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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 24 April 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Todd Durbin (USA), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, from country D as Respondent regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the international transfer of the Player E

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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 24 April 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Todd Durbin (USA), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, from country D as Respondent regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the international transfer of the Player E I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation from country B, the Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 15 February 1993, was registered with the club from country B, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 16 August 2012 until 2 September 2013 as a professional. 2. The football seasons in country B during the period of time the player was registered with the Claimant started on 1 July and ended on 30 June of the following year. 3. The Football Federation from country D confirmed that the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 2 September 2013 as a professional. 4. On 29 August 2013, the Respondent paid the amount of EUR 20,000,000 to the Claimant, for the definitive transfer of the federative rights of the player. 5. On 11 March 2015, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming its proportion of the solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player concerned from the Claimant to the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant requested the amount of EUR 108,333 plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as from 30 days after the decision, as well as procedural costs in the amount of CHF 4,000. 6. In support of its claim, the Claimant explained that the employment contract with the player, in accordance with the decree from country B, included an indemnification clause which stipulated that in case of a unilateral termination of the employment contract by the player, the latter had to pay the amount of EUR 20,000,000 to the Claimant. 7. Furthermore, the Claimant argued that, on 28 August 2013, it was notified of the intention of the player to leave the club. Subsequently, on 29 August 2013, a legal representative of the Respondent appeared together with the player at the office of the Country B League and deposited a check in the amount of EUR 20,000,000 in favour of the Claimant. In this respect, the player declared that with the payment of the buy-out clause, all his economic obligations towards the Claimant are fulfilled and the Claimant is, as a result, compensated for the damages suffered due to the early termination of the employment relationship. Besides, the Claimant explained that on this occasion the Respondent declared that it was interested in the services of the player and that for that reason, it was willing to pay the buy-out clause for the player to compensate the damages suffered by the Claimant. 8. As a result, the Claimant stated that the amount of EUR 20,000,000 it received should not only be considered a transfer compensation triggering the payment of the Respondent to pay solidarity contribution, but also that said amount of EUR 20,000,000 should be considered a net amount destined to compensate its damages and that any solidarity contribution should be paid by the Respondent on top of the buyout clause. 9. In its reply to the comments of the Claimant, the Respondent argued that the Claimant’s assertion that the amount of EUR 20,000,000 was a net amount, was neither ever negotiated nor stipulated in any agreement between the parties. Therefore, the reasoning advanced by the Claimant should be deemed non sustainable. 10. Equally, the Respondent referred to previous CAS jurisprudence according to which the amount of EUR 20,000,000 equates to the transfer amount which (i) the solidarity contribution is incorporated, (ii) any amounts of solidarity contribution can be withheld by the new club and (iii) any amounts arising in the context of solidarity contribution are to be reimbursed to the new club in the event that it is required to make a payment to another club. Therefore, the Respondent emphasized that there is no basis for the Claimant to request solidarity contribution in addition to the amount of EUR 20,000,000 it already received from the Respondent in connection with the transfer of the player to the latter club. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or Chamber) analysed which Procedural Rules were applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, it referred to art. 21 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) as well as to the fact that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 11 March 2015. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the 2015 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand. 2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. (d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake concerns the distribution of solidarity contribution between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that contrary to the information contained in FIFA’s letter dated 20 April 2015 by means of which the parties were informed of the composition of the Chamber, the member Philippe Diallo and the member Leonardo Grosso refrained from participating in the deliberations in the case at hand, due to the fact that the member Philippe Diallo has the same nationality as the Respondent and that, in order to comply with the prerequisite of equal representation of club and player representatives, also the member Leonardo Grosso refrained from participating and thus the Dispute Resolution Chamber adjudicated the case in presence of three members in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations. 4. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with his new club on 2 September 2013, the Chamber 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, 2014 and 2015), the 2012 version of the said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance. 5. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. However, the Chamber emphasized that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 6. In this regard, the DRC started by acknowledging that, on the one hand, the player and the Claimant signed an employment contract which, inter alia, stipulated the right of the player to terminate his employment contract with the Claimant against the payment of EUR 20,000,000, based on the decree from country B. 7. The Chamber also observed that it had been established that on 28 August 2013, the player informed the Claimant of his intention to unilaterally terminate the employment contract. Furthermore, the Chamber took note of the fact that on 29 August 2013, a legal representative of the Respondent appeared together with the player at the office of the Country B League and deposited a check in the amount of EUR 20,000,000 in favour of the Claimant. 8. Thus, in view of the above, the DRC concluded that it had been established and was not contested by the parties to this dispute, that the employment contract between the player and the Claimant had terminated at the above mentioned date, i.e. on 29 August 2013, as a result of the payment of the sum of EUR 20,000,000 to the Claimant. 9. The DRC further noted that the parties did not dispute that the player in question signed an employment contract with the Respondent subsequently and was registered with the latter club on 2 September 2013. 10. Furthermore, the Chamber took note that the Claimant had stated that the amount of EUR 20,000,000 it received should be considered a transfer compensation in the sense of art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations and a net amount, destined to compensate its damages and that any solidarity contribution should be paid by the Respondent on top of the aforementioned amount. 11. In continuation, the DRC took note that the Claimant is requesting solidarity contribution in the amount of EUR 108,333 based on the amount of EUR 20,000,000 paid by the Respondent to it in connection with the move of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent. 12. Subsequently, the DRC continued by taking note of the arguments of the Respondent and in particular of the fact that the latter club argued that the move of the player should not be considered a transfer, in view of the particularities and the characteristics of indemnification or buy-out clauses based on the decree from country B. 13. Finally, the DRC took note that the Respondent had argued that the Claimant’s consideration that the amount of EUR 20,000,000 was a net amount was neither negotiated nor stipulated in any agreement between the parties which is why the Claimant’s reasoning should be deemed non sustainable. 14. Firstly, the Chamber recalled that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 15. Consequently, the DRC decided to first analyse, irrespective of the question whether the move of the player under the decree from country B should be considered as a transfer in the narrow sense of the Regulations, if the Claimant would be entitled to request solidarity contribution from the Respondent, on top of the amount of EUR 20,000,000 it already received from the latter club. 16. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant itself had argued that the amount of EUR 20,000,000 should be considered a net amount as to the compensation of the damages incurred by the Claimant due to the early termination of the employment contract by the player, i.e. arguing that solidarity contribution should be paid on top of this net amount of EUR 20,000,000. However, in view of the particularities of the specific case and the characteristics of buy-outs in connection with the decree from country B and the indemnification clause included in the employment contract between the player and the Claimant, the Chamber formed the belief that by accepting to include the amount of EUR 20,000,000 in the employment contract with the player, the Claimant impliedly accepted that such amount was a net amount in the sense that also solidarity contribution should already be included in such amount. 17. Hence, the DRC concluded that the Claimant is not entitled to claim solidarity contribution payments on top of the amount of EUR 20,000,000 it already received from the Respondent. Consequently, the DRC decided that Claimant’s request for the payment of solidarity contribution from the Respondent has to be rejected. 18. Lastly, the DRC referred to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the DRC, including the DRC 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). 19. 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. On that basis, the DRC held that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 15,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 20. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has rejected, the DRC concluded that the Claimant has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 21. Considering the above, the DRC determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 10,000 which shall be borne by the Claimant. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 10,000 are to be paid by the Claimant within 30 days of notification of the present decision, 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: CH 27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A ***** 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