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 10 February 2015, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, from country D as Respondent regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the player Player E

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 10 February 2015, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, from country D as Respondent regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the player Player E I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation from country B, the player, Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 1 July 1986, was registered with its affiliate, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 13 July 2006 until 25 June 2008. 2. The relevant sporting seasons in country B ran as from 1 January until 31 December. 3. The Football Association from country D informed FIFA that the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 27 June 2012. 4. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 26 June 2012, the club from country F, Club G and the Respondent agreed upon a transfer compensation for the transfer of the player of USD 4,800,000 payable as follows: o USD 800,000 on 6 July 2012; o USD 2,000,000 on 13 February 2013; o USD 2,000,000 on 15 September 2013. 5. Moreover, the transfer agreement provided that the Respondent should pay to Club G the following amounts: o USD 500,000 on 27 June 2012; o USD 700,000 on 14 July 2012 “to go to cancel tariffs and/or charges applicable to this final transfer agreement”. 6. In this framework, on 14 January 2013, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming its proportion of the solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player from Club G to the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant requested 1.25% of the total transfer compensation as solidarity contribution. 7. In its reply, the Respondent rejected the claim and argued that “our club has already paid the whole compensation to the player’s former club (…) 5% of the compensation is not deducted”. 8. Furthermore, the Respondent sustained that “there is not enough evidence to prove the player had been received football training in Club A” and stressed that “the training contract shall be presented. Otherwise, [the Respondent] is rightful to reject paying any compensation”. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the DRC judge analyzed 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 14 January 2013. Consequently, the 2012 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 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, does not contain complex factual or legal issues and concerns the distribution of solidarity contribution claimed by a club from country B in connection with the international transfer of the player from a club in country F to a club in country D. 3. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with the Respondent on 27 June 2012, the DRC judge analyzed 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 2012 and 2014) and considering that the present claim was lodged on 14 January 2013, the 2012 version of the 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, and entering into the substance of the matter, the DRC judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts, the arguments of the parties as well as the documentation contained in the file. However, the DRC judge emphasized that in the following considerations, he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. In this respect, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant claimed the payment of USD 75,000 as solidarity contribution from the Respondent, corresponding to 1.25% of the total transfer compensation 6. In addition to the above, the DRC judge considered that according to the information contained in the TMS, the club from country F, Club G and the Respondent agreed upon a transfer compensation of USD 6,000,000, payable as follows: a. USD 500,000 on 27 June 2012; b. USD 800,000 on 6 July 2012; c. USD 700,000 on 14 July 2012; d. USD 2,000,000 on 13 February 2013; e. USD 2,000,000 on 15 September 2013. 7. Furthermore, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent argued that “our club has already paid the whole compensation to the player’s former club (…) 5% of the compensation is not deducted”. Moreover, it sustained that “there is not enough evidence to prove the player had been received football training in Club A” and stressed that “the training contract shall be presented. Otherwise, [the Respondent] is rightful to reject paying any compensation”. 8. Having established the above, the DRC judge referred to art. 21 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. 9. In this respect and as to the Respondent’s argument that “there is not enough evidence to prove the player had been received football training in Club A”, the DRC judge wished to point out that the Football Federation from country B had confirmed that the player, born on 1 July 1986, was registered with the Claimant as from 13 July 2006 until 25 June 2008. 10. On account of the above and in accordance with art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, the DRC judge considered, while rejecting the argument of the Respondent, that the Claimant is therefore entitled to receive solidarity contribution for the period as from as from 13 July 2006 until 25 June 2008. 11. As to the issue of the obligation to pay solidarity contribution raised by the Respondent, the DRC judge was eager to emphasize that, pursuant to art. 2 par. 2 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, it is the responsibility of the new club to calculate and distribute the solidarity contribution; the Regulations clearly establish that the distribution of the solidarity contribution is incumbent on the new club. As a result, the DRC judge concluded that the Respondent is liable for the payment of solidarity contribution. 12. Having established that the Respondent is obliged to pay solidarity contribution to the Claimant, the DRC judge then turned to the calculation of the pertinent amount. In this respect, the DRC judge took in consideration that the player was born on 1 July 1986. 13. In view of the foregoing and in accordance with art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, the DRC judge considered that the Claimant is, thus, entitled to receive solidarity contribution for 6 months of the season of the player’s 20th birthday, for 12 months of the season of the player’s 21st and for 6 months of the season of the player’s 22nd birthday. In terms of the percentage of the 5% solidarity contribution, the Chamber calculated that, on a pro rata basis, this corresponds to 20% of 5% of the total transfer compensation. 14. In view of all of the above, the DRC judge decided to partially accept the claim of the Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 60,000 as solidarity contribution in relation to the transfer of the player from Club G to the Respondent. 15. In continuation, the DRC judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which in the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Chamber, including the DRC judge, relating to disputes regarding solidarity mechanism costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings. 16. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the Claimant has been the successful party, the DRC judge concluded that the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA have to be paid by the Respondent. 17. 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. 18. On that basis, the DRC judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is USD 75,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the members of the DRC concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000 (cf. table in Annex A). 19. In conclusion and 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 CHF 3,000, to be paid by the Respondent. III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 60,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum is not paid within the stated time limit, interest 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 CHF 3,000 are to be paid, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1 The amount of CHF 2,000 by the Respondent to the Claimant; 5.2 The amount of CHF 1,000 by the Respondent to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no.: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH 27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under point 2. and 5.1 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 DRC judge: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives