F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2012-2013) – controversie tra società – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2012-2013) – club vs. club disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 September 2012, in the following composition: Theo Zwanziger (Germany), Chairman V. Manilal Fernando (Sri Lanka), Deputy Chairman Chuck Blazer (USA), member Geoff Thompson (England), member Tai Nicholas (New Zealand), member Said Al Masri (Syria), member Aibek Alybaev (Kyrgyzstan), member Norman Darmanin Demajo (Malta), member Aminu Maigari (Nigeria), member Victor Cisse (Senegal), member Luis H. Bedoya (Colombia), member Decio De María (Mexico), member on the claim presented by the club, Club B, from country T as Claimant against the club, Club A, from country S as Respondent regarding the reimbursement of the solidarity contribution relating to the player P

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2012-2013) – controversie tra società – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2012-2013) – club vs. club disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 September 2012, in the following composition: Theo Zwanziger (Germany), Chairman V. Manilal Fernando (Sri Lanka), Deputy Chairman Chuck Blazer (USA), member Geoff Thompson (England), member Tai Nicholas (New Zealand), member Said Al Masri (Syria), member Aibek Alybaev (Kyrgyzstan), member Norman Darmanin Demajo (Malta), member Aminu Maigari (Nigeria), member Victor Cisse (Senegal), member Luis H. Bedoya (Colombia), member Decio De María (Mexico), member on the claim presented by the club, Club B, from country T as Claimant against the club, Club A, from country S as Respondent regarding the reimbursement of the solidarity contribution relating to the player P I. Facts of the case 1. On 23 December 2010, Club B, from country T (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the Club A, from country S (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded a transfer agreement for the transfer of the player, Player P (hereinafter: the player), from the Respondent to the Claimant for a transfer compensation of EUR 900,000. 2. Article 2 of said agreement stipulated that the transfer compensation of EUR 900,000 is a net amount. 3. On 26 May 2011 and 27 June 2011, after having been notified by FIFA of several claims regarding the payment of the solidarity contribution, the Claimant pointed out that it omitted to deduct 5% relating to the solidarity mechanism and, thus, paid 100% of the transfer compensation to the Respondent. In view of the foregoing, the Claimant requested the payment of EUR 45,000 (reimbursement of 5% solidarity contribution) plus interest by the Respondent. 4. On 15 August 2011, the Claimant informed FIFA that, in accordance with a proposal of the FIFA administration, it had paid the amount of EUR 3,436 (EUR 3,375 plus interest) as solidarity contribution to Club D, from country P, on 24 June 2011. 5. On 14 June 2012, the Claimant informed FIFA that, in accordance with a decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge of 24 October 2011, it had paid the amount of EUR 8,595.39 (EUR 8,248.50 plus interest) as solidarity contribution to Club L, from country P, on 16 December 2011. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that it had not yet received the amount of EUR 45,000 from the Respondent, and reiterated its request for the payment of said amount plus 5% interest and “all the court costs”. 6. On 25 June 2012, the Respondent was officially asked for its position regarding the request made by the Claimant in relation to the reimbursement of the solidarity contribution. 7. On 9 July 2012, the Respondent stated that, in accordance with the provisions of art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, 5% of any compensation, not including training compensation paid to the player’s former club, shall be deducted from the total amount of this compensation. However, according to the Respondent, the compliance with this provision has to be realized in accordance with what is established in the agreement concluded between the parties and their intention in that regard. 8. The Respondent further stated that, subject to compliance with the obligation to subsequently pay the training clubs of a player, the parties can agree in which manner they fulfil such obligation, as long as they guarantee that the relevant amounts of solidarity contribution are paid to the training clubs entitled to the solidarity contribution. 9. Likewise, the Respondent stated that the aforementioned situation was intended by the parties when, in the transfer agreement of 23 December 2010 concluded between them, they agreed upon the amount of EUR 900,000 net payable by the Claimant to the Respondent. According to the Respondent, the term “net” shall be interpreted meaning the total amount after deduction of charges or taxes, as well as the amount of solidarity contribution that has to be deducted from the gross amount of the transfer fee and borne by the Claimant. 10. The Respondent argued that the parties contractually agreed, clearly and unequivocally expressing their will, that the amount that the Respondent shall receive is net. According to the Respondent, this does not imply that the Claimant is exempted from its obligation to deduct and make the payment of the solidarity contribution. II. Considerations of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter: the Committee) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, it 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 26 May 2011, the Committee concluded that 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. 2. Furthermore, the Committee confirmed that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and par. 3 as well as art. 22 lit. f) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010), it was competent to deal with the present matter since it concerned a dispute between two clubs affiliated to different associations. 3. Subsequently, the Committee analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players was applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Committee referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and, on the other hand, to the fact that the claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 26 May 2011. In view of the foregoing, the Committee concluded that the 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the Committee and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Committee started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. 5. First of all, the Committee carefully studied the facts outlined above, which showed that on 23 December 2010 the player was transferred from the Respondent to the Claimant for a transfer compensation in the amount of EUR 900,000 “net”. 6. In this context, the Committee observed that the Claimant had paid the entire transfer compensation of EUR 900,000 to the Respondent and that, thereafter, the Claimant had received various claims for the payment of the solidarity contribution after which it had distributed the total amount of EUR 11,623.50 as solidarity contribution to two country P clubs which were involved in the training and education of the player. In this respect, the Committee noted that the Claimant was of the opinion that it had omitted to deduct the relevant proportion of the transfer compensation for the distribution of the solidarity contribution. 7. The Committee noted that, on account of the above, the Claimant requested that the Respondent would reimburse the amount of EUR 45,000 (5% of EUR 900,000) to the Claimant. 8. In turn, the Committee observed that the Respondent however rejected the claim of the Claimant basically asserting that the parties had agreed upon a net transfer compensation, meaning that it would receive the total amount of EUR 900,000 without any further deductions. 9. Subsequently, the Committee referred to art. 21 and art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, the latter clearly stipulating 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 (…) “ (emphasis added). 10. In continuation, the Committee outlined that the solidarity mechanism is a principle well-established in the Regulations, from which the parties signing a transfer 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. What is more, 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 training and education, is the amount actually agreed upon as the compensation payable by the new club to the former club, regardless of any provision to the contrary stipulated in the transfer or loan agreement. 11. With due consideration to the above, the Committee 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 withhold 5% of the agreed transfer compensation when paying such transfer compensation, but nevertheless is asked to distribute solidarity contribution to the player’s training clubs. 12. According to the mentioned jurisprudence, 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. 21 and 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. 13. As a consequence, the Committee considered that the Claimant, in the present case and considering that it was undisputed that the Claimant had 1) paid the amount of EUR 900,000 to the Respondent, 2) had distributed a further total amount of EUR 11,623.50 as solidarity contribution and 3) had not yet been reimbursed with the same amount by the Respondent, is entitled to the reimbursement by the Respondent of the amount the Claimant effectively paid as solidarity contribution in accordance with the applicable Regulations. 14. In this respect, the Committee referred, for the sake of completeness, to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which stipulates that any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof and noted that the Claimant had not provided any documentary evidence that it had indeed distributed the complete 5% of the transfer compensation it had agreed upon with the Respondent to the club(s) involved in the player’s training and education over the years i.e. the full amount of EUR 45,000. Taking into account the foregoing, in particular the documentation on file which corroborated that only the amount of EUR 11,623.50 had been distributed as solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in the player’s training and education over the years, the Committee considered that the Claimant could not ask for the reimbursement of the full 5% of the transfer compensation. 15. On account of all the above, the Committee decided that the Respondent must reimburse the amount of EUR 11,623.50 to the Claimant. 16. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Players’ Status Committee, the Committee decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 3,375 as from 25 June 2011, i.e. the day after which the Claimant proceeded to the payment of said amount towards Club D, from country P, as well as 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 8,248.50 as from 17 December 2011, i.e. the day after which the Claimant proceeded to the payment of said amount towards Club L. 17. As to the Claimant’s request for “all the court costs”, the Committee decided to reject such request in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules. 18. The Committee finally established that any further claim of the Claimant is rejected. 19. Lastly, the 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 proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee, 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. In this respect, the Committee reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. Therefore, the Committee concluded that both the Respondent and the Claimant have to bear part of the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 21. 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. On that basis, the Committee held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 45,000. Consequently, the Committee concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 10,000. 22. In conclusion, and considering that the case at hand did not pose many particular factual difficulties, the Committee determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 4,000. Furthermore, and in line with its aforementioned considerations and taking into account the degree of success, the Committee decided that currency of country H 2,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, and, equally, currency of country H 2,000 has to be paid by the Claimant. III. Decision of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club B, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club A, has to pay to the Claimant, Club B, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 11,623.50 plus interest at 5% p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: - 5% p.a. as of 25 June 2011 over the amount of EUR 3,375; - 5% p.a. as of 17 December 2011 over the amount of EUR 8,248.50. 3. If the aforementioned sum plus interest is 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. 4. The final amount of costs of the proceedings, amounting to currency of country H 4,000, is to be paid within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 4.1 Currency of country H 2,000 by the Respondent, Club A, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XX-XXXXX: 4.2 Currency of country H 2,000 by the Claimant, Club B, to FIFA. Given that the Claimant, Club B, has already paid the amount of currency of country H 2,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant, Club B, is exempted from paying the abovementioned costs of the proceedings. 5. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Club B, are rejected. 6. The Claimant, Club B, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club A, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are to be made and to notify the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received. Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to article 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 Players’ Status Committee: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives