F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – solidarity contribution / contributo di solidarietà – (2020-2021) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 28 August 2020
Decision of the Single Judge of the subcommittee
of the Dispute Resolution
passed on 28 August 2020,
regarding solidarity contribution for the transfer the player Igor IVANOVIC
Roy Vermeer (The Netherlands), Single Judge of the sub-committee of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber
GFK Jagodina, Serbia
Represented by Mr. Jan Schweele
FC Shakhtyor Soligorsk, Belarus
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Association of Serbia (hereinafter: FAS),
the player, Igor Ivanovic (hereinafter: the player), born on 28 July 1997, was registered with its
affiliated club, GFK Jagodina (hereinafter: Jagodina or the Claimant) as from 1 July 2009 until
30 August 2017.
2. The sporting season in Serbia runs as from 1 July until 30 June of the following year.
3. According to the information available in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 2 January
2020, the Serbian club, FK Napredak (hereinafter: Napredak), concluded a transfer agreement
with the Belarusian club, FC Shakhtyor Soligorsk, (hereinafter: Soligorsk or the Respondent), for
the transfer of the player to from Napredak to Soligorsk for a transfer fee in the amount of EUR
600,000, payable as follows:
- EUR 300,000 by 31 January 2020;
- EUR 250,000 by 31 January 2021.
4. According to the information available in the TMS, the player was registered with Soligorsk on
17 March 2020.
5. On 27 July 2020, Jagodina lodged a claim for solidarity contribution regarding the permanent
transfer of the player from Napredak to Soligorsk. In particular, Jagodina requested “61.67 %
of the total solidarity contribution, plus 5% p.a. interest as of the due date, until the date of
effective payment, and with the deduction of the amount of € 22,673.50 received as a partial
payment of Solidarity Contribution”.
6. In its claim, Jagodina firstly held that the player had been registered with it without interruption
as from 1 July 2009 until 30 August 2017.
7. As such, Jagodina was of the opinion that it was entitled to 61.67% of the solidarity
contribution, i.e. 3.08% of the transfer amount.
8. Moreover, Jagodina acknowledged that “€ 22,673.50 received as a partial payment of Solidarity
Contribution” was to be deducted from any amount it is entitled to.
9. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to provide its position regarding the claim, Soligorsk did
not respond to the claim or make any statements at all during the course of the investigation.
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE OF
THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1. First of all, the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(hereinafter: the Single Judge) analysed 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 27 July
2020 and the decision passed on 28 August 2020. Taking into account the wording of art. 21
of the June 2020 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee
and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), said edition of the
Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 21 of the Procedural Rules).
2. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which states that the
Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its jurisdiction in light of arts. 22 to 24 of the
Regulations (August 2020 edition). In accordance with art. 3 of Annexe 6 in conjunction with
art. 24 par. 3 and art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations, the Single Judge is competent to decide on
the present dispute relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different
associations handled through TMS.
3. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with the Respondent
on 17 March 2020, the Single Judge analysed 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
2 of the Regulations, the March 2020 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
4. The competence of the Single Judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the
Single Judge entered into the substance of the matter. The Single Judge started by
acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation on file.
However, the Single 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. In particular, the Single Judge recalled that, in accordance
with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings
pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or
contained in the TMS.
5. First of all, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant was of the opinion that it was entitled to
61.67% of the solidarity contribution, i.e. 3.08% of the transfer compensation.
6. In addition to the above, and referring to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, the Single
Judge took into account that according to the information contained in the TMS, Napredak, i.e.
the former club, and the Respondent agreed upon a transfer compensation in the amount of
EUR 600,000, payable in two installments, respectively: EUR 300,000 by 31 January 2020 and
EUR 250,000 by 31 January 2021.
7. Moreover, the Single Judge duly noted that the Respondent never took position in the present
matter, although having been invited to do so by FIFA. Therefore, the Single Judge deemed that,
in this way, the Respondent renounced to its right to defence and accepted the allegations of
8. As a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the Single Judge established that, in
accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, it shall take a decision upon the basis of
the documents already on file.
9. Having established the above, the Single judge referred to art. 21 of the Regulations 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
10. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that according to the player passport issued by the FAS,
the player, born on 28 July 1997, was registered with the Claimant as from 1 July 2009 until 30
11. On account of the above and in accordance with art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, the
Single Judge considered that the Claimant would be, in principle, entitled to receive solidarity
contribution for the period as from 1 July 2009 until 30 August 2017.
12. As such, the Single judge observed that, in principle, the Claimant would be entitled 61.67% of
the 5% of any transfer of the player. In particular, the Single Judge recalled that, referring to the
transfer agreement concluded between the former club and the Respondent, only the first
instalment in the amount of EUR 300,000 had become due. Therefore, to this date, the Single
Judge concluded that, in essence, the Claimant would be entitled to 61.67% of the 5% of EUR
300,000, i.e. EUR 9,737.37.
13. At this point, the Single judge recalled that, in its claim lodged in front of FIFA on 27 July 2020,
the Claimant had acknowledged that “€ 22,673.50 received as a partial payment of Solidarity
Contribution” was to be deducted from any amount it was entitled to.
14. As such, the Single Judge understood that by stating the above, the Claimant actually
acknowledged having received the amount of EUR 22,673.50, i.e. an amount which was to be
considered as an amount superior to the amount which the Claimant was actually entitled to in
accordance with the aforementioned calculations, i.e. point II./12.
15. On account of the above, the Single Judge deemed that having clearly acknowledged receipt of
a payment from the Respondent, which’s amount was superior to the amount it was actually
entitled to as solidarity contribution for the period during which the player was registered with
it, the Claimant could not be in a position to receive any additional amount in respect of solidarity
contribution in accordance with the calculations set out in point II./12. above. In addition, the
Single Judge recalled that from its own wording, the Claimant had explicitly requested in its
claim that the amount of EUR 22,673.50 should be deducted from the solidarity due to it in
accordance with the relevant transfer in the present matter.
16. As such, and in consideration of all the above, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant
was not entitled to solidarity contribution. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge decided to
reject the Claimant’s claim for solidarity contribution.
17. Lastly, the Single 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 relating to disputes regarding training compensation, 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.
18. However, in this respect, the Single Judge referred to art. 18 par. 1. i. of the Procedural Rules
according to which, for any claim lodged between 10 June 2020 and 31 December 2020 which
has yet to be decided, no procedural costs shall be levied.
19. Thus, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by stating that no procedural costs can be
III. DECISION OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1. The claim of the Claimant, GFK Jagodina, is rejected.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of the notification of this decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party
within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted
version (cf. article 20 of the Procedural Rules).
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | email@example.com | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777