F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2011-2012) – controversie tra società – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2011-2012) – club vs. club disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 March 2012, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club A, from country I as “Claimant” against the club Club B, from country J as “Respondent” regarding a dispute between the parties, for the reimbursement of the solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player E.

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2011-2012) – controversie tra società – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2011-2012) – club vs. club disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 March 2012, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club A, from country I as “Claimant” against the club Club B, from country J as “Respondent” regarding a dispute between the parties, for the reimbursement of the solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player E. I. Facts of the case 1. On 18 August 2005, Club B, from country J (hereafter: the Respondent) and the Club A, from country I (hereafter: the Claimant) concluded a “Contract for the Temporary Transfer of Federative Rights” in respect of the loan of the player Z, from country K (hereafter: the player) for the period from the signature of the contract until 30 June 2006. 2. Under the terms of art. 2 of the contract, “the value of the loan is set at €250,000 (two hundred and fifty thousand euros) payable by Club A to Club B as follows: € 125,000 (one hundred and twenty-five thousand euros) on 31 August 2005 € 125,000 (one hundred and twenty-five thousand euros) on 31 January 2006” 3. Furthermore, art. 5 of the contract stipulated that “Club B grants Club A the option of acquiring 100% (one hundred per cent) of the player’s federative rights for the sum of EUR 1,250,000”. 4. On 21 August 2006, the parties concluded a “Definitive Transfer Contract” in respect of the player for the sum of EUR 1,250,000, payable in two instalments of EUR 625,000 each, the first instalment on 20 August 2006 and the second instalment on 31 December 2006. 5. On 24 October 2008, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, claiming payment of EUR 44,980.93 it alleged to have paid to the Club C, from country K (hereafter: Club C) as a solidarity contribution, in compliance with a letter dated 9 October 2007 FIFA had sent in the context of a solidarity contribution case. According to the Claimant, “this sum should have been retained by Club A, in some way, from the amounts agreed in the loan agreement, with the option to buy” concluded by the parties. 6. As a result, the Claimant requested from the Respondent reimbursement of the sum of EUR 44,980.93, plus annual interest of 5% as of 16 October 2007. 7. On 30 June 2009, the Respondent replied to the claim, alleging that from the documentation submitted by the Claimant, “it is impossible for us to see if the amount claimed and paid to Club C was calculated correctly”. Therefore, in order to be able to duly respond to the claim, the Respondent requested that the Claimant: “clarify on the basis of which transfer contract the amount claimed was paid as a solidarity contribution; give details of which proportion of the sum paid corresponded to the solidarity contribution derived from the Temporary Transfer Contract and which share of the sum paid corresponded to the Definitive Transfer Contract; add to the file the player passport of the player E or his background to show during which seasons he was trained by Club C and how old he was during each of those seasons; clarify in detail the calculation or operation used to obtain the sum that was paid to Club C”. 8. On 4 September 2009, the Claimant submitted its response to the reply to the claim. In this respect, it pointed out that the sum paid by the Claimant to Club C as a solidarity contribution had been calculated on the basis of the amounts agreed in the loan and transfer agreements for the player concluded by the parties. 9. In view of this, and considering that the player had spent six seasons with Club C from the age of 17 to 23, the Claimant had calculated that Club C was entitled to the following amounts under the solidarity mechanism: “For the temporary transfer contract (250,000 euros), the sum of 8,750 euros would be payable. For the definitive transfer contract (1,250,000 euros), the sum of 43,750 euros would be payable”. 10. The Claimant then stated that, based on the above, the total sum to be reimbursed by the Respondent was EUR 52,500. However, that amount had been reduced to EUR 44,980 as a result of the negotiations undertaken with Club C. Therefore, the Claimant reiterated the request made in its original claim, that is, that the Respondent be ordered to pay the sum of EUR 44,980.93, plus 5% annual interest as of 16 October 2007. 11. On 25 November 2009, the Respondent submitted its final response to the claim and argued that according to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereafter: the Regulations), the time limit for hearing the case had expired as more than two years had elapsed since the events giving rise to the dispute - “the signature of the transfer agreements that gave rise to the training club’s entitlement to receive, and the new club’s obligation to pay, the solidarity contribution”. 12. The Respondent further alleged that, in accordance with Annexe 5 of the Regulations, “the obligation for the former club to pay the new club the percentage corresponding to the solidarity contribution arises as of signature of the transfer agreement, so that the new club can immediately distribute it among the training clubs or associations, if applicable. As a result, the new club’s entitlement to retain or claim from the former club a percentage under the solidarity mechanism arises upon signature of the transfer agreement, so that the new club can immediately fulfil its obligations under the solidarity mechanism established by FIFA”. 13. The Respondent added “And, if the entitlement of the new club to request from the former club a percentage of the solidarity contribution (to distribute it among the training clubs) arises as of the transfer, that is also the point from which the time limit established in art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players begins for claiming payment or reimbursement of payments made under the solidarity mechanism”. 14. According to the Respondent, that would affect both the temporary transfer agreement and the definitive transfer agreement. In the first case, “as Club A presented their claim on 14 October 2008, more than two years had elapsed since the events (18 August 2005, 31 August 2005 and 31 January), and therefore the time limit has expired for any claim for reimbursement or return of the payments made under the solidarity mechanism”. In the second case, “if we take the date of the definitive transfer agreement, their entitlement to claim reimbursement or return of the amount paid in solidarity contribution had expired on the date the claim was lodged (14 October 2008), as more than two years had elapsed since the events that gave rise to the dispute and submission for the claim. If, however, we take the dates on which the payments were made and the percentage for the solidarity contribution was not deducted, the entitlement to claim for the payment made on 29 August 2006 would have expired, since the two years elapsed on 28 August 2008. However, the entitlement to claim for the payment made in December 2006 would not have expired”. 15. In view of the above, the Respondent requested that the claim for reimbursement be rejected since the time limit for lodging the claim had expired, “or, in any case, the amount claimed should be reduced, taking into account that only the right to claim reimbursement of the solidarity contribution generated by the payment of the instalment of €625,000 on 31 December 2008 in connection with the definitive transfer had not expired”, and that amounted to EUR 18,742.06 according to the Respondent’s calculations. Consequently, the Claimant would have the right to claim “only 50% of what they paid for the definitive transfer, that is, 18,742.06” in reimbursement for the solidarity contribution. 16. Lastly, the Respondent requested that the claim for interest, which in any case should only be calculated 30 days after notification of the decision in that respect, be rejected. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereafter: the Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the present matter. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008). Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 24 October 2008, the Single Judge concluded that the current edition of the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter in hand. 2. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 f) and 23 par. 3 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010), he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns a dispute between two football clubs affiliated to two different associations. 3. Furthermore, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 24 October 2008, the 2008 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter in hand as to the substance. 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge carefully studied the facts outlined above, which show that on 18 August 2005 the player was loaned from the Respondent to the Claimant for an amount of EUR 250,000 payable in two instalments of EUR 125,000 each, the first one payable on 31 August 2005 and the second one payable on 31 January 2006. 5. Likewise, the Single Judge noted that on 21 August 2006, the parties concluded a “Definitive Transfer Contract” in respect of the player for the sum of EUR 1,250,000, payable in two instalments of EUR 625,000 each, the first one payable on 20 August 2006 and the second one payable on 31 December 2006. Finally, the Single Judge underlined that after the payment of the aforesaid amounts to the Respondent, i.e. on or around 16 October 2007, the Claimant had also paid the amount of EUR 44,980 to Club C as solidarity contribution. 6. In continuation and as a starting point in his analysis of the present dispute, the Single Judge underlined the content of art. 1 and 2 par. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations which provide 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 distributed by the new club as a solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in his training and education […]” and that this solidarity contribution shall be paid by the new club to the training club(s) “no later than 30 days after the player’s registration or, in case of contingent payments, 30 days after the date of such payments”. 7. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to the well-established jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) with regard to cases in which the player’s new club does not, or omits to, withhold 5% of the agreed transfer compensation when paying such transfer compensation, but is requested at a later stage to distribute solidarity contribution to the player’s training clubs. According to the mentioned jurisprudence, the player’s new club is ordered to remit the relevant share of solidarity contribution to the training club(s) in strict application of art. 1 and 2 par. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, despite having already paid 100% of the agreed transfer compensation to the player’s former club. However, in a second step, the player’s new club has the right to claim from the player’s former club the reimbursement of the relevant amount of the 5% relating to solidarity mechanism it was effectively obliged to pay to the player’s training club(s). 8. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant, who had omitted to deduct the relevant amount of solidarity contribution from the amounts of compensation it had paid to the Respondent on the basis of the two contracts concluded in relation to the player, had been requested by FIFA, a first time on 9 March 2007 and a second time on 9 October 2007, to proceed with the said payment. Likewise, the Single Judge again took note that the Claimant had then proceeded with the payment of EUR 44,980.93 to Club C on 16 October 2007. 9. As a consequence, the Single Judge considered that the Claimant, in the present case, is, in principle, entitled to be refunded from the Respondent the amount it was requested to remit to the player’s training club(s) as solidarity contribution in accordance with the applicable Regulations. 10. Having established the above, the Single Judge went on to address the issue of prescription raised by the Respondent. In this respect and as a preliminary remark, the Single Judge held that a claim for reimbursement of solidarity contribution is to be considered as prescribed if more than two years have elapsed between the date on which the distribution of the relevant solidarity contribution had to be made and the date on which the claim was lodged in front of FIFA. In this context, the Single Judge was again eager to emphasise that according to the Regulations, the new club of a player “shall pay the solidarity contribution to the training club(s) […] no later than 30 days after the player’s registration or, in case of contingent payments, 30 days after the date of such payments”. In this respect, the Single Judge was keen to point out that letters from FIFA in which clubs are reminded of their obligations to pay solidarity contribution as per the Regulations only constitute reminders to pay and do not permit a club to postpone or delay its obligation to pay the said contribution. 11. In continuation, the Single Judge underlined that the relevant two instalments for the loan of the player had to be paid by the Claimant to the Respondent on 31 August 2005 and 31 January 2006 respectively, and that consequently, the respective amounts of solidarity contribution should have been distributed by the Claimant to Club C by no later than “30 days after the date of such payments”, i.e. no later than 30 September 2005 and no later than 2 March 2006. Equally, and as for the instalments due for the definitive transfer of the player, the Single Judge noted that said instalments had to be paid by the Claimant to the Respondent on 20 August 2006 and 31 December 2006 respectively, and that consequently, the respective amounts of solidarity contribution should have been paid by the Claimant to Club C on 19 September 2006 and 30 January 2007 respectively. 12. In view of the above and considering that the Claimant lodged its claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent on 24 October 2008, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that the entitlement to claim reimbursement of the relevant portions of solidarity contribution in connection with the first three instalments (i.e. the two instalments under the loan contract signed on 18 August 2005 as well as the first instalment under the definitive transfer contract signed on 21 August 2006) has to be considered as prescribed and that only the claim which respect to the last instalment (i.e. the amount of EUR 625,000 due on 31 December 2006) is not time-barred. 13. Therefore, in view of the aforementioned and taking into account the information provided with respect to the number of seasons the player was registered with Club C as well as his age at the time, the Single Judge held that the amount that the Claimant should have distributed to Club C with regard to the second instalment of the definitive transfer of the player amounted to EUR 18,750 (i.e. 60% of the 5% of the total amount of solidarity contribution over the amount of EUR 625,000). Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of solidarity contribution which has to be reimbursed by the Respondent to the Claimant equals EUR 18,750. 14. In view of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Respondent has to pay the Claimant the total amount of EUR 18,750, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 31 January 2007. 15. Finally, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 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 Players’ Status Committee, including the Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country L 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. 16. Furthermore and according to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 44,980. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country L 5,000. 17. Considering the complexity of the case and the amount of submissions provided by the parties, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country L 5,000 and held that such costs have to be borne in equal shares by both parties. 18. In conclusion, the amount of currency of country L 2,500 has to be paid by the Claimant and the amount of currency of country L 2,500 has to be paid by the Respondent in order to cover the costs of the present proceedings. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club B, has to pay to the Claimant, Club A, the amount of EUR 18,750, as well as 5% interest per year on the said amount as from 31 January 2007 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Club A, are rejected. 4. If the aforementioned sums are not paid within the aforementioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. The costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country L 5,000 are to be paid in equal shares by both parties. The Claimant, Club A, and the Respondent, Club B, shall each pay the amount of currency of country L 2,500, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, to the following bank account, with reference to case nr. XX-XXXXX/XXX: Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to article 63 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 Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee: ______________ Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl.: CAS directives