F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) – contributo di solidarietà – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) – solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 July 2013, by Mr Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the club, Club C, from country B as Claimant against the club Club A, from country E as Respondent regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the Player F

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) - contributo di solidarietà – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) - solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 July 2013, by Mr Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the club, Club C, from country B as Claimant against the club Club A, from country E as Respondent regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the Player F I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the country B Football Federation the player, F (hereinafter: the player), born in October 1982, was registered with its affiliated club Club C (hereinafter: the Claimant) as from 3 January 2005 until 17 March 2005. 2. The relevant sporting season in country B during the period of registration of the player with the Claimant started in January and ended in December. 3. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Club N, from country P (hereinafter: Club N) and the Club A, from country E (hereinafter: the Respondent) agreed upon a transfer compensation for the player amounting to EUR 650,000 payable on 1 August 2011. 4. The country E Football Association confirmed that the player was registered with the Respondent on 4 August 2011. 5. The Claimant contacted FIFA on 28 November 2011, claiming the payment of its proportion of solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player from Club N to the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant requested the payment of EUR 740, i.e. 0.1013% of the total transfer amount based on a transfer compensation of EUR 730,000, as well as 5% interest p.a. “from the registration date”. 6. On 25 January 2012, the Respondent rejected the claim lodged against it, arguing that the Claimant was not entitled to receive any payment of solidarity contribution considering that, at the time of the player’s relevant transfer, the latter was around 30 years old and had been already transferred to “more than 5 clubs as professional” before being transferred to the Respondent. Therefore, according to the Respondent, the player became professional at the age of 17, consequently “solidarity contribution is supposed to be taken from the first two clubs the player was transferred”. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the DRC 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 October 2011. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 iii) in conjunction with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), he is competent to decide on the present matter, which concerns a dispute relating to the solidarity mechanism between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010 and 2012) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged on 27 October 2011 and that the player was registered with the Respondent on 4 August 2011. In view of the aforementioned, the DRC judge concluded that the 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, the DRC judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. 5. In this respect, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant had requested the payment of 0.1013% of the total transfer compensation as solidarity contribution from the Respondent. 6. In addition, the DRC judge took into account that according to the information contained in the TMS, Club N and the Respondent had agreed upon a transfer compensation amounting to EUR 650,000, payable on 1 August 2011. 7. Furthermore, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent had contested the Claimant’s entitlement to receive any payment as solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player arguing that at the time of the relevant transfer, the latter was around 30 years old and had been already transferred to several clubs as a professional before being transferred to the Respondent. 8. Considering the above, the DRC judge referred to art. 21 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 distributed by the new club as a solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in the training and education of the player between the seasons of his 12th and 23rd birthday. 9. In view of the aforementioned, the DRC judge emphasized that irrespective of the age of a player as well as of his professional status with third club(s) before being registered with a particular club, solidarity contribution is due to the club(s) that were involved in his training and education between the seasons of his 12th and 23rd birthday. As a result, the DRC judge held that the relevant argumentation of the Respondent had to be rejected. 10. In continuation, the DRC judge recalled that, as confirmed by the country B Football Federation, the player, born in October 1982, had been registered with the Claimant as from 3 January 2005 until 17 March 2005. 11. On account of the above and in accordance with art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, the DRC judge considered that the Claimant is, thus, entitled to receive solidarity contribution for the period as from 3 January 2005 until 17 March 2005, i.e. for 3 months of the season of the player’s 23th birthday. 12. In light of all of the above, as well as taking into account the percentage claimed by the Claimant, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 658 to the Claimant as solidarity contribution in relation to the transfer of the player from Club N to the Respondent. In addition and as to the Claimant’s request related to the payment of interest on the claimed amount, the DRC judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations as well as to the longstanding practice of the DRC and decided that the Respondent has to pay interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as from 1 September 2011 until the date of effective payment. 13. As a result of all the above, the Single Judge concluded that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant EUR 658 as solidarity contribution, plus 5% p.a. as from 1 September 2011 until the date of effective payment. 14. Lastly, the DRC judge referred to 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, including the DRC judge, 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 (cf. art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules). 15. In respect of the above, taking into account that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Respondent is the party at fault, the DRC judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 16. According to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 17. On that basis, the DRC judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is less than currency of country H 5,000. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 5,000. 18. Considering that the case at hand did not compose any complex factual or legal issues as well as taking into account the particularities of the present matter, the DRC judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 500. 19. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the amount of currency of country H 500 has to be paid by the Respondent to cover the costs of the present proceedings. III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club C, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club A, has to pay to the Claimant, Club C, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 658 as well as 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 1 September 2011 until the date of effective payment. 3. If the aforementioned amount plus interest is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant, Club C, is rejected. 5. The Claimant, Club C, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club A, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the DRC judge of every payment received. 6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 500 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club A, 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.: 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 DRC judge: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl.: CAS directives