F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) – contributo di solidarietà – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) – solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 31 July 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Ivan E. Gazidis (England), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the club, Club B, from country F as Claimant against the club, Club G, from country B as Respondent regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the international transfer of the player V

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) - contributo di solidarietà – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) - solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 31 July 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Ivan E. Gazidis (England), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the club, Club B, from country F as Claimant against the club, Club G, from country B as Respondent regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the international transfer of the player V I. Facts of the case 1. In accordance with the player passport issued by the country F Football Federation, the Player V (hereinafter: player), born in April 1984, was registered with the Club B, from country F (hereinafter: Claimant), as from 27 July 2005 until 31 January 2008. 2. The season in country F starts on 1 July and ends on 30 June of the following year. 3. On 11 January 2008, the Claimant and the Club G, from country B (hereinafter: Respondent), signed an agreement (hereinafter: agreement) over the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent, by means of which they stipulated a transfer compensation in the amount of USD 1,513,000. This compensation was to be paid as follows: - USD 200,000 to be paid upon signature of the agreement; - 13 instalments of USD 101,000, to be paid on the last day of each month between February 2008 and February 2009. 4. Furthermore, the parties also agreed that in accordance with the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Respondent would be responsible for the distribution of the “training compensation” of 5% and would assure its distribution to the clubs having contributed to the training of the player. In this respect, the parties further specified in art. 4 of the agreement that the amount of transfer compensation corresponds to the amount actually received by the Claimant. 5. According to the country B Football Confederation, the player was registered with the Respondent on 12 February 2008. 6. On 23 February 2009, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent for the alleged non-compliance with its regulatory obligations regarding the distribution of the solidarity contribution concerning the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent. 7. The Claimant stated that the sum due by the Respondent is USD 18,913 based on the instalments that had fallen due by then. 8. In its response to the claim, the Respondent expressed its full disagreement with the Claimant’s claim. 9. The Respondent alleged in particular that since the Claimant had already received the full amount for the transfer of the player, it would be improper to claim an extra amount as solidarity contribution. As agreed in the agreement, the Claimant already received 100% of the transfer compensation, i.e. USD 1,513,000. In this respect, the Respondent referred to art. 4 of the agreement. 10. In its replica, the Claimant adhered to its position, explaining that the agreement would allegedly mention that the transfer compensation corresponded to 95% of the value of the player and that the Respondent was responsible for the distribution of the solidarity contribution. However, the Claimant confirmed having received the amount of USD 1,513,000 as transfer compensation. 11. In its duplica, the Respondent stated that in accordance with the agreement, it undertook to pay the full amount agreed as well as be responsible to pay solidarity contribution to other clubs which had trained the player. According to the Respondent, art. 4 of the agreement settles two conditions: The Respondent shall distribute the solidarity contribution to the training clubs and the amount established in art. 2 of the agreement constitutes the full amount due to the Claimant. According to the Respondent, it would not make sense to establish the additional item at the end of art. 4 of the agreement, if it was not in the parties’ interest to say that no solidarity was due to the Claimant. 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 23 February 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 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 and par. 2 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 2012 and 2010), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 12 February 2008 as well as that the present claim was lodged on 23 February 2009, 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. The members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in the 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 disagreement between the parties as to whether the Claimant is entitled to solidarity contribution; whereas the Claimant deemed that it is entitled to receive USD 18,913 as solidarity contribution, the Respondent was of the opinion that the Claimant’s proportion of the solidarity contribution relating to the player had been covered by payment of 100% of the transfer compensation in the amount of USD 1,513,000 by the Respondent to the Claimant in accordance with the agreement. 6. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Claimant alleged that the agreement would state that the transfer compensation corresponds to 95% of the value of the player and that the Respondent was obliged to distribute the solidarity contribution. The Chamber further noted that the Claimant confirmed that it had received the amount of USD 1,513,000 from the Respondent as transfer compensation. 7. Equally, the DRC took note of the reply of the Respondent, who stated that the Claimant had already received 100% of the transfer compensation and that it would be improper to claim an extra amount as solidarity contribution. 8. In view of all the foregoing, the Chamber considered that it had to determine as to whether the Claimant is entitled to receive solidarity contribution from the Respondent in connection with the player and, in the affirmative, the relevant amount of solidarity contribution. 9. 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. 10. Furthermore, the Chamber outlined the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC with regard to claims for solidarity contribution in which the former club of the player has received 100% of the total transfer compensation it agreed upon with the new club for the transfer of the player, i.e. without the aforementioned 5% related to solidarity contribution having been deducted. 11. The DRC stated that according to said jurisprudence, 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% 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. 12. In addition, the Chamber referred to the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC regarding claims for solidarity contribution in which, on the one hand, a club involved in the training of the player claims solidarity contribution from the player’s new club, and, on the other hand, 100% of the transfer compensation was paid by the player’s new club to the player’s former club. According to this jurisprudence, the player’s new club is then ordered to remit the relevant proportion of the 5% solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in the player’s training in strict application of the relevant provisions of the Regulations. At the same time, the player’s former club is ordered to reimburse to the player’s new club the same proportion(s) of the 5% of the compensation that it received from the player’s new club. 13. In the present matter, the Claimant received from the Respondent 100% of the total transfer compensation agreed upon for the transfer of the player, i.e. USD 1,513,000. As a result, and bearing in mind the above considerations, the DRC concluded that the Claimant also received 100% of the 5% solidarity contribution that is to be distributed to clubs involved in the player’s training and education. 14. In view of all the above, the DRC rejected the 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 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 USD 18,913 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 5,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules). 17. As a result, 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 5,000, which shall be borne by the Claimant. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club B, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 5,000 are to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA, within 30 days of notification of the present decision, to the following bank account with reference to case no.: **** 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