F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – contributo di solidarietà – ———-F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 May 2016, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Wouter Lambrecht (Belgium), member Zola Percival Majavu (South Africa), member on a matter between the Football Federation of country A, country A against the club, Club B, country C and the club, Club D, country A as “Intervening party” regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the international transfer of the Player E I.

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) - contributo di solidarietà – ----------F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) - solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com - Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 May 2016, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Wouter Lambrecht (Belgium), member Zola Percival Majavu (South Africa), member on a matter between the Football Federation of country A, country A against the club, Club B, country C and the club, Club D, country A as “Intervening party” regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the international transfer of the Player E I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of country A (Football Federation of country A), the Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 21 April 1989, was registered with its affiliated club, Club F (hereinafter: Club F) as from 28 April 2009 until 31 December 2009. 2. The Football Federation of country A also confirmed that the football season in country A starts in January and ends in December of each year. 3. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the club from country A, Club D (hereinafter: Club D), and the club from country C, Club B (hereinafter: Club B), concluded a transfer agreement on 29 July 2013, whereby the player was transferred from Club D to Club B and stipulating a transfer compensation amounting to USD 4,000,000, payable as follows: - USD 1,818,181 due “no later than within 10 calendar days from the signing of this agreement”; - USD 909,091 on 15 September 2013; - USD 636,364 on 15 January 2014; and - USD 636,364 on 15 June 2014. 4. Moreover, the transfer agreement established that “The parties declare that without being part of the purchase price set out in clause Third above, has being decisive for the recruiting that Club B pay to Club D for the net amount of USD 400,000 amount that once perceived, Club D will proceed to forward to the Player by concept of the 10% that he has to receive as a result of this purchase, in accordance with the provisions of Article 152 bis I of the Labour Code” payable as follows: - USD 181,898 due “no later than within 10 calendar days from the signing of this agreement”; - USD 90,830 on 15 September 2013; - USD 63,636 on 15 January 2014; and - USD 63,636 on 15 June 2014. 5. In addition, clause 3 of the transfer agreement established that “It is agreed as the value of the transfer of all federative rights and 100% of the economic rights, the net amount of USD 4,000,000. The amount indicated does not include any price, percentage, fee, tax, solidarity contribution, training rights, federal taxes, payments to agents and any sum of money which this transfer generates. Club B is the only obligated to pay amounts to third parties arising out of the compensation or other unforeseen and, in particular, those set out in clause 20 and Schedule 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association”. 6. According to the information provided by the Football Association of country C, the player was registered with Club B on 4 September 2013. 7. On 5 May 2015, the Football Federation of country A contacted FIFA, claiming solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player from Club D to Club B, alleging that its affiliated club, Club F, trained the player from 28 April 2009 until 31 December 2009 and that said club ceased to exist on 3 May 2010. In particular, the Football Federation of country A claimed 0,3335% of the transfer compensation, considering the transfer compensation as USD 4,400,000, as well as 5% interest p.a. since the time the obligation to make the payment arose. The Football Federation of country A further requested that Club B bear the procedural costs. 8. In this respect, the Football Federation of country A provided a certificate issued by the Association of Professional Football of country A on 4 May 2015, stating that the Club F belonged to the Third Division of Amateur Football as from 18 March 2008 until 3 May 2010, date of its disaffiliation. 9. Club B submitted its position stating that the transfer fee is USD 4,000,000 only, considering that the amount of USD 400,000 constitutes a compensation for the player expressly excluded from the transfer fee. Therefore, the solidarity contribution shall be calculated upon the amount of USD 4,000,000. 10. Club B held being willing to comply with its obligations after Club D reimburses the amount corresponding to the solidarity contribution. In this respect, Club B explained having paid the full transfer fee to Club D without deducting the 5% corresponding to the solidarity contribution. 11. Therefore, Club B requested that Club D reimburses the amount of USD 200,000 to it or, at least, “0,338%” of the transfer fee, percentage claimed by the Football Federation of country A as solidarity contribution. Moreover, Club B requested that Club D pays interest as of 29 July 2013 or at least the same interest Club B is condemned to pay to the Football Federation of country A. 12. FIFA invited Club D to provide its comments on the present matter. 13. Club D submitted its comments affirming that the amount offered as transfer fee by Club B should be considered excluding solidarity payments and thus, Club D is not obliged to reimburse Club B. In this respect, Club D referred to clause 3 of the transfer agreement. 14. Finally, Club D submitted a letter dated 12 July 2013, by means of which it informed Club B that it would not accept the proposal that the amount offered as transfer compensation includes all costs and solidarity contribution. 15. Club B did not provide any further comments. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 5 May 2015. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, which states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its jurisdiction in the light of art. 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in connection with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on the present litigation relating to the solidarity mechanism between the Football Federation of country A, a club from country C and a club from country A as intervening party. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC referred to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), and on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged on 5 May 2015 and that the player was registered with Club B on 4 September 2013. In view of the aforementioned, the Chamber confirmed that the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. In that respect, the Chamber 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, in principle, 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 between the seasons of his 12th and 23rd birthday. 6. The Chamber underlined that in the present case, it was an association and not a club which claimed payment of the solidarity contribution. Therefore, it first had to analyse whether the conditions set forth in art. 2 par. 3 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations were fulfilled. 7. The Chamber recapitulated that the aforementioned provision stipulates that an association is entitled to receive the proportion of solidarity contribution which in principle would be due to one of its affiliated clubs, if it can provide evidence that the club involved in the professional’s training and education has in the meantime ceased to participate in organized football and/or no longer exists due to, in particular, bankruptcy, liquidation, dissolution or loss of affiliation. 8. In this context, the members of the Chamber started by acknowledging that the Football Federation of country A is requesting the payment of 0,3335% of the transfer compensation from Club B as solidarity contribution in connection with the international transfer of the professional player, Player E, from Club D to Club B. In particular, the DRC took note that the Football Federation of country A is claiming solidarity contribution for the period during which the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club F. 9. On this basis, the Chamber first took note that indeed the player was registered with Club F from 28 April 2009 until 31 December 2009. Furthermore, the DRC acknowledged that the Football Federation of country A affirmed that Club F had ceased to exist on 3 May 2010 and, in support of its claim, submitted a certificate issued by the Association of Professional Football of country A on 4 May 2015, stating that the Club F belonged to the Third Division of Amateur Football as from 18 March 2008 until 3 May 2010, date of its disaffiliation. 10. In view of the aforementioned, the DRC concluded that, as asserted by the Claimant, Club F, the club involved in the training and education of the player, had ceased to participate in organized football. 11. On the basis of all these considerations and in accordance with art. 1 and art. 2 par. 3 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, the DRC concluded that the Football Federation of country A is entitled to claim solidarity contribution for the period during which the player was registered with Club F and that Club B, being the player’s new club, is the party responsible for its payment. 12. Having established the above, the Chamber then turned its attention to the calculation of the amount of the solidarity contribution due to the Football Federation of country A. Prior to doing so, it deemed it necessary to establish the amount to be considered as transfer compensation for the calculation of the solidarity contribution. 13. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the Football Federation of country A, on the one hand, argued that the transfer compensation amounts to USD 4,400,000. 14. On the other hand, the DRC acknowledged that Club B, for its part, stated that the transfer fee is USD 4,000,000 only, considering that USD 400,000 constitutes a compensation for the player expressly excluded from the transfer fee and thus, the solidarity contribution shall be calculated upon USD 4,000,000. 15. Against this background, the Chamber took into account that according to the information in the TMS, Club D and Club B concluded a transfer agreement on 29 July 2013 stipulating a transfer compensation amounting to USD 4,000,000. 16. The DRC further took note that the transfer agreement established that “The parties declare that without being part of the purchase price set out in clause Third above, has being decisive for the recruiting that Club B pay to Club D for the net amount of USD 400,000 amount that once perceived, Club D will proceed to forward to the Player by concept of the 10% that he has to receive as a result of this purchase, in accordance with the provisions of Article 152 bis I of the Labour Code”. 17. At this point, the members of the DRC, referring to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, recalled that, as for the distribution of the solidarity contribution, the amount to be taken into account when calculating the solidarity contribution payments due is “any” amount actually paid by the new club in connection with the transfer of the player. 18. Moreover, the DRC took note that in the relevant transfer instruction contained in the TMS, the amount indicated as the transfer compensation is USD 4,400,000 (cf. art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations). 19. Therefore, considering the stipulations in the transfer agreement and the information in the TMS, the members of the DRC concluded that the amount to be considered as the total transfer compensation in the present matter is USD 4,400,000 (USD 4,000,000 + USD 400,000). 20. In continuation, the DRC recalled that the player was born on 21 April 1989 as well as that the player was registered with Club F from 28 April 2009 until 31 December 2009, i.e. for 8 months during the season of the player’s 20th birthday. 21. As a result, the DRC decided that, in accordance with art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations and considering the Claimant’s respective claim, the Respondent is liable to pay 6,66% of the 5% of the relevant transfer compensation, i.e. USD 14,652. 22. Furthermore and considering that the Claimant requests 5% default interest, the Chamber underlined that in case of contingent payments, the new club shall pay the solidarity contribution to the training clubs no later than 30 days after the date of such payments (cf. art. 2 par.2 of the Annexe 5 of the Regulations). 23. In view of all of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant as solidarity contribution the amount of USD 14,652 plus default interest of 5% interest p.a. as follows: 5% p.a. on USD 6,660.26 as from 5 October 2013, 5% p.a. on USD 3,329.74 as from 16 October 2013, 5% p.a. on USD 2,331 as from 15 February 2014 and 5% p.a. on USD 2,331 as from 16 July 2014. And all applicable until the effective date of payment to the Claimant. 24. In continuation, the Chamber duly noted that Club B asserted having paid the full amount of the transfer compensation to Club D. In other words, according to Club B, it omitted to deduct 5% of the relevant transfer compensation relating to the solidarity mechanism. Moreover, the DRC took note that Club B requested that Club D reimburses Club B the amount paid as solidarity contribution as well that it be condemned to pay interest as of 29 July 2013. 25. In this respect, the DRC took note that Club D, for its part, held that Club B was not entitled to the relevant reimbursement, considering that the transfer compensation agreed between the two parties and paid by Club B excluded the solidarity contribution, in accordance with clause 3 of the transfer agreement. Moreover, the DRC acknowledged that Club D submitted a letter dated 12 July 2013, by means of which Club D rejected the proposal of Club B that the transfer compensation would be inclusive of all costs and solidarity contribution. 26. At this moment, the members of the DRC first of all recalled the principle under art. 21 in combination with art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, according to which the new club shall deduct 5% of the transfer compensation to be distributed to the training clubs as solidarity contribution. 27. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the DRC then reverted to clause 3 of the transfer agreement and took note that it establishes inter alia that “The amount indicated does not include any price, percentage, fee, tax, solidarity contribution, training rights, federal taxes, payments to agents and any sum of money which this transfer generates. Club B is the only obligated to pay amounts to third parties arising out of the compensation or other unforeseen and, in particular, those set out in clause 20 and Schedule 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association”. 28. On account of all the above, the Chamber concluded that Club D and Club B, in accordance with clause 3 of the transfer agreement, had agreed on a net amount of transfer compensation and explicitly established that the transfer compensation does not include solidarity contribution, which shall be paid by Club B. 29. Therefore, the DRC was of the unanimous opinion that the parties to the relevant transfer agreement had agreed that Club B would not deduct 5% of the transfer compensation as solidarity contribution from the amount of the transfer compensation but rather that it would pay the solidarity contribution on top of the transfer compensation. 30. Consequently, the DRC pointed out that Club B accepted to pay an additional 5% as solidarity contribution and thus, it is not entitled to the reimbursement of any amount from Club D. 31. The DRC thus, rejected the claim of Club B for reimbursement of the solidarity contribution. 32. Finally, the Chamber 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 relating to disputes regarding training compensation and the 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. 33. In this respect, the Chamber reiterated that the Football Federation of country A is the successful party of the present proceedings and decided that therefore Club B has to bear the full costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 34. 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. 35. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings amounts to USD 14,674 related to the claim of the Claimant. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules). 36. Considering that the case involved some particular factual difficulties, the fact that the claim of the Claimant was almost accepted in its entirety and that the request for reimbursement of the Respondent was rejected, the Chamber determined the final amount of costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 4,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Football Federation of country A is partially accepted. 2. Club B has to pay to Football Federation of country A, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 14,652 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: a) 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 6,660.26 as from 5 October 2013; b) 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 3,329.74 as from 16 October 2013; c) 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 2,331 as from 15 February 2014; d) 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 2,331 as from 16 July 2014. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid by Club B 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 Football Federation of country A is rejected. 5. The claim of Club B for reimbursement of solidarity contribution is rejected. 6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 4,000 are to be paid by Club B to FIFA, within 30 days of notification of the present decision, to the following bank account with reference to case no. xxxxxxxxx: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH 27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 7. Football Federation of country A is directed to inform Club B 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. 58 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber: Marco Villiger Deputy Secretary General Encl: CAS directives