that at the same time, the player’s former club is ordered to reimburse the same proportion(s) of the 5% of the compensation that it received from the player’s new club. 8. Therefore, FIFA invited Club N to distribute the relevant proportion of the solidarity contribution to Club F as well as invited Club V to reimburse Club N the relevant proportion of 5% of the transfer compensation agreed. 9. Subsequently, on the one hand, Club F specified its claim, asserting that it was entitled to receive the amount of EUR 2,210, while, on the other hand, Club N informed that it would proceed in accordance with the jurisprudence of the DRC, and had apparently already requested Club V the reimbursement of the 5% paid in excess for the transfer. 10. Notwithstanding the above, Club F informed FIFA that the parties did not reach an amicable solution concerning this matter and insisted in its claim. 11. Despite having been informed of the jurisprudence of the DRC, Club V never submitted any comments during the investigation. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 12 August 2009. 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 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 lit. i and iii. in conjunction with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010), the DRC judge is competent to decide on the present matter which is (i) a dispute relating to solidarity mechanism between clubs belonging to different associations in connection with an international transfer of a player, (ii) has already a clear established jurisprudence and (iii) does not contain complex factual or legal issues. 3. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the transfer agreement was signed on 17 July 2007, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2005), the 2005 version of said Regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the present matter as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable Regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter and started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation submitted by the parties. 5. In this regard, the DRC judge started by acknowledging that Club F requested solidarity contribution in the amount of EUR 2,210, basing its claim on the transfer compensation amounting to EUR 200,000, agreed between Club N and Club V on 17 July 2007, in connection with the international transfer of the player. The DRC judge remarked that Club F presented a copy of the transfer agreement, which confirmed the transfer compensation alleged by the latter. Equally, the DRC judge took note that according to said transfer agreement Club N had to pay Club V the aforementioned transfer compensation in six different instalments, respectively due as follows: - 23 July 2007, the sum of EUR 50,000; - 31 August 2007, the sum of EUR 50,000; - 31 January 2008, the sum of EUR 25,000; - 31 March 2008, the sum of EUR 25,000; - 30 June 2008, the sum of EUR 25,000; - 31 July 2008, the sum of EUR 25,000. 6. Furthermore, the DRC judge noted that according to clause V of the transfer agreement any amounts payable to any other entity, regulated by FIFA, either for indemnification, compensation or solidarity mechanism, would be paid by Club V. 7. In this respect, the DRC judge first of all emphasised that, as established in art. 21 in conjunction with Annexe 5 of the Regulations, if a professional 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 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 seasons of his 12th and 23rd birthday. 8. In continuation, the DRC judge took note that Club N, in its first position, referring to the clause V of the transfer agreement, affirmed that Club V would be the responsible to pay solidarity contribution. In other words, Club N asserted that it omitted to deduct 5% of the relevant transfer compensation related to the distribution of the solidarity contribution. However, after being informed about the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) applied in similar cases (cf. point I.7), the DRC judge acknowledged that Club N declared being willing to proceed according to FIFA’s instruction as well as that it already requested Club V for the reimbursement of the 5% corresponding to the solidarity contribution. 9. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the DRC judge finally remarked that Club F, at a later date, informed that the parties did not reach an amicable settlement in the present matter and insisted in its claim. Additionally, the DRC judge took note that Club F never replied nor reacted during the course of the investigation. 10. Taking into account all the above, the DRC judge considered that it remained undisputed by the parties that Club F is entitled to receive solidarity contribution in connection with the international transfer of the player, on the basis of the transfer compensation amounting to EUR 200,000. 11. Moreover, the DRC judge referred again to art. 21 and art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations which clearly stipulates that “if a professional 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 (…) “ (emphasis added). 12. In this respect, the DRC judge was eager to emphasize that the solidarity mechanism is a principle well-established in the Regulations, from which the parties signing a transfer or loan contract cannot derogate through the contents of a contract. In other words, the obligation to distribute solidarity contribution cannot be set aside by means of a contract concluded between the clubs involved in a player’s transfer. Thus, as for the distribution of the solidarity contribution, the amount to be taken into account when calculating the solidarity contribution payments due to the club(s) involved in the player’s education and training, is the amount actually agreed upon as the total compensation payable by the new club to the former club, regardless of any provision to the contrary stipulated in the transfer or loan contract. 13. Subsequently and directly related to the above, the DRC judge referred to the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC which has to be applied in the present matter, in accordance with which the player’s new club is ordered to remit the relevant proportion(s) of the 5% solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in the player’s training and education in strict application of art. 1 and art. 2 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations. At the same time, according to said well-established jurisprudence, the player’s former club is ordered to reimburse the same proportion(s) of the 5% of the compensation that it received from the player’s new club. 14. In light of the above, the DRC judge decided that Club N is liable to pay the relevant proportion of the 5% solidarity contribution to Club F and that Club V must reimburse the same proportion of the 5% solidarity contribution to Club N. 15. In this regard, having confirmed the above-mentioned obligation incumbent on Club N, the DRC judge went on to establish the proper calculation of the relevant proportion of solidarity contribution due to Club F. 16. To that end, the DRC judge referred to art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations which provides the figures for the distribution of the solidarity contribution, according to the period of time the player was effectively trained by a specific club and taking into consideration the age of the player at the time he was being training and educated by the club(s) concerned. 17. In this respect, the DRC judge recalled that the country B Football Federation had confirmed that the player, born in January 1983, was registered with Club F as from 12 January 2005 until 31 December 2006 as well as that the relevant transfer compensation amounted to EUR 200,000, payable in instalments. 18. Consequently, the DRC judge established that, in accordance with the breakdown provided for in art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, Club F is entitled to receive 20% of 5% of the compensation paid by Club N to Club V, i.e. 20% of 5% of EUR 200,000. 19. In addition, regarding the interest claimed by the Claimant, the DRC judge emphasized that according to art. 2 par. 1 of the Annexe 5 of the Regulations, the deadline for payment of the solidarity contribution in case of contingent payments is 30 days after the date of such payments. 20. Moreover, the DRC judge recalled that the relevant transfer agreement stipulated that the transfer compensation of EUR 200,000 was to be paid in six different instalments, as described under point II.5. 21. Equally, the DRC judge highlighted that, in accordance to the well-established jurisprudence concerning the payment of interest of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, default interest at a rate of 5% per annum is applicable as from the first day after the respective due dates of each instalment. 22. In view of all the above, the DRC judge decided to partially accept the claim of Club F and that Club N must pay to Club F the amount of EUR 2,000 plus default interest of 5% per annum as follows: - 5% per annum on the sum of EUR 500 as of 23 August 2007; - 5% per annum on the sum of EUR 500 as of 1 October 2007; - 5% per annum on the sum of EUR 250 as of 2 March 2008; - 5% per annum on the sum of EUR 250 as of 1 May 2008; - 5% per annum on the sum of EUR 250 as of 31 July 2008; - 5% per annum on the sum of EUR 250 as of 31 August 2008. 23. In the same context, the DRC judge decided that Club V must reimburse the amount of EUR 2,000 to Club N. 24. The DRC judge concluded his deliberations as to the substance of the matter by rejecting any further claim of Club F. 25. Finally, the DRC judge referred to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the DRC, including the DRC judge related to disputes regarding training compensation and the solidarity mechanism, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country S 25’000 are levied. 26. Taking into account all the above, the DRC judge concluded that Club N has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 27. Furthermore and according to Annex A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 28. On that basis, the DRC judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 2,210 related to the amount claimed by Club F. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country S 5,000 (cf. table in Annex A). 29. Considering that the case at hand did not compose any complex factual or legal issues and that it was adjudicated by the DRC judge and not by the DRC, the DRC judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country S 1,500. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge 1. The claim of the Club F, from country B, is partially accepted. 2. The country P club, Club N, has to pay to the Club F, from country B, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 2,000 plus default interest on said amount at a rate of 5% per annum until the date of effective payment, as follows: 2.1 5% per annum on the sum of EUR 500 as of 23 August 2007; 2.2 5% per annum on the sum of EUR 500 as of 1 October 2007; 2.3 5% per annum on the sum of EUR 250 as of 2 March 2008; 2.4 5% per annum on the sum of EUR 250 as of 1 May 2008; 2.5 5% per annum on the sum of EUR 250 as of 31 July 2008; 2.6 5% per annum on the sum of EUR 250 as of 31 August 2008. 3. If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further request filed by Club F, from country B, is rejected. 5. The costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country S 1,500 are to be paid to FIFA by Club N, from country P, within 30 days as from the notification of the present decision to the following bank account with reference to case no. [XX-XXXXX]: 6. The Club F, from country B, is directed to inform the Club N, from country P, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge of every payment received. 7. The Club C, from country B, has to reimburse the amount of EUR 2,000 to the Club N, from country P, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 8. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, an interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiry of the fixed time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a formal decision. 9. The Club N, from country P, is directed to inform the Club V, from country B, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge of every payment received. ** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 67 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 CH-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 DRC judge: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives