F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) – contributo di solidarietà – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) – solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 6 November 2014, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on a matter between the club, Club N, from country B against the club, Club F, from country B and the club, Club L, from country P as Intervening party regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the international transfer of the player A

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) - contributo di solidarietà – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) - solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 6 November 2014, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on a matter between the club, Club N, from country B against the club, Club F, from country B and the club, Club L, from country P as Intervening party regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the international transfer of the player A I. Facts of the case 1. The country B Football Federation confirmed that Player A, from country B (hereinafter: the player), born in February 1990, was registered with Club N (hereinafter: Club N) as from 3 July 2003 until 11 February 2010. 2. The sporting season in country B follows the calendar year. 3. According to a confirmation received from the country B Football Federation, the player was registered with its affiliated club Club F (hereinafter: Club F) on a loan basis, from 21 June 2011 until 30 June 2012 and, as well on a loan basis, from 1 July 2012 until 30 June 2013. 4. On 19 September 2012, Club N contacted FIFA claiming its proportion of the solidarity contribution in connection with the transfers of the player on a loan basis from Club L, from country P (hereinafter: Club L) to Club F in June 2011 for the alleged amount of EUR 500,000 and in May 2012 for the alleged amount of EUR 300,000. 5. Consequently, Club N requested to be awarded with the following amounts: a. 53,63% of EUR 25,000, corresponding to EUR 13,407.50 plus 5% default interest as from July 2011; b. 53,63% of EUR 15,000, corresponding to EUR 8,044.50 plus 5% default interest as from June 2012. 6. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), as well as to the transfer (loan) agreements provided by Club F, the clubs involved in the transfers agreed upon the following transfer compensations: a. EUR 500,000 “free of any taxes or withholdings” payable until 30 June 2011, for the loan agreed in June 2011; b. EUR 300,000 “free of any taxes or withholdings” payable until 1 July 2012, for the loan agreed in June 2012. 7. In its reply to Club N’s claim, Club F stated that, according to the two transfer (loan) agreements between Club F o and Club L, Club F paid 100% of the transfer fees to Club L and so the latter should reimburse Club F the amount regarding the solidarity contribution. 8. On 8 November 2013, FIFA invited Club F to distribute the relevant proportion of the 5% solidarity contribution of the transfer compensation to Club N. Furthermore, FIFA invited Club L to reimburse Club F the relevant proportion of the 5% of the amount of compensation agreed upon with Club L. 9. However, Club L replied asserting that the amounts agreed with Club F in both transfer (loan) agreements were “net amounts to be paid without any deductions” and, in consequence, Club L hel it did not have to reimburse Club L any amount for solidarity contribution. 10. Moreover, Club F did not reply to FIFA’s suggestion. 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 19 September 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, 2012 and 2014 editions 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. iii. in conjunction with art. 22 lit. e) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2014) the DRC judge is competent to decide on the present matter which is of an international dimension, has already a clear established jurisprudence, does not contain complex factual or legal issues and concerns the distribution of solidarity contribution claimed by a country B club in connection with the international transfer of the player from a country P club to a country B club. 3. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with his new club on 21 June 2011, 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, 2012 and 2014) and considering that the present claim was lodged on 19 September 2012, the 2010 version of the said Regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the present matter as to the substance. 4. In continuation, and entering into the substance of the matter, the DRC judge started by acknowledging that Club N is requesting solidarity contribution in the amount of EUR 13,407.50 based on a transfer compensation of EUR 500,000 paid by Club F to Club L in connection with the international transfer (loan) of the player in July 2011, as well as in the amount of EUR 8,044.50 based on a transfer compensation of EUR 300,000 agreed between the two aforementioned clubs in connection with the second international transfer (loan) of the player in June 2012. 5. 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. 6. In continuation, the DRC judge took note that, on the one hand, Club F stated that it had not retained 5% of the two transfer compensations and, thus, had paid the total amount of both compensations to Club L. In other words, Club F asserted that it omitted to deduct 5% of the relevant transfer compensations relating to the distribution of the solidarity contribution. On the other hand, the DRC judge noted that Club L asserted that, in accordance with the wording of the two relevant transfer (loan) agreements, the amounts agreed in them were to be paid by Club F net without any deductions, since the said agreements stipulated that the transfer fees were “free of any taxes or withholdings” and that, therefore, Club L did not have to reimburse any amount to Club F as solidarity contribution. 7. Taking into account the above arguments, the DRC judge observed that the main issue in the current matter is that Club L is of the opinion that the total amounts of EUR 500,000 and EUR 300,000 respectively, are due to it and that, in accordance with the transfer (loan) agreements, Club F had to pay, on top of the total loan compensations of EUR 500,000 and EUR 300,000, the relevant amounts concerning solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in the training and education of the player. 8. In this context, 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). 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. In light of the above, the DRC judge decided that Club F is liable to pay the relevant proportion of the 5% solidarity contribution to Club N and that Club L must reimburse the same proportion of the 5% solidarity contribution to Club F. 12. In this regard, having confirmed the above-mentioned obligation incumbent on Club F, the DRC judge went on to establish the proper calculation of the relevant proportion of solidarity contribution due to Club N. 13. 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. 14. In this respect, the DRC judge recalled that the country B Football Federation had confirmed that the player, born in February 1990, was registered with Club N as from 3 July 2003 until 11 February 2010 and that the relevant compensations amount to EUR 500,000 for the loan that took place in July 2011 and to EUR 300,000 for the loan agreed in June 2012. 15. Consequently, the DRC judge established that, in accordance with the breakdown provided for in art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, Club N is entitled to receive 53,33% of 5% of the compensations paid by Club F to Club L i.e. 53,33% of 5% of EUR 500,000 and 53,33% of 5% of EUR 300,000. 16. In view of all the above and taking into consideration the requests of the parties, the DRC judge decided that Club F must pay to Club N the amount of EUR 13,332.50 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 22 July 2011 until the date of effective payment as well as the amount of EUR 7,999.50 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2012 until the date of effective payment. 17. Subsequently and following the above-mentioned considerations, the DRC judge determined that Club L must reimburse the amount of EUR 21,332 to Club F. 18. The DRC judge concluded his deliberations as to the substance of the matter by rejecting any further claim of Club N. 19. Lastly, 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 relating to disputes regarding training compensation and the solidarity mechanism, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25’000 are levied. The relevant provision further states that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings (cf. art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules). 20. 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. On that basis, the DRC judge held that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 5,000 (cf. table in Annex A). 21. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been partially accepted, the DRC judge concluded that Club F has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 22. Considering the above, the DRC judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 5,000 which shall be borne by Club F. III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of Club N is partially accepted. 2. Club F has to pay to Club N, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 13,332.50 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 22 July 2011 until the date of effective payment. 3. Club F has to pay to Club N, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 7,999.50 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2012 until the date of effective payment. 4. In the event that the aforementioned sums plus interest are not paid by Club F within the stated time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 5,000 are to be paid by Club F, within 30 days of notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no.: 6. Club N is directed to inform Club F immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the DRC judge of every payment received. 7. Club L has to reimburse the amount of EUR 21,332 to Club F within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 8. If the aforementioned sum is not paid by Club L within the aforementioned deadline, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the said 30 days’ time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 9. Club F is directed to inform Club L immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the 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 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