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 27 February 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Todd Durbin (USA), member Mohamed Al Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on a matter between the club, Club A, country B against the club, Club C, country D and the club, Club E, country F as “Intervening party” regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the international transfer of the Player G I.

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 27 February 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Todd Durbin (USA), member Mohamed Al Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on a matter between the club, Club A, country B against the club, Club C, country D and the club, Club E, country F as “Intervening party” regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the international transfer of the Player G I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of country B, the player from country B, Player G (hereinafter: the player), born on 25 August 1988, was registered with its affiliated club, Club A (hereinafter: Club A) during the following periods: - 15 December 2005 to 1 January 2006; - 15 October 2006 to 31 November 2006; - 15 October 2007 to 31 December 2007. 2. Further to a confirmation provided by the Football Federation of country B, the season in country B during the relevant period ran as follows - 4 February 2006 to 4 September 2006; - 2 December 2006 to 29 August 2007; - 23 March 2008 to 23 September 2008. 3. On 22 December 2008, the player was transferred from the club of country F, Club E (hereinafter: Club E), to the club of country D, Club C, with which he was registered on 12 March 2009, in accordance with a statement of the Football Union of country D. According to the relevant transfer agreement provided by Club C, the clubs concerned agreed to a total transfer compensation of EUR 3,000,000 to be paid as follows: - EUR 1,000,000 until 25 January 2009; - EUR 1,500,000 within 10 days as of delivery of the ITC by the Football Association of country F; - EUR 500,000 until 25 October 2009. 4. Art. 2.3. of the transfer contract provides that the above-mentioned transfer fee ‘’includes 5% of solidarity contribution regulated by the articles 20, 21 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players’’. 5. According to art. 3.3. c) of the transfer contract, Club E was obliged “to make the payment of solidarity contribution (…) to any third party (…) engaged in education and training of PLAYER (…)”. 6. On 31 August 2009, Club A lodged a claim in front of FIFA against Club C, claiming its proportion of the solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player from Club E to Club C. As the player was allegedly registered with its club during the entire 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 seasons, Club A requests the payment of 20% of the total amount due as solidarity contribution. On this basis, Club A requests the amount of EUR 30,000 as well as 10% interest p.a. as from the date of its claim. 7. On 16 July 2010, Club C informed FIFA that the transfer compensation paid to Club E included the full amount of the solidarity contribution. Furthermore, Club C pointed out that in accordance with art. 3.3. c) of the transfer contract, Club E was obliged to make the payment of solidarity contribution to any training club of the player. Therefore Club C requested Club A to refer to Club E in this regard. 8. FIFA informed Club E and Club C of the Jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) in similar cases, in accordance with which the player’s new club is ordered to remit the relevant proportions of the 5% solidarity contribution to the clubs involved in the player’s training in strict application of the Regulations on the Status and the Transfer of the Players. At the same time, the player’s former club is ordered to reimburse the same proportions of the 5% of the compensation that it received from the player’s new club. 9. Club E maintains that the claim lodged by Club A is not admissible since it was addressed to the Players’ Status Committee which is not competent for disputes relating to the payment of solidarity contribution. With regard to the substance, Club E refers to the applicable regulations according to which solidarity contribution is to be paid by the new club, hence Club C is liable to pay the relevant amount. Club E also claims that the interest of 10% requested by Club A is disproportionate and the highest percentage that could be granted is 5%. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also the Chamber or the DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 31 August 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 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012) the DRC is competent to decide on the present matter which is of an international dimension and concerns the distribution of solidarity contribution claimed by Club A in connection with the international transfer of the player to Club C. 3. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with his new club on 12 March 2009, the members of the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012) and considering that the present claim was lodged on 31 August 2009, the 2008 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 Chamber started by acknowledging that Club A is requesting the payment of EUR 30,000 as solidarity contribution in connection with the international transfer of the player, Player G, from Club E to Club C. 5. Moreover, the Chamber duly noted that according to the transfer agreement, Club E and Club C agreed on the amount of EUR 3,000,000 as transfer compensation. 6. In this respect, the DRC started by emphasising 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. 7. In continuation, the Chamber observed that Club C stated that it had not retained 5% of the transfer compensation and, thus, had paid the total amount of transfer compensation to Club E. In other words, Club C asserted that it omitted to deduct 5% of the relevant transfer compensation relating to the distribution of the solidarity mechanism. 8. In this regard, the Chamber took note that the contractual parties, i.e. Club C and Club E, agreed that Club E should be responsible for paying solidarity contribution, by means of a clause in the transfer agreement. 9. Notwithstanding the relevant contractual provision, the DRC took note of the argumentation submitted by Club E according to which the obligation to pay solidarity contribution lies with the new club of the player, i.e. Club C in the present matter, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Regulations. 10. In this context, the DRC judge referred art. 2 par. 1 of annexe 5 of the Regulations which stipulates that ‘’the new club shall pay the solidarity contribution to the training club’’. 11. In relation to the above, the Chamber referred to its well-established jurisprudence applied in similar cases, 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 in strict application of art. 1 and 2 of the Annexe 5 to the Regulations. At the same time, 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. 12. In light of the above, the DRC decided that Club C is liable to pay the relevant proportion of the 5% solidarity contribution to Club A and that Club E must reimburse the same proportion of the 5% solidarity contribution to Club C. 13. Having confirmed the above-mentioned obligation incumbent on Club C, the Chamber went to establish the proper calculation of the relevant proportion of solidarity contribution to Club A. 14. To that end, the Chamber 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 trained and educated by the club(s) concerned. 15. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the Football Federation of country B confirmed that the player, born on 25 August 1988, was registered with the club from country B, Club A, from 15 December 2005 to 1 January 2006, 15 October 2006 to 31 November 2006 and 15 October 2007 to 31 December 2007. 16. Consequently, the Chamber established that, in accordance with the breakdown provided for in art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, Club A is entitled to receive 4.16% of 5% of the transfer compensation paid by Club C to Club E. 17. Therefore, the DRC decided that Club C must pay to Club A the amount of EUR 6,240 and that Club E must reimburse the amount of EUR 6,240 to Club C. 18. Furthermore, and taking into consideration both Club A’s claim, the Chamber decided that Club C has to pay, in conformity with the longstanding jurisprudence of the DRC, interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as from 31 August 2009 until the date of effective payment. 19. The DRC concluded its deliberations as to the substance of the matter by rejecting any further claim lodged by Club A. 20. 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 the solidarity mechanism, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 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). 21. In respect of the above, and taking into account that Club A’s claim has been partially accepted, the DRC concluded that Club C has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 22. 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. 23. On that basis, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 30,000 related to Club A’s claim. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 24. Considering that the case at hand did not compose any complex factual or legal issues, the DRC determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 3,000. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of Club A is partially accepted. 2. Club C has to pay to Club A, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 6,240 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 August 2009 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid by Club C within the stated time limit, 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 Club A is rejected. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 3,000 are to be paid by Club C, within 30 days of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1 The amount of CHF 2,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. XXXX: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH 27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 5.2 The amount of CHF 1,000 to Club A. 6. Club A is directed to inform Club C immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. 7. Club E has to reimburse the amount of EUR 6,240 to Club C within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 8. If the aforementioned sum is not paid by Club E 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 C is directed to inform Club E immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is 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 CH-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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives