F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) – contributo di solidarietà – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) – solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 March 2015, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the matter between the club, Club A, from country B against the club, Club C, from country B and the club, Club D, from country E as “Intervening party” regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the Player F

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) - contributo di solidarietà – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) - solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 March 2015, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the matter between the club, Club A, from country B against the club, Club C, from country B and the club, Club D, from country E as “Intervening party” 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 Football Federation from country B, the player from country B, Player F (hereinafter: the player), born on 10 May 1985, was registered with Club A: - From 5 December 2002 until 11 December 2005 - From 1 July 2006 until 9 July 2006, and - From 1 July 2007 until 15 January 2008. 2. The football season in country B follows the calendar year. 3. On 7 February 2013, the player’s International Transfer Certificate (ITC) was delivered by the Football Association from country E to the Football Federation from country B. 4. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the club from country E, Club D, and the club from country B, Club C, agreed on the transfer of the player from Club D to Club C. In particular, said clubs agreed that Club C would pay Club D a transfer compensation amounting to EUR 5,500,000, as follows: - EUR 3,000,000 due on 6 February 2013; - EUR 2,500,000 due on 31 August 2013. 5. Art. 8.1 and 8.2 of the transfer agreement stipulate that: “Conditioned upon the payments of both instalments in due dates and as set out in sub-clause 2.2 above, Gharafa undertakes to distribute the solidarity contribution amount to the clubs (….). The obligation, supra, however, shall relay on [Club C] in the event the payments as stated in sub-clause 2.2 above are not fulfilled within the due dates.” 6. On 19 February 2013, Club A lodged a claim for the payment of solidarity contribution in front of FIFA against Club C, which it amended on 13 November 2013, requesting the amount of EUR 99,000 from Club C, equivalent to 1,8% of the total transfer compensation. 7. In its reply, Club C stated that Club D is the party responsible for the payment of the solidarity contribution. 8. Nevertheless, should the DRC decide that Club C is responsible for the payment of the solidarity contribution, Club C asserted that the amount of solidarity contribution has to be reduced because the player’s training period ended before his 18th birthday. 9. Finally, and “ad argumentandum”, Club C requests that “in an extreme situation of acceptance of the referred claim, condemn only Club D to pay the amount requested by [Club A].” 10. On 17 June 2013, Club D stated that it is not responsible to pay the solidarity contribution, since, in their view: - Club A did not mention the amount in dispute; - Art. 8.1 and 8.2 of the transfer agreement stipulate that Club D is only responsible for the payment of the solidarity contribution in case all instalments were paid. On 17 June 2013, the second installment of the transfer fee did not fall due yet. 11. On 22 November 2013, Club D reverted to FIFA stating that Club C had not paid the second instalment and, as a result, it had lodged a claim against Club C for breach of contract on 18 November 2013. In this respect, Club D held that it “is no longer liable to reimburse the amounts due as solidarity contribution to Club C since the latter failed to fulfil its obligations towards the transfer agreement (…)”. 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 19 February 2013. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, which states that the DRC judge shall examine his jurisdiction in light of art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 lit. ii. in connection with art. 22 lit. e) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC judge decided he is competent to decide on the present matter relating to a dispute regarding the solidarity mechanism between clubs belonging to the same association where the transfer at the basis of the dispute occurs between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. In continuation, the DRC judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players is applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with Club C on 7 February 2013, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the 2012 version of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the present matter as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the DRC judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. In this respect, the DRC judge first of all noted that Club A is claiming solidarity contribution corresponding to 1,8% of the total transfer compensation, equivalent to EUR 99,000. 6. Furthermore, the DRC judge observed that Club C held that it was not responsible for the payment of solidarity contribution since, in accordance with art. 8.1 and 8.2 of the transfer agreement it is Club D that is responsible to pay solidarity contribution to Club A. 7. Moreover, the DRC judge observed that Club C held that should the DRC judge decide that Club C is responsible for the distribution of the solidarity contribution, Club A is only entitled to a reduced amount since the player’s training ended before his 18th birthday. 8. In this framework, the DRC judge 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 a 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 club(s) between the seasons of his 12th and 23rd birthday. 9. The DRC judge remarked that therefore, in accordance with the clear content of the Regulations, it is the responsibility of the new club to distribute the amounts pertaining to solidarity contribution. 10. In this context, and while referring to art. 8.1 and 8.2 of the transfer agreement, the DRC judge recalled that the solidarity mechanism is a principle well-established in the Regulations, from which the parties agreeing on a transfer cannot derogate through the content of a transfer agreement. He further clarified that a training club has neither a contractual link with the former club nor with the new club and is obviously not a party to the transfer agreement concluded between the former and the new club. Thus, the DRC judge reiterated that the obligation to distribute solidarity contribution cannot be set aside, or amended, by means of an agreement concluded between the clubs involved in a player’s transfer. A different approach would destabilize the entire system of the solidarity mechanism and would undermine the legal certainty the Regulations provide. 11. By way of explanation, the DRC judge further emphasised that a club’s entitlement to solidarity contribution finds its legal basis in the Regulations and, in accordance with the Regulations, it is the new club that is responsible for the distribution of the solidarity contribution. Should no solidarity contribution have been paid in accordance with the Regulations, the relevant training club can lodge a claim against the new club, however, there is no provision in the Regulations which would provide a legal basis for a claim against the former club. 12. On account of all of the above, the DRC judge concluded that it is Club C alone which is responsible for the distribution of the solidarity contribution to the clubs involved in the training and education of the player. 13. As to Club C’s argument that the amount due to Club A should be reduced since the player’s training ended before his 18th birthday, the DRC judge stressed that such argument cannot be validly invoked in relation to the payment of solidarity contribution, which is a concept different from training compensation, and which has as an objective that a solidarity payment is paid to all clubs that have contributed to the training and education of the player between the season of the player’s 12th and 23rd birthday. Hence, for the provisions regarding solidarity contribution it is irrelevant whether a particular player already ended his training period. 14. In continuation, the DRC judge turned to the calculation of the amount of solidarity contribution due to Club A. 15. In this respect, the DRC judge recalled that the Football Federation from country B had confirmed that the player, born on 10 May 1985, was registered with Club A as from 5 December 2002 until 11 December 2005, from 1 July 2006 until 9 July 2006, and from 1 July 2007 until 15 January 2008. 16. This means that the player was registered with Club A for 1 month during the season of his 17th birthday (0,83%), the complete seasons of his 18th and 19th birthday (20%), 11 months during the season of his 20th birthday (9,16%) and 6 months during the season of his 22nd birthday (5%). This results in a total entitlement for Club A of 34,99% of the 5% solidarity contribution. 17. Taking into account the above-mentioned percentage as well as that the transfer compensation in the present dispute amounts to EUR 5,500,000, Club A is entitled to an amount of EUR 96,222.50. 18. As a result, the DRC judge determined that Club C has to pay the amount of EUR 96,222.50 to Club A. 19. Lastly, the DRC judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with 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 CHF 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). 20. In respect of the above, and taking into account that Club A has been the successful party, the DRC judge concluded that Club C has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 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. 21. On that basis, the DRC judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 99,000 related to the claim of Club A. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000 (cf. table in Annex A). 22. Considering that the case at hand did involve some complex factual issues, the DRC judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 10,000, which shall be borne by Club C. ***** III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of Club A is partially accepted. 2. Club C has to pay to Club A the amount of EUR 96,222.50, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum is not paid within the stated time limit, interest of 5% p.a. falls due as of expiry of the stipulated time limit and 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 Club A is rejected. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 10,000 are to be paid by Club C within 30 days of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1. The amount of CHF 8,000 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 5.2. The amount of CHF 2,000 to Club A. 6. Club A is directed to inform Club C immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives