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 18 March 2014, by Mr Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on a matter between the club, Club M, from country B against the club, Club G, from country C and the club, Club D, from country B “as Intervening party” regarding a solidarity contribution dispute related to the transfer of the player S

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 18 March 2014, by Mr Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on a matter between the club, Club M, from country B against the club, Club G, from country C and the club, Club D, from country B “as Intervening party” regarding a solidarity contribution dispute related to the transfer of the player S I. Facts of the case 1. The country B Football Confederation confirmed that the country B player, Player S (hereinafter: the player), born in June 1986, was registered with its affiliated club, Club M (hereinafter: Club M), as from 24 April 2002 until 30 April 2004, as from 1 January 2006 until 25 June 2006, as from 1 December 2006 until 9 January 2007, as from 9 February 2007 until 31 July 2007 and again as from 5 December 2007 until 2 May 2008. 2. The sporting season in country B follows the calendar year. 3. According to the country C Football Association, the player was registered with its affiliate, Club G (hereinafter: Club G), on 19 July 2010. 4. On 28 April 2011, Club M contacted FIFA requesting its proportion of solidarity contribution, based on the transfer of the player from Club D, from country B (hereinafter: Club D), to Club G, in the amount of 1.75% of the transfer compensation, or USD 52,500, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from the 31st day after the player’s registration, i.e. 24 July 2010. 5. In its reply, Club G provided a copy of the transfer agreement, dated 24 June 2010, according to which the player has been transferred from Club D to Club G for the total amount of USD 3,000,000 net payable by no later than 10 July 2010. 6. Article 3.1.1. of the transfers contract stipulates that “The transfer fee is net and exclusive of player’s bank commissions payments to Player and/or to any third party in accordance with FIFA Regulations on the Status of Transfer of Players, as well as to all taxes applicable or that may become applicable according to the country C tax laws, which are to be supported exclusively Club G”. 7. Furthermore, Club G explained that it is aware that the solidarity contribution has to be paid by the player’s new club; however it allegedly agreed with Club D that the latter would pay any amounts due as solidarity contribution. 8. In this respect, FIFA informed the parties of the respective jurisprudence regarding the payment of solidarity contribution. 9. In reply to the above-mentioned information, Club G suggested that Club D should pay solidarity contribution directly to Club M. 10. Club D provided its position on the present matter, claiming that according to art. 3.1.1. of the transfer agreement (cf. point I.6. above) “Club G is the sole responsible for paying the solidarity contribution without any deduction or reimbursement from/by Club D” since “the transfer fee agreed between the club was always net of any deduction of any nature / concept, including any deduction under FIFA Regulations on the Status of Transfer of Players, such as the solidarity contribution”. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (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 28 April 2011. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2009) he is competent to decide on the present matter relating to the solidarity mechanism between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2008 and 2009) and considering that the player was registered with Club G on 19 July 2010, the 2009 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. The DRC judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. 5. The DRC judge started by acknowledging that Club M requested the payment of solidarity contribution in the amount of USD 52,500, corresponding to 1.75% of the transfer compensation of USD 3,000,000 paid by Club G to Club D for the transfer of the captioned player, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from the 31st day after the player’s registration. 6. Moreover, the DRC judge acknowledged that Club G stated that it omitted to deduct 5% of the transfer compensation it had paid to Club D, and that it, therefore, requested that Club D should pay any amounts due as solidarity contribution directly to Club M. 7. Finally, the DRC judge observed that Club D, for its part, argued that it was explicitly stipulated in art. 3.1.1. of the transfer agreement (cf. point I.6. above) that “the transfer fee is net and exclusive of player’s bank commissions payments to Player and/or to any third party in accordance with FIFA Regulations on the Status of Transfer of Players” and that, therefore, it would not have to pay any amount of the solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer at stake. 8. Having established the above, the DRC judge took note that, on the one hand, Club G stated that it had not retained 5% of the relevant transfer compensation and that it, thus, had paid the total amount of USD 3,000,000 to Club D. In other words, Club G asserted that it omitted to deduct 5% of the relevant transfer compensation relating to the distribution of the solidarity contribution. On the other hand, the DRC judge noted that Club D asserted that it was entitled to the “net” amount of USD 3,000,000, as stipulated in the transfer agreement. 9. In this context, the DRC judge referred to art. 21 and 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 (…) “ (emphasis added). 10. In this respect, the DRC judge was eager to emphasise that the solidarity mechanism is a principle well-established in the Regulations, from which the parties signing a transfer agreement 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 compensation payable by the new club to the former club. 11. In this regard, the DRC judge referred to the well-established jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, 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. 12. In light of the above, the DRC judge decided that Club G is liable to pay the relevant proportion of the 5% solidarity contribution to Club M and that Club D must reimburse the same proportion of the 5% solidarity contribution to Club G. 13. In this regard, the DRC judge went on to establish the proper calculation of the relevant proportion of solidarity contribution due to Club M. 14. To that end, the DRC judge 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. 15. In this respect, the DRC judge recalled that the country B Football Confederation had confirmed that the player, born in June 1986, was registered with Club M as from 24 April 2002 until 30 April 2004, as from 1 January 2006 until 25 June 2006, as from 1 December 2006 until 9 January 2007, as from 9 February 2007 until 31 July 2007 and again as from 5 December 2007 until 2 May 2008. 16. On account of the above and in accordance with art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, the DRC judge considered that Club M is, thus, entitled to receive solidarity contribution for the aforementioned periods, amounting to 1.73% of the total transfer compensation. 17. In view of all the above, the DRC judge decided that Club G must pay to Club M the amount of USD 51,900 and that Club D must reimburse the amount of USD 51,900 to Club G. 18. Furthermore, and taking into consideration both the claim of Club M as well as art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, the DRC judge decided that the claim of Club M was partially accepted and that Club G has to pay, in conformity with the longstanding practice of the DRC, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 51,900 as from 10 August 2010 until the date of effective payment. 19. The DRC judge concluded its deliberations as to the substance of the matter by rejecting any further claim of Club M. 20. Lastly, the DRC judge referred to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the DRC, including the DRC judge, relating to disputes regarding training compensation and the solidarity mechanism, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 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, in accordance with Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 21. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the claim of Club M has been partially accepted, the DRC judge concluded that Club G has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 22. 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. 23. On that basis, the DRC judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is USD 52,500 related to the claim of Club M. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 10,000 (cf. table in Annex A). 24. Considering that the case at hand did not compose any complex factual or legal issues and that it was adjudicated by the DRC judge and not by the DRC, the DRC judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 8,000. ***** III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Club M, from country B, is partially accepted. 2. Club G, from country C, has to pay to Club M, the amount of USD 51,900 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 10 August 2010 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. In the event that 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 claims lodged by Club M are rejected. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 8,000 are to be paid by Club G within 30 days of notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no.: 6. Club M is directed to inform Club G 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. 7. The intervening party, the Club D, from country B, has to reimburse the amount of USD 51,900 to Club G within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 8. If the aforementioned sum is not paid by Club D within the aforementioned deadline, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a formal decision. 9. The country G club, Club G, is directed to inform the intervening party, Club D, 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. ***** 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: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives