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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 March 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Carlos Soto (Chile), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Zola Majavu (South Africa), member on the claim presented by the club, Club B, from country C as Claimant against the club, Club D, from country R as Respondent regarding a solidarity contribution dispute related to the transfer of the player P

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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 March 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Carlos Soto (Chile), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Zola Majavu (South Africa), member on the claim presented by the club, Club B, from country C as Claimant against the club, Club D, from country R as Respondent regarding a solidarity contribution dispute related to the transfer of the player P I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the country C Football Federation, the country C player, Player P (hereinafter: the player), born in July 1988, was registered with the country C club, Club B (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 3 January 2005 until 31 August 2011. 2. The football seasons in country C during the period of time the player was registered with Club B ran as follows: - from 3 April 2005 until 5 November 2005; - from 1 April 2006 until 4 November 2006; - from 1 April 2007 until 9 November 2007; - from 15 March 2008 until 16 November 2008; - from 15 March 2009 until 8 November 2009; - from 8 March 2010 until 21 November 2010; - from 27 February 2011 until 27 November 2011. 3. The Football Union of country R confirmed that the player was registered with Club D (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 31 August 2011. 4. On 28 May 2012, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming its proportion of the solidarity contribution in connection with the definitive transfer of the player concerned from the Claimant to the Respondent, in August 2011, for the amount of EUR 2,924,281.98. In particular, the Claimant requested 65% of the 5% solidarity contribution, amounting to EUR 80,780, the amount of EUR 2,481 for lost profit, the reimbursement of the advance of costs amounting to currency of country F 2,000 as well as “any other expenses that [the Claimant] will have to pay connected with the consideration of the case by FIFA”. 5. On 15 August 2012, the Respondent replied to the claim lodged against it and stated that the Claimant is not entitled to receive solidarity contribution since the transfer compensation of EUR 2,800,000 covers all expenses related to the training and education of the player. Referring to the Commentary to the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Respondent stated that the aforementioned amount also provides a financial incentive for the Claimant. 6. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Claimant and the Respondent agreed upon a transfer compensation amounting to EUR 2,924,281.98 (of which EUR 124,281.98 was to be deducted as solidarity contribution), payable in four installments. 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 May 2012. 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 of the 2008 and 2012 editions 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 2012) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on the present matter relating to the solidarity mechanism between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. Furthermore, 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 and 2012), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 31 August 2011 as well as that the present claim was lodged on 28 May 2012, the 2010 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. The members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. 5. In this respect, the Chamber took due note that it was undisputed between the parties that the Claimant had contributed to the training and education of the player. However, the Chamber observed that there was a disagreement between the parties as to whether the Claimant is entitled to solidarity contribution; whereas the Claimant deemed that it is entitled to 65% of the 5% solidarity contribution, the Respondent was of the opinion that the Claimant’s expenses for training and education of the player had been covered by the payment of the amount of EUR 2,800,000 by the Respondent to the Claimant. 6. In view of all the foregoing, the Chamber considered that it had to determine whether the Claimant is entitled to receive solidarity contribution and, in the affirmative, what should be the relevant amount of solidarity contribution that has to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. In this regard, the Chamber went on to establish whether the Claimant is entitled to receive solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent. 7. To that end, the Chamber referred to art. 21 of the Regulations in combination with art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations which stipulate 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 and be distributed by the new club as a solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in the training and education of the player in proportion of the number of years the player has been registered with the relevant club(s) between the seasons of his 12th and 23rd birthday. 8. In this respect, the DRC recalled that it was undisputed between the parties that the Claimant had contributed to the education and training of the player between the seasons of his 12th and 23rd birthday. As a result, the Claimant is entitled to receive a proportion of the 5% solidarity contribution of the transfer compensation paid to the player’s former club, regardless of whether the Claimant is the player’s former club or any other club that trained the player. 9. By way of explanation, the Chamber outlined that in case the player’s former club has received 100% of the total transfer compensation from the player’s new club, the player’s former club is deemed to have also received 100% of the 5% of the solidarity contribution relating to the relevant transfer and, possibly, to have received more than it is entitled to, should there be other clubs that contributed to the training and education of the player. However, in the present matter, according to the information contained in TMS, the total transfer compensation amounted to EUR 2,924,281.98 and not to EUR 2,800,000. The Chamber therefore disagrees with the Respondent that by paying the EUR 2,800,000 it had covered all the expenses towards the Claimant in relation to the training and education of the player. 10. Having established that the Claimant is entitled to receive solidarity contribution, the Chamber continued to establish the relevant amount of solidarity contribution. 11. In this respect, the DRC recalled that, according to the player passport issued by the country C Football Federation, the player, born in July 1988, was registered with the Claimant as from 3 January 2005 until 31 August 2011. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant claimed the payment of the amount of EUR 80,780 as solidarity contribution from the Respondent in relation with the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent. Equally, the Chamber outlined that the player had been transferred to the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday and that, therefore, the solidarity contribution did not correspond to the full 5%. 12. In view of all the above, and taking into account the amount claimed by the Claimant as well as the fact that the player was transferred to the Respondent before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 80,780. 13. Furthermore, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s claim for “any other expenses that [the Claimant] will have to pay connected with the consideration of the case by FIFA” in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, which stipulates that in proceedings of the DRC no procedural compensation shall be awarded. 14. The Chamber concluded its deliberations as to the substance of the matter by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant. 15. Lastly, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the DRC relating to disputes regarding training compensation and the solidarity mechanism, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25’000 are levied. It is further stipulated that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and, in accordance with Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 16. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 80,780 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 15,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules). 17. As a result, considering that the case at hand did pose some particular factual difficulties and taking into account the degree of success, the Chamber determined the final costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 10,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent. ** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club B, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club D, from country R, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 80,780. 3. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the stipulated time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 10,000 are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1. The amount of currency of country H 8,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XX-XXXX: 5.2. The amount of currency of country H 2,000 has to be paid to the Claimant. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under point 2. and 5.2. above are 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. 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 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 Enclosed: CAS directives