F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2011-2012) – contributo di solidarietà – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2011-2012) – solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 March 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), President Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the club Club S, from country B as “Claimant” against the club Club T, from country C as “Respondent” regarding a dispute for solidarity contribution in connection with the international transfer of the player P.

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2011-2012) - contributo di solidarietà – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2011-2012) - solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 March 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), President Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the club Club S, from country B as “Claimant” against the club Club T, from country C as “Respondent” regarding a dispute for solidarity contribution in connection with the international transfer of the player P. I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the country B Football Confederation, the player P (hereinafter: “the player”), was registered as a professional player for the Club S, from country B (hereinafter: “the Claimant”), as from 12 August 1994 until 12 August 1995 and as from 12 September 1995 until 31 December 1995. 2. The season in country B follows the calendar year. It starts on 1 January and ends on 31 December of each year. 3. According to the Claimant, in August 2008, the player was transferred from Club U, from country D (hereinafter: “the club involved”), to the Club T, from country C, (hereinafter: “the Respondent”), for an amount of EUR 1,000,000. 4. On 26 March 2010, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming its proportion of the solidarity contribution (13,34%) in connection with the transfer of the player to the Respondent plus 5% interests p.a. since the moment the amount became due, i.e. 1 September 2008. 5. In addition, the Claimant informed FIFA that it sent a letter to the Respondent in order to try to solve this matter amicably however the latter never answered the Claimant’s correspondence. 6. Upon FIFA’s request for a position, the country C Football Federation sent a correspondence to FIFA dated 2 June 2010 allegedly enclosing the Respondent’s position, written in an unofficial language, informing that the latter did not sign any transfer contract in relation to the transfer of the player. In this context, FIFA requested the country C Football Federation a power of attorney and/or a translation of the alleged Respondent’s position, however none of the requested documents were provided. 7. The Claimant reacted to the aforementioned allegation and stated that, according to a media report (which was enclosed) the player was transferred to the Respondent for an amount of EUR 1,000,000. 8. In spite of having been invited by FIFA again to provide its position and/or comments regarding the present dispute, the Respondent did not make any further statement. 9. In spite of having been invited to provide FIFA with the players’ passport and the date of registration of the player with the Respondent, the country C Football Federation did not submit any information. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: “the Chamber”) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 26 March 2010. 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 members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. (d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2008) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on the present litigation concerning the distribution of the solidarity contribution requested by the Claimant in connection with the international transfer of the player P to the Respondent. 3. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was allegedly registered with his new club in August 2008, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2009 and 2010) and considering that the present claim was lodged on 26 March 2010, the 2008 version of the said Regulations (hereinafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the present matter 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. The members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in the file. 5. In this respect, the Chamber took due note that on the one hand, the Claimant affirmed that the player was transferred in August 2008 from the club involved to the Respondent for an alleged amount of EUR 1,000,000 and on the other hand, the Respondent did not formally contest this allegation. 6. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber underlined that the Respondent sent a letter to FIFA allegedly providing its position in its native language, but without providing FIFA with the relevant translation into one of the four official languages despite several requests. In addition, the Chamber remarked that the the country C Football Federation sent the cited Respondent’s correspondence to FIFA and provided a short explanation of its content, however the the country C Football Federation did not submit to FIFA any power of attorney despite being requested by the FIFA administration. 7. At this stage, the Chamber deemed important to emphasize that, as a general rule, as established in the art. 21 of the Regulations in connection 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 club(s) between the sporting seasons of his 12th and 23rd birthdays. 8. In particular, the Chamber referred to one of the essential prerequisites in order to establish as to whether a club involved in the training and education of a player is entitled to receive any solidarity contribution, which is that the solidarity contribution falls due, in general, if actually a transfer compensation was paid in the event of international transfers and the fulfilment of the relevant condition outlined in the FIFA Regulations. 9. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the Claimant at the beginning of this procedure had merely stated an alleged transfer amount and later on provided an evidence, i.e. a media report, in which is stated that the player was transferred in August 2008 from the club involved to the Respondent for an amount of EUR 1,000,000. 10. In this context, the Chamber deemed appropriate to point out that as a general rule, media evidences are not sufficient to prove alleged facts under the light of art. 12 of the Procedural Rules. However, the Chamber added that for the sake of good order, it is always necessary to take into consideration the particularities of the relevant case. 11. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention to the matter at stake and took note that after the Claimant had submitted to FIFA the media evidence supporting its allegations, i.e. that the player was transferred in August 2008 from the club involved to the Respondent for an amount of EUR 1,000,000, the Respondent did not contest the cited allegation and did not submit any further comment. 12. In particular, the Chamber reproached the behaviour of the Respondent who firstly sent to FIFA its alleged position written in an unofficial language and secondly after having the opportunity to provide FIFA with its comments in connection to the media evidence submitted by the Claimant, it did not react at all. In this way, the Chamber unanimously agreed that the Respondent accepted tacitly the Claimant’s allegations. 13. In view of all the above, the Chamber concluded that based on the Claimant’s allegations, the evidence provided and the lack of response from the Respondent, it can be established that the player was transferred in August 2008 from the club involved to the Respondent for an amount of EUR 1,000,000 and thus, entitling the Claimant to receive solidarity contribution. 14. In this regard, having confirmed the obligation incumbent on the Respondent, the Chamber went on to establish the proper calculation of the relevant proportion of solidarity contribution due to the Claimant. 15. In this respect, 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 training and educated by the club(s) concerned. 16. In particular, the Chamber recalled that the country B Football Confederation had confirmed that the player, was registered as a professional player with the Claimant as from 12 August 1994 until 12 August 1995 and as from 12 September 1995 until 31 December 1995. 17. Consequently, the Chamber established that, in accordance with the breakdown provided for in art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, the Claimant is entitled to receive 13,34% of the 5% of the compensation paid by the Respondent to the club involved. 18. As a result, the Chamber decided that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant as solidarity contribution the amount of EUR 6,670 plus 5% interests as from 1 September 2008. 19. Subsequently, 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 currency of country E 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. 20. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been accepted, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 21. According to Annex 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 Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 6,670 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country E 5,000. 22. Considering that the case at hand allowed to be dealt with following a reasonable procedure and that the matter did not show particular factual difficulty, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country E 2,000. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club S, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club T, has to pay to the Claimant, Club S, the amount of EUR 6,670 as well as default interest of 5% p.a. on the said amount as from 1 September 2008 until the effective date of payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. If the aforementioned sums are 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 proceeding amounting to currency of country E 2,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club T, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. gbr/XX-XXXXX: 5. The Claimant, Club S, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club T, directly and immediately of the account number to which the remittance is to be made in accordance with the above point 2 and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. ** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to article 63 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: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives.