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 26 April 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Carlos Soto (Chile), member Brendan Schwab (Australia), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Todd Durbin (USA), member on the claim presented by the Club A, as Claimant against the club M FC, as Respondent regarding a dispute relating to the solidarity contribution in connection with the player C

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 26 April 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Carlos Soto (Chile), member Brendan Schwab (Australia), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Todd Durbin (USA), member on the claim presented by the Club A, as Claimant against the club M FC, as Respondent regarding a dispute relating to the solidarity contribution in connection with the player C I. Facts of the case 1. The country A player, C (hereinafter: the player), was born on 5 February 1984. 2. The Football Association A (hereinafter: FAA) confirmed that the player was registered with its affiliate, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), as an amateur from 4 March 1998 until 22 July 2002, and as a professional from 23 July 2002 until 27 January 2005. 3. The sporting season in country A runs as follows: a) for amateurs (under 20 years of age) from January until December of the relevant year and b) for amateurs (more than 20 years of age) and professionals from 1 July until 30 June of the following year. 4. According to a written statement from The Football Federation M (The FFM), the player was registered for its affiliated club, M FC (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 10 August 2007. 5. On 10 August 2009, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming its proportion of the solidarity contribution in connection with the domestic loan of the player from the country E club, Club H (hereinafter: Club H), to the Respondent. 6. In particular, the Claimant requested 2.7% of the total loan fee plus 5% interest per year as from 11 September 2007 until the day of effective payment. 7. In this respect, the Claimant based the competence of the DRC on art. 24 par. 1 in connection with art. 20 d) of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the FIFA Regulations), as well as on the fact that a country A club lodged a claim against a country E club. Furthermore, the Claimant referred to art. 1 par. 2 of the FIFA Regulations, according to which the regulations of the associations should provide for a system to reward clubs investing in the training and education of young players. In case The Football Federation M did not comply with said provision, the FIFA Regulations should be applied to the present matter. 8. The FIFA administration informed the Claimant that the principle regarding the solidarity mechanism, contained in the FIFA Regulations, would not be applicable to domestic transfers, and that, thus, the DRC would not be in a position to intervene in the present matter. 9. Despite this information, the Claimant insisted on its claim, adding that it was also directed against The Football Federation M. Furthermore, it also pointed out that the circumstances have changed what would motivate a change of the Dispute Resolution Chamber’s (hereinafter: the DRC) jurisprudence. 10. In its statement of defence, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim, stating that the player was transferred to the Respondent after the expiry of his employment contract with Club H. Therefore, the player was a free agent, and consequently, no compensation had been paid to Club H. 11. Moreover, the Respondent pointed out that in line with the well-established jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the DRC’: the FIFA Regulations would not be applicable to domestic transfers. In this regard, it referred to the Commentary to the FIFA Regulations, which states that the provisions concerning solidarity contribution apply only in the event of an international transfer, and that solidarity contribution is not applicable to domestic transfers, unless the association concerned has included a clear clause in its own regulations, acknowledging the obligation to pay solidarity contribution as a consequence of domestic transfers. However, the regulations of The Football Federation M, which were approved by FIFA, would not include such rule, but only an alternative provision for rewarding training clubs in the domestic game. 12. Finally, the Respondent also asked for the reimbursement of its costs by the Claimant. 13. Subsequently, the Claimant asked FIFA to inform it if the regulations of The Football Federation M had indeed been approved, and, in the affirmative, to include them in the present dispute, in order to analyse them. 14. In conclusion, the Respondent provided a copy of a letter, dated 2 August 2007, from Club H, by means of which the latter confirmed that it “shall demand no compensation of any nature whatsoever from [the Respondent] and/or the player in respect of [the Respondent]’s registration of the player”. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, it referred to art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 10 August 2009. As a consequence, the Chamber concluded that 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. 2. With regard to the competence of the Chamber, art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its jurisdiction in the light of the arts. 22 to 24 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2005). In accordance with art. 1 par. 1 of the aforementioned Regulations, which describes the scope of the relevant Regulations, in connection with articles 24 par. 1 and 22 d) of said Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which is of an international dimension, the Claimant and the Respondent being affiliated to different associations and concerns the distribution of solidarity contribution claimed by the Claimant. 3. Concerning the Claimant’s explanation that its claim would also be directed against The Football Federation M, the DRC deemed it necessary to underline that art. 22 in combination with art. 24 par. 1 of the above-mentioned Regulations would not give the Dispute Resolution Chamber the competence to decide upon a dispute between an association and a club belonging to another association. Consequently, the DRC is not competent to deal with said prayer of the Claimant. 4. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered for the Respondent on 10 August 2007, the Chamber analysed which edition of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010, 2009 and 2008), the previous edition (i.e. the 2005 edition) of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the FIFA Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 5. In continuation, and entering into the substance of the matter, the DRC started by acknowledging that the Claimant was claiming 2.7% of the total loan fee as solidarity contribution in connection with the national loan of the player from Club H to the Respondent, equally a country E club, plus 5% interest per year as from 11 September 2007 until the day of effective payment. 6. More particularly, the Chamber observed that the Claimant based its claim primarily on art. 1 par. 2 of the FIFA Regulations as well as on the national regulations of The Football Federation M, which, according to the Claimant, should contain a solidarity mechanism system similar to the solidarity mechanism system contained in the FIFA Regulations. Equally, the Chamber noted that, in the alternative, the Claimant claimed the payment of solidarity contribution on the basis of the FIFA Regulations. 7. With due consideration to the above, the Chamber first of all turned its attention to the question as to whether or not the Claimant, based on the FIFA Regulations, is entitled to receive solidarity contribution from the Respondent in connection with the domestic transfer of the player from Club H to the Respondent. 8. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 1 of the FIFA Regulations, in particular, to its par. 1, which stipulates that the FIFA Regulations lay down global and binding rules concerning the status of players, their eligibility to participate in organised football, and their transfer between clubs belonging to different associations. 9. In addition, and in light of the arguments set forth by the Claimant, the Chamber found deemed essential to emphasise that, in accordance with art. 1 par. 2 e contrario of the FIFA Regulations, the member associations of FIFA are not obliged to implement a solidarity mechanism system in their national regulations, which would be identical or similar to the solidarity mechanism system contained in the FIFA Regulations; the member associations are merely directed to provide for a system that rewards clubs investing in the training and education of young players. In which manner a member association subsequently decides to reward clubs investing in the training and education of young players is left to the full discretion of the member association; in other words, the member associations do not necessarily have to implement a solidarity contribution mechanism identical or similar to the solidarity contribution mechanism contained in the FIFA Regulations. In this context, the Chamber wished to emphasize, in particular, that the solidarity contribution mechanism is not included in the list of mandatory provisions (“ius cogens”) to be put in place at national level. 10. For the sake of good order, the Chamber pointed out that the above interpretation of the FIFA Regulations has also been confirmed by the CAS in CAS 2007/X/XXXX FC X v/FC Y & FIFA, by means of which the Panel confirmed that “a FIFA rule intended to apply, according to its clear wording, only to “international transfer” is not made applicable to “internal transfers” merely because national associations are bound to observe the FIFA rules or because FIFA has a regulatory and supervisory function over national association”. Equally, the Panel considered that “the clear wording of the FIFA Regulations leaves no room for a different solution”. 11. Hence, in accordance with the clear wording of art. 1 par. 1 and par. 2 of the FIFA Regulations, as well as in accordance with the well-established and longstanding jurisprudence of the DRC, which was - as stated before - confirmed by the CAS, the members of the Chamber concurred that the solidarity mechanism system contained in the FIFA Regulations only applies to international transfers of players, but not to national transfers of players. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s claim for solidarity contribution based on the FIFA Regulations. 12. Secondly, the Chamber turned its attention to the question as to whether or not the Claimant, based on the national regulations of The Football Federation M, would be entitled to receive solidarity contribution from the Respondent in connection with the domestic loan of the player from Club M to the Respondent. 13. More particularly, the Chamber observed that it had to examine whether a country A club, i.e. a club not affiliated to The Football Federation M, can derive rights from the regulations laid down by The Football Federation M, i.e. from the regulations established by an association to which it is not affiliated. 14. The Chamber was of the firm and unanimous opinion that this cannot be the case. Indeed, by establishing that the rules and regulations of an association would also apply to an entity, not affiliated to such association, would clearly be incompatible with the general principles of association law, in particular, with the general legal principle of freedom of association, which establishes that every association can, in principle, accept or refuse any applicant for membership. 15. Taking into consideration that the Claimant is not a member of The Football Federation M, the Chamber sees therefore no legal basis to uphold the assumption that regulations, issued by an association, are applicable to legal entities that are not affiliated to the relevant association. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber also considered that the DRC is not in a position to extend the rules and regulations laid down at national level in the context of art. 1 of the FIFA Regulations by analogy to foreign clubs. 16. On account of the above, the Chamber deemed that the Claimant cannot derive an entitlement to solidarity contribution from the regulations of The Football Federation M. In view of the foregoing, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s claim for solidarity contribution based on the regulations of The Football Federation M. 17. With regard to the Respondent’s request for the reimbursement of its legal expenses, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, which clearly stipulates that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Therefore, the members of the Chamber had no other alternative than to reject this prayer made by the Respondent. 18. 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. It is further stipulated that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and that, in accordance with Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are based on the amount in dispute. 19. Taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been rejected, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant has to bear the costs of the current proceedings. 20. In respect of the above (cf. point II./18. above), the Chamber held that the Claimant did not specifiy a certain amount, but merely claimed a percentage of 2.7% out of the alleged loan fee paid by the Respondent to Club H. Therefore, it referred again to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which costs may be imposed upon a party which generate unnecessary costs on account of its conduct. 21. Subsequently and taking into consideration that the Claimant had insisted on its claim despite having explicitly been informed by the FIFA administration that the FIFA Regulations would not apply to national transfers of players, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 18,000 which shall be entirely borne by the Claimant. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is rejected. 2. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 18,000 are to be paid by the Claimant, Club A, within 30 days of notification of the present decision to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no.: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 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 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