F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2007-2008) – contributo di solidarietà – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2007-2008) – solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 March 2008, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), President Mick McGuire (England), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member Essa M. Saleh Al-Housani (U.A.E.), member on a matter between the club A, xxxx represented by xxxxx and the club G, xxxxx represented by xxxxx and the club B, xxxxx represented by xxxxxx as Intervening party regarding the solidarity contribution related to the transfer of the player M.

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2007-2008) - contributo di solidarietà – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2007-2008) - solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 March 2008, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), President Mick McGuire (England), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member Essa M. Saleh Al-Housani (U.A.E.), member on a matter between the club A, xxxx represented by xxxxx and the club G, xxxxx represented by xxxxx and the club B, xxxxx represented by xxxxxx as Intervening party regarding the solidarity contribution related to the transfer of the player M. I. Facts of the case 1. The Football Federation xxxx confirmed that the player M (hereinafter; the player), born on 26 March 1982, was trained by the club A from 14 September 1994 to 30 June 1997. 2. On 17 November 1997, the player was transferred from A to the club B. Thereby, the two clubs agreed that in case the player would be transferred from B to a third club, A is entitled to receive 10% of the respective amount received by B for the transfer of the player. 3. On 11 March 2002, the player was transferred from B to the club G. According to the relevant contract G had to pay to B EUR 3,015,182 on 1 July 2002, and EUR 3,000,000. on 1 July 2003 as well as EUR 3,000,000 on 1 July 2004. 4. Inter alia, the relevant transfer agreement contained the following clause: “xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.” “xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.” 5. On 5 December 2003, A filed a claim to FIFA against G for solidarity contribution. 6. On 19 July 2004, A was informally informed by FIFA that the claim at stake could be an internal matter between two clubs, therefore falling under the jurisdiction of the Football Federation of xxxxxx. 7. In consequence, A filed the respective claim to the Football Federation of xxxxxx, which, however, decided on 2 September 2005 that it is not competent to decide on the matter at stake. 8. The decision of the Football Federation of xxxxxx was appealed by A before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). However, before a decision was passed by the CAS in the matter, A withdrew its appeal, and the procedure was therefore terminated on 23 September 2005. 9. As a result to the above, on 22 September 2005, A reiterated the claim at stake before FIFA, and thereby first of all named as a Respondent, besides G, also B. A maintained that an amount of EUR 9,015,000 was agreed as transfer compensation for the player and requested the amount of EUR 97,249, plus default interest to 5%, from 1 May 2002 to 31 December 2005. As a result, A claims the amount of EUR 114,012.17. 10. Moreover, A emphasised that the contents of clause 7.1 of the transfer agreement between B and G cannot have any influence on A, as the latter was not a party to the relevant transfer agreement. 11. On 25 October 2005, G pointed out that in view of clause 7.1 of the transfer agreement between B and G, it had paid to B 100% of the agreed transfer compensation, without withholding the 5% of solidarity contribution to be distributed. 12. In continuation, G referred to FIFA’s letter dated 19 July 2004, and emphasised that the issue at stake would be a res iudicata and the matter should not be reexamined by FIFA. 13. G requests that B shall be obliged to pay the requisite sums to A. 14. Subsidiary, G requests that, in case it should be condemned to any payment towards A, it shall be indemnified by B in full. 15. On 1 February 2006, B explained that in accordance with the sell-on-clause contained in the transfer agreement signed between A and B in November 1997, the latter paid to A 10%, i.e. EUR 901,518.02 of the transfer compensation it received for the subsequent transfer of the player to G. B has though complied with all its obligations towards A. 16. B referred to FIFA’s letter dated 19 July 2004 and maintained that the matter at stake would be a res iudicata. 17. Furthermore, B invoked that the time between the transfer of the player to G on 11 March 2002 and A’s initial claim on 6 December 2003 (not 5 December) added to the time between FIFA’s letter dated 19 July 2004 and A’s reiterated claim on 22 September 2005 results to more than two years. As the deadline of forfeiture in accordance with the applicable Regulations of FIFA continued to run after FIFA’s letter dated 19 July 2004, A’s claim is forfeited. 18. Equally, B explained that A’s claim should be directed against G only, and not against B. 19. In addition, B maintained that the Regulations 2001 are not applicable on the matter at hand, since they were not in force when the player was transferred from A to B on 17 November 1997. 20. Moreover, the Regulations of FIFA for the Status and Transfer of Players, in their editions 1997, 2001 and 2005, are all not applicable, as the matter at hand concerns two clubs affiliated to the same Association. 21. In 1997, when A and B agreed on the transfer of the player, the system of solidarity contribution did not yet exist. Therefore, they agreed upon a sell-on- clause of 10%, in order for A to be remunerated for the training of the player. B explained that if the solidarity mechanism would have existed already in 1997, it would never have accepted the said sell-on-clause. Thus, if A’s present claim would be accepted, A would twice participate to the transfer of the player to G. Thus, B is of the opinion that based on the sell-on-clause, A has received much more than it mathematically would receive on account of solidarity contribution. 22. Finally, B also entirely contested the claim for interest, as according to national law, interest has to be paid only as of a decision taken by the first instance deciding on a financial dispute. 23. In view of the above, B requested that FIFA does not enter into the present dispute due to prescription. Subsidiary, B requests that A’s claim be rejected considering the arguments provided by B. 24. On 17 May 2006, A emphasises that its claim is not based on the transfer of the player to B, but on his international transfer from B to G. 25. A furthermore underlined that the amount received on account of the sell-on- clause is not to be confused with its proportion of solidarity contribution, for which it is presently claiming. These two entitlements have a totally different legal basis and are independent from each other. As a result, A reiterates its claim for solidarity contribution plus default interest. 26. Both, G and B referred to their previous positions and submissions. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Chamber analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 5 December 2003 as a consequence the Chamber concluded that the previous Procedural Rules (edition 2001) on matters pending before the decisionmaking bodies of FIFA are applicable on the matter at hand. Thus, in principle, it falls within the purview of the Dispute Resolution Chamber to review disputes concerning the distribution of the solidarity contribution. 2. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to the argument of G and B that the present claim should be deemed inadmissible due to the principle of res iudicata and due to prescription. 3. In this respect and with regard to alleged inadmissibility of the present claim due to the principle of res iudicata, the Chamber emphasized that based on all documents submitted by all parties it cannot be concluded that a final decision has already been taken as to the substance of the present matter by a competent decision-making body regarding the solidarity contribution in connection with the international transfer of the player concerned from B to R. 4. In particular, the Chamber considered that neither the correspondence of FIFA dated 19 July 2004 nor the decision of the relevant Football Association dated 2 September 2005 referred as to the substance of the matter at stake, but to the competence to deal with the present dispute with regard to the solidarity contribution. 5. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that A lodged its claim with FIFA in December 2003, subsidiary lodged a claim with the relevant Football Association. The latter’s competent decision-making body decided not to be competent to deal with the matter at stake. 6. As a result, the Chamber recalled that G and B were unable to prove that a final decision with regard to the substance of the present matter has already been taken by a competent decision-making body, which would result in the dismissal of the present claim. 7. With regard to the alleged prescription of the present matter, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to recall that, in principle, it shall not address any dispute if more than two years have elapsed since the facts leading to the dispute arose (cf. art. 44 of the above-mentioned Procedural Rules in connection with art. 4 of the Rules governing the practice and procedures of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2002)). 8. In this respect, the Chamber underlined that, on the one hand, the present claim for solidarity contribution is based on the international transfer of the player from B to G and the relevant payment of the agreed transfer compensation in instalments, which took place in March 2002, respectively July 2002 until July 2004. On the other hand, the relevant claim was initially lodged in December 2003 and the present file and relevant procedure pertaining to the present dispute has always remained open since no formal decision has been passed so far. Thus, not more than two years have elapsed since the facts leading to the dispute arose during the year 2002 and December 2003, when the claim was lodged. Equally, the Chamber emphasized that neither two years have elapsed between A lodging its claim with FIFA and referring the matter to the relevant Football Association, respectively to CAS nor until the present claim was reiterated at FIFA. 9. As a consequence, the Chamber concluded that the objections of G and B to the competence of the deciding authority to deal with the matter have to be rejected. 10. Therefore and considering that the present claim was lodged in December 2003, the Chamber established that in accordance with art. 25 par. 2 of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2001), it falls within the purview of the Dispute Resolution Chamber to review the present dispute between clubs affiliated to different associations concerning the distribution of the solidarity contribution. 11. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber analyzed which edition of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2008) and acknowledged that the professional had been registered for his new club, Rangers, in March 2002 and that the claim was lodged at FIFA in December 2003. In view of the aforementioned, the Chamber concluded that the former FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2001, hereafter: the Regulations) are applicable on the case at hand as to the substance. 12. In continuation, and entering into the substance of the matter, the members of the Chamber started by acknowledging that, as established in the art. 25 par.1 of the Regulations in connection with art. 11 par.1 of the Regulations governing the Application of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereafter: the Regulations governing the Application of the Regulations), the new club of the player is to distribute 5% of any compensation paid to the previous club 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 ages of 12 and 23. 13. In this context, the Chamber duly noted that A maintained that an amount of EUR 9,015,000 was agreed as transfer compensation for the player and requested the amount of EUR 97,249, plus default interest to 5%. As a result, A claims the amount of EUR 114,012.17 as solidarity contribution plus default interest. 14. In continuation, the Chamber duly noted that G, the player’s new club, asserts having paid to B, the player’s previous club, 100% of the agreed transfer compensation in accordance with clause 7.1 of the transfer agreement, without withholding the 5% of solidarity contribution to be distributed. Thus, G requests that B shall be obliged to pay the relevant sums to A. Subsidiary, G requests that, in case it should be condemned to any payment towards A, it shall be indemnified by B in full. 15. Moreover, the Chamber acknowledged that B explained that in accordance with the sell-on-clause contained in the transfer agreement signed between A and B in November 1997, the latter paid to A 10%, i.e. EUR 901,518.02 of the transfer compensation it received for the subsequent transfer of the player to G. Thus, B deems that it has complied with all its obligations towards A. Furthermore, B is of the opinion that the Regulations 2001 are not applicable on the matter at hand, since they were not in force when the player was transferred from A to B, i.e. on 17 November 1997 and the revised Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players, in their edition 1997, 2001 and 2005, are all not applicable, as the matter at hand concerns two clubs affiliated to the same Association. 16. Finally, B emphasized that in 1997, when A and B agreed on the transfer of the player, the system of solidarity contribution did not yet exist. Therefore, they agreed upon a sell-on-clause of 10%, in order for A to be remunerated for the training of the player. If the aforementioned system of solidarity mechanism would have existed already in 1997, B would never have accepted the said sell-on- clause. Thus, if A’s present claim would be accepted, A would participate twice to the transfer of the player to G. 17. In this respect, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to recall, that the present affair refers to the potential entitlement of A as training club to receive its proportion of the solidarity contribution as provided for in the Regulations in connection with the international transfer of the player from B to G in March 2002. 18. Consequently, the Chamber underlined that it does not fall under its competence to deal with any possible dispute arisen between A and B in connection with the execution of the transfer agreement signed between the aforementioned two parties in 1997. 19. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber pointed out that the facts that give rise to the claim of A as training club, i.e. the international transfer of the player from B to G and his registration date, occurred in March 2002, thus after the coming into force of art. 25 of the Regulations (edition 2001). As a consequence, the Chamber stated that, as a matter of principle, no retrospective application of the aforementioned provisions appears to be existent. The relevant rules are being applied on a transfer that clearly took place after their coming into effect. The Chamber was of the unanimous opinion that under such circumstances also those clubs that trained a player prior to the coming into effect of the applicable Regulations and the implementation of the principle of the solidarity mechanism, have to be entitled to participate to such contribution. Any other approach would constitute an illegitimate discrimination of certain training clubs and go against the aim of encouraging training of young players. 20. In view of all of the above and turning its attention to the present matter regarding the distribution of the solidarity contribution due to the international transfer of the player, the Chamber considered that G omitted to deduct the relevant proportion of solidarity contribution from the agreed transfer compensation in order to distribute it between the club(s) that trained the player. 21. As a result, 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. 11 of the Regulations governing the Application of 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. 22. The Chamber then referred to art. 10 of the Regulations governing the Application of the Regulations, which provides the figures for the distribution of the solidarity contribution, according to the time the player was effectively trained by the clubs involved. 23. In the present case, the Chamber outlined that according to the confirmation of the relevant Football Association the player, born on 26 March 1982, was trained by A from 14 September 1994 to 30 June 1997. In this respect, the Chamber concluded that the period of effective training to be taken into account corresponds to 2 seasons and 10 months. 24. Therefore, the Chamber established that, in accordance with the breakdown provided for in art. 10 of the Regulations governing the Application of the Regulations, A is entitled to receive 19.2% of the 5% of the compensation paid in relation to the transfer of the player from B to G. 25. The Chamber noted that according to the documents on file, in particular the copy of the relevant transfer agreement, the player was transferred for a total amount of EUR 9,015,182 payable in three installments: EUR 3,015,182 payable on 1 July 2002, and EUR 3,000,000 payable on 1 July 2003 as well as payable on 1 July 2004. 26. In view of the above, the Chamber decided that A is entitled to receive 19.2% of 5% of EUR 3,015,182, i.e. EUR 28,945, 19,2% of 5% of EUR 3,000,000, i.e. EUR 28,800 and 19,2% of 5% of EUR 3,000,000, i.e. EUR 28,800. 27. In continuation, the Chamber referred to the A’s demand for default interest. In this respect and with regard to the mode of payment, the members of the Chamber referred to its well-established jurisprudence, according to which in case of contingent payments the new club shall pay the solidarity contribution to the training club(s) 30 days after the date of such payments. It is in fact on the basis of this jurisprudence that the revised Regulations (edition 2005 and 2008) explicitly provide for this rule (cf. art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 5 to both revised Regulations). 28. In view of the above, the Chamber decided that G has to pay to A as solidarity contribution EUR 28,945 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 July 2002, EUR 28,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 July 2003 and EUR 28,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 July 2004, all applicable until the effective date of payment. 29. Equally, the Chamber decided that B has to reimburse to G EUR 28,945 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 July 2002, EUR 28,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 July 2003 and EUR 28,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 July 2004, all applicable until the effective date of payment. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of A is partially accepted. 2. G has to pay to A within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision the amount of EUR 28,945 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 July 2002, EUR 28,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 July 2003 and EUR 28,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 July 2004, all applicable until the effective date of payment. 3. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline the present matter shall be submitted upon request to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee, so that the necessary disciplinary sanctions may be imposed. 4. A is directed to inform G directly and immediately of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. 5. Any further claims of A are rejected. 6. B has to pay to G within 30 days of notification of the present decision the amount of EUR 28,945 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 July 2002, EUR 28,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 July 2003 and EUR 28,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 July 2004, all applicable until the effective date of payment. 7. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline the present matter shall be submitted upon request to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee, so that the necessary disciplinary sanctions may be imposed. 8. G is directed to inform B directly and immediately of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received 9. According to art. 61 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 (CAS) 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