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 theDispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 April 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Ivan Gazidis (England), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member on the claim presented by the club, Club P, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club A, from country B as Respondent regarding a solidarity contribution dispute related to the international transfer of the player R

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 theDispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 April 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Ivan Gazidis (England), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member on the claim presented by the club, Club P, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club A, from country B as Respondent regarding a solidarity contribution dispute related to the international transfer of the player R I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the country B Football Federation, Plyer R, from country B (hereinafter: the player), born in January 1985, was registered with its affiliated club, Club P (hereinafter: the Claimant) as follows: - as from 9 June 2003 until 18 July 2007; - as from 18 January 2008 until 1 January 2009. 2. The football season in country B follows the calendar year. 3. According to the country B Football Federation, the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club A (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 19 August 2010. 4. On 25 August 2012, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming its proportion of the solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player from the Club W, from country G, to the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant claims 2.52% of the total transfer amount i.e. EUR 3,000,000 corresponding to EUR 75,600 (note: no interest claimed). 5. Following a decision of the DRC passed on 7 June 2013, the Respondent provided a copy of the relevant transfer agreement, for the amount of EUR 3,000,000 payable as follows: - EUR 750,000 to be paid on 1 December 2010; - EUR 750,000 to be paid on 1 December 2011; - EUR 750,000 to be paid on 1 December 2012; - EUR 750,000 to be paid on 1 December 2013; 6. Furthermore, the clubs agreed the following: “If during the term of the employment contract with the player (until 31st July 2014) Club A will not transfer the federative and economical rights to any third club and the employment contract between Club A and the player is not terminated before 31st July 2014 for any other reason whatsoever, Club A shall be obliged to pay a further and single compensation of Euro 1,000,000 […] to Club W to be paid on 15th August 2014. In case the player is transferred from Club A to another club on or before 31st July 2014, Club W shall receive 50% of any transfer fee received by Club A within 10 days after reception by Club A. In any case and regardless of the transfer fee agreed upon between Club A and the third club, the minimum amount to be paid by Club A to Club W in case of a transfer to a third club is Euro 3,000,000 […]. The above stipulated clauses do also apply and entitle Club W to the minimum amount of 3 million Euros, if the employment contract between Club A and the player is terminated prematurely for any other reason, especially if the player is registered for a third club with no transfer compensation being due to Club A”. 7. In its reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent stated that taking into account the information provided by the country B Football Federation, according to which the player was registered with it on 19 August 2010, and considering that the claim of the Claimant was submitted to FIFA on 24 August 2012, more than two years have elapsed and therefore, the claim of the Claimant is prescribed. 8. In addition, the Respondent requested that in case the DRC does not reject the claim because of its prescription, the Claimant’s requests shall be rejected partially, since the solidarity contribution is due to the player’s training and education only until the player’s 19th birthday since the player won the “XY Cup” with Club P in 2005 and in 2006 it played the “XYZ Cup” also with Club P, which proves that the player’s training and education period was completed before his 21st birthday and, as an effect, that the solidarity contribution, consequently to the player’s training and education, is only due until the player’s 19th birthday. 9. Moreover, the Respondent argued that “the last installment is still unpaid and must be paid on December 2013 - and considering that the solidarity contribution is directly related to the transfer fee installment’s payments, 25% […] of the solidarity contribution only will be due after the payment of the transfer fee’s last installment”. 10. Finally, the Respondent requests the DRC to partially dismiss the Claimant’s claim and to recognize that 25% of the solidarity contribution only will be due after the payment of the last installment. 11. In its replica, the Claimant rejected the Respondent’s arguments, according to which the claim for solidarity contribution is prescribed. In this context, the Claimant referred to art 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: The Regulations), according to which no more than two years had elapsed since the transfer took place. 12. With regard to the Respondent’s arguments, according to which the training and education period of the player had been concluded before his 19th birthday, the Claimant referred to Annex 5, art. 1 of the Regulations and stated that the Regulations “do not require situations or championships that would influence on football players and their careers” and that it “fixes the solidarity mechanism exclusively in a temporal aspect”. 13. Lastly, the Claimant pointed out that the amount due as contribution, so far, corresponds to the amount paid until today. If there is any outstanding installment, then the solidarity mechanism will only be due on the occasion that the referred value is paid. 14. In its final position, the Respondent maintained its previous argumentation. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: DRC or Chamber) analysed which procedural rules are applicable to the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 25 August 2012. 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 3 of the 2008 Procedural Rules). 2. In continuation, the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. e) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Regulations), the DRC was competent to decide on the present litigation which is of an international dimension, and concerns the distribution of solidarity contribution between two clubs belonging to the same associations in connection with the international transfer of the player, between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. At this point, the Chamber stated that prior to deliberating on the substance of the matter, the DRC must verify whether the competent FIFA body would be able to deal with the present affair or not for formal reasons. In particular, the Chamber took note of the formal objection of the Respondent, according to which the Claimant’s claim would be prescribed, since the player was registered with the Respondent on 19 August 2010, and the claim of the Claimant was submitted to FIFA on 24 August 2012. 4. In this context, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations (edition 2008), in connection with the Procedural Rules, which stipulate that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more than two years have elapsed since the facts leading to the dispute arose and that the application of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in each individual case. 5. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber emphasized that according to art. 2 par. 1 of Annex 5 to the Regulations the new club shall pay the solidarity contribution to the training club(s) pursuant to the above provisions no later than 30 days after the player’s registration or, in case of contingent payments, 30 days after the date of such payments. Equally, the Chamber took note of the information provided by the country B Football Federation, according to which, the player was registered with the Respondent on 19 August 2010. 6. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the Claimant’s possible claim for solidarity contribution against the Respondent arose on the thirty-first day after the player was registered for the Respondent. In other words, until the thirtieth day after the registration of a player for his new club at the new association, no event giving rise to a dispute would have occurred and, consequently, no claim could have arisen since until that point in time the player’s new club would still have possibility to fulfil its obligations as provided by the relevant provisions of the Regulations. 7. On account of the above, the Chamber came to the conclusion that the event giving rise to the dispute occurred on 19 September 2010, i.e. 31 days after the registration of the player for the country B Football Federation, reason for which the Claimant’s claim cannot be declared barred by the statute of limitations in application of art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations, since the claim was lodged on 25 August 2012, thus within the time limit of 2 years, which elapsed on 19 September 2012. 8. Having established that the claim of the Claimant is admissible, the Chamber went on to analyse which Regulations were applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2, and art. 29 of the 2008 edition of the Regulations, and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 19 August 2010, the 2009 edition of said Regulations was applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 9. 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. 10. In this regard, the DRC started by acknowledging that the Claimant is requesting 2.52% of the total transfer amount, corresponding to EUR 75,600 based on the transfer agreement provided by the Respondent following a decision of the DRC. According to the transfer agreement provided by the Respondent, the transfer fee amounted to EUR 3,000,000 payable in four instalments, as follows: EUR 750,000 to be paid on 1 December 2010, EUR 750,000 to be paid on 1 December 2011, EUR 750,000 to be paid on 1 December 2012 and EUR 750,000 to be paid on 1 December 2013. 11. In continuation, the DRC took note that, the Respondent rejects partially the claim, alleging that the player’s training and education period was completed before his 21st birthday. Thus, solidarity contribution is only due until the player’s 19th birthday. 12. Equally, the Chamber noticed that the Respondent stated that 25% of the solidarity contribution only will be due after the payment of the last instalment. 13. In this respect, the Chamber referred to the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC which has to be applied in the present matter 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. 14. Regarding the first argument, the members of the Chamber deemed it appropriate to recall the general principle of burden of proof stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. In this context, the Chamber considered that the Respondent did not provide any documentary evidence to support its allegations. 15. Regarding the second argumentation, the DRC took into consideration that currently, all instalments have fallen due and there was no evidence that the Respondent paid any amounts to the Claimant as solidarity contribution. 16. On account of the above and in accordance with art. 21 and art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, the Chamber stressed that, in view of the international transfer of the player from Club W to the Respondent and in view of the transfer compensation paid by the Respondent to Club W, solidarity contribution had fallen due. 17. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the relevant proportion of the 5% solidarity contribution to the Claimant. 18. Having confirmed the above-mentioned obligation incumbent on the Respondent, the DRC went on to establish the proper calculation of the relevant proportion of solidarity contribution due to the Claimant. 19. In this regard, the Chamber referred to art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, the relevant amount of solidarity contribution shall reflect the number of years for which a player is registered with the relevant club between the seasons of the player’s 12th and 23rd birthdays. 20. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the country B Football Federation had confirmed that the player, born on 4 January 1985, was registered with the Claimant as from 9 June 2003 until 18 July 2007 and as from 18 January 2008 until 1 January 2009. Therefore, the DRC established that the player had been registered with the Claimant during 7 months during the season of his 18th birthday, 3 entire seasons, from his 19th to his 21st birthday, 7 months during the season of his 22nd birthday and 11months during the season of his 23rd birthday. Consequently, the DRC established that the Claimant is entitled to receive 2.52% of the compensation paid by the Respondent to Club W, i.e 2.52% of EUR 3,000,000. 21. In view of all of the above, the members of the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 75,600. 22. Finally, 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 solidarity mechanism costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25’000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings. 23. In this respect, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been accepted, the DRC concluded that the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA have to be paid by the Respondent. 24. 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 75,600 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the members of the DRC concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 10,000 (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 10,000. Consequently, the DRC decided that the amount of currency of country H 10,000 has to be paid by the Respondent in order to cover the costs of the present proceedings. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant, Club P, is accepted. 3. The Respondent, Club A, has to pay to the Claimant, Club P, the amount of EUR 75,600 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 4. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the above-mentioned time limit, an interest rate of 5% p.a. will apply on the said amount as of expiry of the time limit until the date of effective payment and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 10,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club A, within 30 days of notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no.: 6. The Claimant, Club P, 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 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 Enclosed: CAS directives