F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) – contributo di solidarietà – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) – solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 March 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Carlos Soto (Chile), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Zola Majavu (South Africa), member on a matter between the club Club C, from country G and the club Club A, from country E and the club Club S, from country F as Intervening party regarding a solidarity contribution dispute in connection with the transfer of the player I.

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) - contributo di solidarietà – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) - solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 March 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Carlos Soto (Chile), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Zola Majavu (South Africa), member on a matter between the club Club C, from country G and the club Club A, from country E and the club Club S, from country F as Intervening party regarding a solidarity contribution dispute in connection with the transfer of the player I. I. Facts of the case 1. The country G Football Federation confirmed that the player, Player I (hereinafter: the player), born in January 1985, was registered with its affiliated club, Club C, from: - 3 August 1999 until 31 December 1999; - 20 March 2000 until 19 October 2000; - 26 January 2001 until 29 November 2001; - 4 June 2002 until 13 October 2003. 2. Equally, the country G Football Federation confirmed that the sporting season in country G, during the period when the player was registered with its affiliate Club C, ran as follows: season start end 1998/1999 10 August 1999 31 December 1999 1999/2000 25 March 2000 19 October 2000 2000/2001 3 February 2001 21 November 2001 2002/2003 15 June 2002 13 October 2003 3. The country E Football Association confirmed that the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club A, on 2 September 2010. 4. On 2 September 2010, Club S, from country F and Club A concluded a transfer agreement, by means of which the concerned player was transferred from Club S to Club A for the total amount of EUR 7,000,000, payable as follows: EUR 2,500,000 on 2 September 2010, EUR 2,500,000 on 1 September 2011 and EUR 2,000,000 on 1 September 2012. 5. On 21 May 2011, Club C lodged a claim in front of FIFA and after amending its claim on 17 August 2011, it claimed its proportion of the solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player to Club A, which according to Club C amounted to EUR 8,000,000. In particular Club C requested the amount EUR 100,000, which corresponds to 25% of 5% of the alleged transfer compensation of EUR 8,000,000. 6. In its response, Club A declared being willing to distribute the relevant proportion of the solidarity contribution to Club C. In the same context, Club A, required the reimbursement of 5% of the transfer compensation from Club S, since it allegedly paid the transfer compensation to the latter in full, without deducting the solidarity contribution. 7. In view of the above, FIFA informed the parties involved about the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber applied in similar cases, according to 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 and that 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. 8. Therefore, FIFA invited Club A to distribute the relevant proportion of the solidarity contribution to Club C as well as invited Club S to reimburse Club A the relevant proportion of 5% of the transfer compensation agreed. 9. In reply to the aforementioned suggestion, Club S presented its position refusing to reimburse Club A the relevant solidarity contribution. In its defence, Club S confirmed the date of the transfer and that the parties agreed on a transfer compensation in the amount of EUR 7,000,000 payable in instalments (cf. point I.3.). Additionally, Club S referred to the third article of the transfer agreement, which allegedly quoted that “All taxes and expenses, including those relating to the FIFA rules (5% solidarity contribution) will be borne by the new club (Club A) and will not be deducted from the above transfer fee”. In its support Club S enclosed a document from the Transfer Matching System (TMS) related to the relevant transfer as evidence. In this regard, Club S pointed out that said TMS document specified that the solidarity contribution is to be paid on top of the respective amount of each instalment. On account of the above, Club S alleged that Club A is the only responsible to pay the solidarity contribution to the clubs involved in the player’s training. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter referred to as DRC or 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 21 May 2011. 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 DRC referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in connection with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012) the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on disputes relating to solidarity mechanism between clubs belonging to different associations in connection with an international transfer of a professional player. As a consequence, the DRC confirmed that it is competent to decide on the present litigation involving a country G club and an country E club as well as concerning the distribution of solidarity contribution in connection with the international transfer of the player, Player I from a country F club to an country E club. 3. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with his new club on 2 September 2010, the DRC 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 2012, 2010 and 2009), the 2009 version of said Regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the present matter as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable Regulations having been established, the DRC entered into the substance of the matter and started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation submitted by the parties. 5. In this regard, the DRC started by acknowledging that Club C is requesting solidarity contribution in the amount of EUR 100,000 based on an alleged transfer compensation of EUR 8,000,000, in connection with the international transfer of the concerned player to Club A. 6. In this respect, the Chamber first of all emphasised that, as established in art. 21 in conjunction 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 clubs between the seasons of his 12th and 23rd birthday. 7. In continuation, the DRC took note that, on the one hand, Club A, in its reply to the claim lodged by Club C, stated being willing to distribute the relevant proportion of solidarity contribution to the latter. Equally, the Chamber noticed that Club A required the reimbursement of 5% of the transfer amount from Club S, since it had not retained 5% of the transfer compensation, corresponding to the solidarity contribution. In other words, Club A asserted that it omitted to deduct 5% of the relevant transfer compensation relating to the distribution of the solidarity contribution. 8. On the other hand, the DRC noted that Club S confirmed the transfer terms by enclosing a TMS document and affirmed that any and all solidarity contributions were due by Club A, since the third article of the transfer agreement, allegedly quoted that “All taxes and expenses, including those relating to the FIFA rules (5% solidarity contribution) will be borne by the new club (Club A) and will not be deducted from the above transfer fee”. 9. Taking into account the above arguments, the DRC observed that the main issue in the current matter is that Club S is of the opinion that the total amount of EUR 7,000,000 is due to it and that, in accordance with the third article of the transfer agreement, Club A had to pay, on top of the total transfer compensation of EUR 7,000,000, the relevant amounts concerning solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in the training and education of the player. 10. In this context, the Chamber referred again to art. 21 and art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations which clearly stipulates 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 (…) “ (emphasis added). 11. In this respect, the DRC was eager to emphasize that the solidarity mechanism is a principle well-established in the Regulations, from which the parties signing a transfer or loan contract cannot derogate through the contents of a contract. In other words, the obligation to distribute solidarity contribution cannot be set aside by means of a contract concluded between the clubs involved in a player’s transfer. Thus, as for the distribution of the solidarity contribution, the amount to be taken into account when calculating the solidarity contribution payments due to the club(s) involved in the player’s education and training, is the amount actually agreed upon as the total compensation payable by the new club to the former club, regardless of any provision to the contrary stipulated in the transfer or loan contract. 12. In this regard, the members of the Chamber considered that if the interpretation of Club S of the transfer agreement would be followed and Club S’ argument that Club A should pay Club S the total compensation of EUR 7,000,000 without deducting any amount(s) in conformity with the rules regarding solidarity contribution, it would mean that, in the present matter, the amount of EUR 7,000,000 would constitute 95% of the total amount of compensation for the transfer of the player. Consequently, Club A would be responsible to pay the remaining part of 5% to the club(s) involved in the training and education of the player. The DRC stressed that would this line be followed, the total amount of compensation would be EUR 7,368,421, which, evidently, would be different from the terms of the loan agreement signed between the clubs involved in the transfer of the player, which, as stated before, in fact agreed upon a transfer compensation of EUR 7,000,000. Consequently, the Chamber considered that would the solidarity contribution be calculated in the way Club S argued, the 5% solidarity contribution would, according to the Regulations, then be calculated on the basis of EUR 7,368,421 instead of EUR 7,000,000, a calculation which, in the view of the members of the Chamber, is incorrect as such an approach as to the calculation of the solidarity contribution would destabilize the entire system of the solidarity mechanism and would undermine the legal certainty the Regulations provide. Therefore, a strict application of the rules regarding solidarity contribution should be followed and, hence, 5% should have been deducted from the EUR 7,000,000 and distributed to the club(s) involved in the player’s training and education. 13. Subsequently and directly related to the above, the DRC referred to the well- established jurisprudence of the DRC which has to be applied in the present matter, 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 and education in strict application of art. 1 and art. 2 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations. At the same time, according to said well-established jurisprudence, 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. 14. In light of the above, the Chamber decided that Club A is liable to pay the relevant proportion of the 5% solidarity contribution to Club C and that Club S must reimburse the same proportion of the 5% solidarity contribution to Club A. 15. In this regard, having confirmed the above-mentioned obligation incumbent on Club A, the DRC went on to establish the proper calculation of the relevant proportion of solidarity contribution due to Club C. 16. To that end, the members of the DRC 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 trained and educated by the club(s) concerned. 17. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the country G Football Federation had confirmed that the player, born in January 1985, was registered with Club C for the following periods: - 3 August 1999 until 31 December 1999; - 20 March 2000 until 19 October 2000; - 26 January 2001 until 29 November 2001; - 4 June 2002 until 13 October 2003. 18. The DRC also recalled that the transfer compensation to take into account amounts to EUR 7,000,000. 19. Consequently, the DRC established that, in accordance with the breakdown provided for in art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, Club C is entitled to receive 25% of 5% of the compensation paid by Club A to Club S, i.e. 25% of 5% of EUR 7,000,000. 20. In view of all the above, the members of the DRC decided that Club A must pay to Club C the amount of EUR 87,500 and that Club S must reimburse the amount of EUR 87,500 to Club A. 21. The Chamber concluded its deliberations as to the substance of the matter by rejecting any further claim of Club C. 22. Additionally, the members of 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 H 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. 23. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been partially accepted, the DRC concluded that the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA have to be split between the parties. 24. Furthermore and 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. 25. On that basis, the DRC held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 100,000 related to the claim of Club C. Consequently, the DRC concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 15,000 (cf. table in Annex A). 26. In conclusion and in view of the circumstances of the present matter as well as that the case at hand was adjudicated by the DRC, the members of the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 12,000. Consequently, the DRC decided that the amount of currency of country H 3,000 has to be paid by Club C and that the amount of currency of country H 9,000 has to be paid by Club A in order to cover the costs of the present proceedings. ** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of Club C is partially accepted. 2. Club A has to pay to Club C the amount of EUR 87,500 within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision 3. In the event of non-payment of the aforementioned amount by Club A, within the established deadline, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will apply on said amount as of expiry of the stipulated time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country C 12,000 is to be paid within 30 days of notification of the present decision as follows: 4.1 The amount of currency of country C 3,000 is to be paid by Club C, which amount has already been paid as advance of costs. 4.2 The amount of currency of country C 9,000 is to be paid by the Club A to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. [XX-XXXXX]: 5. Any further claims lodged by Club C are rejected. 6. Club C is directed to inform Club A immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance of the amount under the point 2 is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. 7. The intervening party, Club S, has to reimburse the amount of EUR 87,500 to Club A within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision. 8. In the event of non-payment of the aforementioned amount by Club S, within the established deadline, an interest rate of 5% p.a. will apply on said amount as of expiry of the stipulated time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a formal decision. 9. Club A is directed to inform Club S 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. 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