Solidarity Contribution
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 1 February 2012
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
David Mayebi (Cameroon), member
Essa M. Saleh Al-Housani (United Arab Emirates), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Club S, from country N
as Claimant
against the club,
Club T, from country F
as Respondent
regarding a solidarity contribution dispute
related to the transfer of the player B
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the Football Association of country N, the player B (hereinafter: the
player), born in May 1982, was registered with Club S, from country N (hereinafter: the
Claimant) as from “before the age of twelve” until 22 July 2004.
2.
According to the Football Association of country N, the sporting season in country N
follows the calendar year.
3.
The country F Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered with its
affiliated club, Club T (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 23 July 2008.
4.
On 23 June 2009, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent,
claiming its relevant share of solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of
the player B from Club W, from country U (hereinafter: Club W) to the Respondent.
5.
In this respect, the Claimant argued that the player B was part of a “cash plus player”
deal. In particular, the Claimant held that the Respondent and Club W had agreed on a
transfer agreement, based on which the player J (hereinafter: the player) was
transferred from the Respondent to Club W for an alleged transfer compensation of
EUR 8,000,000 and that, within the same transfer, the player B was transferred from
Club W to the Respondent. Therefore, and taking into account the alleged “cash plus
player” nature of the agreement, the Claimant held that the overall value of the
transfer amounted to EUR 12,000,000.
6.
As to the value of the player B, the Claimant held that in the absence of a valid transfer
agreement, the value had to be set at the discretion of FIFA. According to the Claimant,
such value should be set at least at an amount of EUR 4,000,000. The Claimant claimed a
proportion of 4.5% of this amount.
7.
Finally, the Claimant argued that, based on art. 2 of the Rules Governing the Procedures
of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, country N law
should apply and that consequently, interest at a rate of 12.75% should apply as from 1
July 2008, and that interest at a rate of 10% should apply as from 1 January 2009,
respectively.
8.
Overall, the Claimant therefore requested that FIFA should establish the value of the
player B “in the Player B/Player J deal” and that the Respondent should pay the relevant
solidarity contribution, including interest at a rate of 12.75% for 2008 and 10.00% for
2009, or at least 5% as from when solidarity contribution was due. In addition, the
Claimant requested that disciplinary measures should be imposed on the Respondent
Solidarity contribution in connection with the player B
(Club S, from country N / Club T, from country F)
2/13
“in the event that [the Respondent] fails to comply with the decision of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber”.
9.
In its arguments, the Claimant also stated that “the media and official channels of [Club
W]” referred to the transfer as a “cash plus player deal”, and that the players were
transferred at the same time. Moreover, the Claimant argued that the player B was a
talented player and he could have been “easy to sell”. Therefore, the Claimant stated
that it was unlikely for such a player to be given away for free to an international
competitor. In support of this, the Claimant provided a printout of the webpage of Club
W in which it was stated that “[The player J] joins Club W with [the player B] moving
the other way in a cash plus player deal.” as well as printouts of media internet pages
also mentioning a “cash plus player” transfer.
10.
Furthermore, the Claimant argued that the “formal arrangement” made between the
Respondent and Club W concerning the player J had to be seen as pro forma only. Since
this agreement did not reflect the reality, it had to be acknowledged that the player B
had a value. The opposite conclusion would, according to the Claimant, make it easy for
clubs to circumvent their obligation to pay solidarity contribution.
11.
In support of its position, the Claimant referred to a decision taken by the Dispute
Resolution Chamber on 12 January 2007 and quoted a paragraph thereof which stated:
“Consequently, the deciding authority was of the unanimous opinion that the
provisions regarding the solidarity mechanism cannot be circumvented by means of an
exchange of players.”
12.
Furthermore, the Claimant referred to the specificity of sport and the reasoning behind
the solidarity mechanism in order to fundament its claim for solidarity contribution
from Club T.
13.
In its response, the Respondent rejected the claim lodged against it and argued that no
transfer compensation was paid for the player B.
14.
The Respondent explained that, after the season 2007/2008, it had to re-balance its
finances and therefore let go its best players and engage other, more modest players. In
this context, the Respondent allegedly became interested in the player B who was “in
difficulty” with his club at the time, i.e. Club W. Since, according to the Respondent, the
player B had only played during six games of the season 2007/2008, Club W was willing
to transfer him for a very modest sum.
15.
Equally, the Respondent explained that Club W had, at the same time, indicated that it
was interested in the player J.
Solidarity contribution in connection with the player B
(Club S, from country N / Club T, from country F)
3/13
16.
Therefore, the Respondent and Club W concluded a “pre-contract” on 23 June 2008
regarding the future transfer of the player B, which contained the following provisions:
“It is agreed that the registration of the Player B (The Player) shall be transferred from
Club W to Club T on the following terms:
1.
If the player J (…) signs a contract with Club W prior to the 31st July 2008 then
compensation payable by Club T to Club W for the transfer of registration of Player
B shall be nil.
2.
If the player J (…) doesn’t sign a contract with Club W prior to the 31st July 2008
due to Player J deciding not to sign with Club W then compensation payable by
Club T to Club B for the transfer of registration of Player B shall be Euro 600,000
(…).
3.
If the player J (…) does not sign a contract with Club W prior to the 31st July 2008
due to the non agreement of Club T to sign Player J for Club W then compensation
payable by Club T to Club W for the transfer of registration of Player B shall be Euro
1,000,000 (…).”
17.
According to the Respondent, the two clubs then decided, on the same day, to separate
the two transfers, and Club W decided to transfer the player B to the Respondent free
of payment.
18.
In this respect, the Respondent submitted the transfer agreement dated 23 June 2008
concerning the transfer of the player B from Club W to the Respondent which
stipulated that “The fee agreed between the parties for the transfer of registration of
the above player is nil.”
19.
Likewise, the Respondent explained that, “after several weeks of negotiation”, the two
clubs agreed on the transfer of the player J from the Respondent to Club W for a
compensation of EUR 10,500,000.
20.
The relevant transfer agreement, dated 30 June 2008, stipulates that “This agreement
constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between Club T and Club W with
respect to the subject matter of this agreement […])”.
21.
As to the alleged obligation to pay solidarity contribution, the Respondent referred to
the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: The
Regulations) as well as to the FIFA Commentary on said Regulations. In this respect, the
Respondent argued that since, in the case at hand, no transfer compensation was paid,
the solidarity mechanism did not apply. In support of this, the Respondent referred to a
decision of the DRC, dated 5 December 2008, which stated, inter alia, the following:
Solidarity contribution in connection with the player B
(Club S, from country N / Club T, from country F)
4/13
“One of the essential prerequisites in order to establish as to whether a club involved in
the training and education of a player is entitled to receive any solidarity contribution is
that at least a compensation, not including training compensation, had been paid for
the transfer of a player to his former club, otherwise the calculation becomes
unfeasible.”
22.
Furthermore, the Respondent invoked the principle of burden of proof, stating that the
Claimant had by no means proven that there was any indemnity paid by the
Respondent to Club W. Moreover, the Respondent held that only an effective transfer
compensation would be relevant, but not an alleged market value of a player.
23.
As to the DRC decision quoted by the Claimant, the Respondent held that this decision
was not comparable to the matter at hand, since it dealt with a real exchange of players
which was proven by the Claimant in the respective case.
24.
Subsidiarily, the Respondent argued that the amounts claimed were disproportionate.
The Respondent recalled that the player had previously been transferred to Club W for
a compensation of EUR 475,000 only, and that the player played a mere total of 142
minutes during the season 2007/2008. The Respondent held that it was impossible that
after such a season the player’s transfer value would have increased nine fold (i.e. to an
amount of EUR 4,000,000).
25.
Equally, the Respondent referred to the pre-contract dated 23 June 2008 which
allegedly displayed that in the case of a transfer of the player B against payment, the
respective sum had been set at an amount of EUR 600,000, which should (if any
payment was due) serve as the basis for the calculation.
26.
Since the player B had been registered with the Claimant as from the season of his 12th
birthday until the season of his 22nd birthday, the Respondent calculated such amount
(i.e. 90% of the 5% of solidarity contribution) at an amount of EUR 27,000.
27.
As to the interests claimed by the Claimant, the Respondent rejected the application of
country N law and stated that country F law should apply, i.e. an interest rate of 3.79%.
28.
In its replica, the Claimant adhered to its claim and argued that the word
“compensation” was, according to the “Black Law’s Dictionary” defined as
“Remuneration and other benefits received in return for services rendered”.
Consequently, the Claimant argued that it was not decisive whether it was able to
prove that Club W and the Respondent agreed on an amount for the player B, but
whether the transfer of the player B represented a benefit to the Respondent. In
addition, the Claimant argued that art. 1 of Annex 5 of the Regulations stipulated that
Solidarity contribution in connection with the player B
(Club S, from country N / Club T, from country F)
5/13
5% of “any” compensation was to be deducted as solidarity contribution which showed
that said article also applied to other forms of compensation than monetary.
29.
The Claimant held that a restrictive interpretation of the relevant regulatory provisions
would hinder the purpose of the solidarity mechanism, and it would allow clubs
involved in transfers to “easily camouflage” the realities of transfers.
30.
In this respect, the Claimant again invoked a decision of the DRC, dated 9 January 2009,
and quoted, inter alia, the following paragraphs:
“[A]s a general principle, any transfer agreement represents a bilateral agreement,
which implies a mutual exchange of obligations between the parties involved (…). [T]he
sporting qualities of the players have an economic value in the football employment
marked.”
31.
The Claimant argued that it was more likely than not that the player B was part of a
cash plus player deal. It also argued that it could not be demanded that the Claimant
should prove that the Respondent’s motivation was to circumvent the solidarity
mechanism when “the behaviour of Club T has all the objective characteristics of a
classical attempt of circumvention.”
32.
As to the value of the player B, the Claimant stated that the low transfer compensation
paid by Club W could be explained by the fact that, at the time, the player B had had
only three months of contract left with his former club, and that he refused to sign a
contract in order to move to a bigger club. Contrary to that, when the player moved
from Club W to the Respondent, he would have been under contract for a longer
period of time which would increase his market value.
33.
Therefore, the Claimant requested FIFA to establish the remaining duration of the
player B’s contract with Club W at the time of the transfer, and to establish the market
value of the player B. It stated that an estimate of such value at an amount of EUR
4,000,000 was not excessive.
34.
In its final comments, the Respondent adhered to its previous statements and
emphasised that the transfer of the player B was a very simple transaction (in view of
the low market value of the player), whereas the transfer of the player J required
important negotiations. Therefore, it was logic, according to Club T, to finalise the
transfer of the player B as fast as possible, since Club W had accepted to liberate him.
35.
Equally, the Respondent insisted that a compensation which could serve as a basis for
the calculation of solidarity contribution, had to be monetary, since the FIFA
Regulations refer to an indemnity which is “paid” In this context, the Respondent
Solidarity contribution in connection with the player B
(Club S, from country N / Club T, from country F)
6/13
referred to the country F wording of the Regulations, i.e. “payées", “versées”, “les
sommes versées”.
36.
Furthermore, the Respondent again held that the Claimant did not prove that the
solidarity mechanism should apply, but that it only provided rumours and allegations. In
this respect, the Respondent provided various press articles, none of which referred to
the transfer in question as a “cash plus player” deal.
37.
By means of subsequent correspondence, the Claimant alleged that, based on
information revealed in the media, “Club W had agreed to a value of 11 million pounds
for Player J” but that, apparently, only currency of country U 8.2 million had in fact
been paid. Therefore, the Claimant argued that the difference between the
aforementioned amounts, i.e. currency of country U 2.8 million, “is arguably the
minimum value set for Player B”. However, in the same submission, the Claimant also
held that the value of the player B “must be set at the discretion of FIFA”, and that
“The lawyers have estimated the value of Player B to at least 4 million pounds”.
38.
The Respondent did not submit any final comments, despite being asked by FIFA to do
so.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the DRC)
analysed which procedural rules were applicable to the case at hand. In this respect, it
took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 23 June 2009, thus after 1
July 2008. 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. article 21 par. 2 and 3 of the
Procedural Rules).
2.
In continuation, the Chamber analysed 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 of the 2009 and 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players, and considering that the present claim was lodged on 23 June 2009 and that
the player was registered with the Respondent on 23 July 2008, the 2008 edition of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) was
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
3.
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 and 2 in combination with
art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber was competent to
Solidarity contribution in connection with the player B
(Club S, from country N / Club T, from country F)
7/13
adjudicate on a dispute relating to training compensation between a country N club
and a country F club.
4.
In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that, contrary to the information
contained in FIFA’s letter dated 4 August 2011, by means of which the parties were
informed of the composition of the Chamber, the member Mr D refrained from
participating in the deliberations, due to the fact that he has the same nationality as
the Respondent. Equally, and in order to comply with the prerequisite of equal
representation of club and player representatives, also the member Mr M refrained
from participating in the deliberations. Thus, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
adjudicated the case in presence of three members in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 of
the Regulations.
5.
The competence of the Chamber 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 above-mentioned facts and the documentation
contained in the file.
6.
In this respect, the Chamber took note that the Claimant lodged a claim against the
Respondent for the payment of the relevant proportion of solidarity contribution,
based on the transfer of the player B from Club W to the Respondent. In particular, the
Chamber duly noted that the Claimant alleged that the relevant transfer constituted a
“cash plus player deal”, i.e. that the player B was transferred to the Respondent in
connection with the transfer of the player J from the Respondent to Club W.
7.
Likewise, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant held that, in view of the
alleged “cash plus player” nature of the transfer of the player B, the relevant transfer
value of the player B should be set at the discretion of FIFA, at least at an amount of
currency of country U 4 million. The Chamber noted that, thereof, the Claimant claimed
a proportion of 4.5%, plus interest at a rate of 12.75% for the year 2008, interest at a
rate of 10% for the year 2009 or at least interest at a rate of 5% as from when solidarity
contribution was due.
8.
The Chamber furthermore noted that the Claimant, in support of its allegation
regarding the “cash plus player” nature of the transfer of the player B, referred to
media and “official channels” of Club W which, allegedly, referred to the transfer of
the player B as a “cash plus player deal”. Equally, the Chamber acknowledged that the
Claimant argued that the player B could have easily been sold and that it was unlikely
that such a player would be given away for free. Furthermore, the Chamber took due
note that the Claimant argued that the agreement concluded between the Respondent
and Club W concerning the player J had to be seen as pro forma only and that it
therefore did not reflect the reality.
Solidarity contribution in connection with the player B
(Club S, from country N / Club T, from country F)
8/13
9.
The Chamber equally acknowledged that the Claimant referred to a decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber, a paragraph of which stated that “(…) the solidarity
mechanism cannot be circumvented by means of an exchange of players.”
10.
In continuation, the Chamber took due note that the Respondent rejected the claim
lodged against it and explained that initially, the Respondent and Club W had
concluded a “pre-contract” regarding the transfers of the player B and player J but that,
subsequently, the two clubs decided to separate the said transfers. The Chamber noted
that the Respondent submitted the transfer agreement dated 23 June 2008 and related
to the transfer of the player B from Club W to the Respondent which stipulated that
“The fee agreed between the parties for the transfer of registration of [the player B] is
nil.”
11.
The Chamber acknowledged that, in view of the above, the Respondent held that the
solidarity mechanism did not apply, since no transfer compensation had been paid for
the player B.
12.
Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Respondent invoked the principle of burden
of proof, stating that the Claimant had not proven that there was any indemnity paid
by the Respondent to Club W.
13.
In continuation, the Chamber took due note that the Claimant, in reply to the above,
argued that the applicable Regulations stipulated that 5% of “any” compensation was
to be paid as solidarity contribution, and that this allegedly demonstrated that the
relevant provisions were also applicable on other forms of compensation than
monetary.
14.
Equally, the Chamber noted that the Claimant argued that it could not be demanded
that it should prove that the Respondent’s motivation was to circumvent the applicable
Regulations, since the behaviour of the Respondent had all the characteristics of an
attempt to circumvent the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber also noted that the
Claimant argued that it was more likely than not that the player B was part of a cash
plus player deal.
15.
Finally, the Chamber took due note that the Respondent, in his comments to the above,
insisted that a compensation had to be monetary, in order to serve as a basis for the
distribution of solidarity contribution. Equally, the Chamber acknowledged that the
Respondent reiterated that the Claimant did not prove that the solidarity mechanism
was applicable, and the Chamber also took note of several press articles, none of which
made reference to the transfer in question as a “cash plus player” deal.
16.
In view of all of the above, the Chamber deemed it to be the underlying issue of the
present matter to establish whether the obligation to distribute a proportion of
Solidarity contribution in connection with the player B
(Club S, from country N / Club T, from country F)
9/13
solidarity contribution had arisen out of the transfer of the player B from Club W to the
Respondent or not.
17.
In this respect, and first of all, the Chamber made reference to art. 21 of the
Regulations, according to which any club that has contributed to the education and
training of a player shall receive a proportion of the compensation paid to the player’s
former club.
18.
Consequently, the Chamber went on to examine whether there was any compensation
paid in connection with the transfer of the player B.
19.
In this context, the Chamber recalled the principle of burden of proof, as established in
art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right from
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof.
20.
Bearing in mind the aforementioned, the Chamber went on to examine the
documentation submitted by the parties. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the
Respondent and Club W had, apparently, previously concluded a “pre-contract” for the
transfers of the players J and B. Equally, the Chamber acknowledged that, subsequently,
the Respondent and Club W concluded an agreement for the transfer of the player B,
according to which no transfer fee was paid for the transfer of the player B. Likewise,
the Chamber noted that the Respondent and Club W had agreed upon a transfer
compensation for the transfer of the player J from the Respondent to Club W, but that
the relevant agreement made no reference to the transfer of the player B. In particular,
the Chamber noted that the agreement concerning the transfer of the player J did not
contain any clause stipulating that the transfer of the player B was somehow related to
the transfer of the player J, or that the transfer of the player B had had any influence
on the calculation of the transfer amount paid for the player J.
21.
Consequently, and bearing in mind that the Claimant carried the relevant burden of
proof, the Chamber came to the conclusion that there was no evidence that an actual
transfer compensation was paid for the player B.
22.
In continuation, the Chamber deemed it fit to establish whether there was any other
basis for the Claimant’s claim for solidarity contribution. In particular, the Chamber
recalled the Claimant’s allegation that the player B was part of the transfer of the
player J in the context of a “cash plus player” deal and that the player B was, in this
framework, attributed an economic value on which the calculation of solidarity
contribution should be based.
23.
In this context, the Chamber again recalled the principle of burden of proof, according
to which a party claiming a right from an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden
of proof. Consequently, the Chamber was of the opinion that it was the Claimant’s
Solidarity contribution in connection with the player B
(Club S, from country N / Club T, from country F)
10/13
burden to provide evidence to support its allegation regarding the “cash plus player”
nature of the transfers of the players B and J.
24.
Bearing in mind the aforementioned, the Chamber recalled that, according to the
documentation submitted by the parties, Club W and the Respondent concluded an
agreement for the transfer of the player B which stipulated that no transfer
compensation was payable for the player B.
25.
Equally, the Chamber recalled that Club W and the Respondent had concluded another
agreement for the transfer of the player J, which provided for a transfer compensation,
but which made no reference to the transfer of the player B. In this context, the
Chamber was also eager to emphasise that the relevant agreement concerning the
transfer of the player J explicitly stipulated that “This agreement constitutes the entire
agreement and understanding between Club T and Club W with respect to the subject
matter of this agreement […])”.
26.
In this context, the Chamber furthermore carefully studied the documentation
submitted by the Claimant, in particular, a printout of the web page of Club W, in
which it was stated that “[The player J] joins Club W with [the player B] moving the
other way in a cash plus player deal.” as well as media printouts with similar contents.
In this respect, the Chamber laid emphasis on the fact that the relevant web pages did
not pertain to neither the Claimant, nor the Respondent, but to third parties, i.e. to
Club W and other media sources. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the relevant
documents did not provide for further and more specific information about the alleged
nature of the transfer in question.
27.
Overall, therefore, the Chamber was of the opinion that a printout of a web page of a
third party, i.e. not of a party to the present proceedings, with a rather vague
description of the relevant transfer could not be considered as sufficient evidence in
order to corroborate the Claimant’s allegation that the transfer of the player B was
linked to the transfer of the player J in a way that an obligation to pay solidarity
contribution had arisen out of the transfer of the player B. In this context, the Chamber
furthermore recalled the basic principle of burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the
Procedural Rules), according to which a party deriving a right from an alleged fact shall
carry the respective burden of proof.
28.
In view of all the above, the Chamber established that the transfers of the players J and
B were indeed two separate transfers. Likewise, the Chamber was of the firm opinion
that the Claimant had not provided the necessary evidence in order to corroborate its
allegation that the player B should be attributed an economic value because he had
been part of a “cash plus player” transfer, in connection with the transfer of the player
J.
Solidarity contribution in connection with the player B
(Club S, from country N / Club T, from country F)
11/13
29.
Consequently, and in application of art. 21 of the Regulations, the Chamber held that
there was no basis for the Claimant’s claim for solidarity contribution, and it therefore
decided to reject the Claimant’s claim.
30.
In addition, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber turned its attention to the
request of the Claimant that disciplinary measures should be imposed on the
Respondent in the event that the Respondent would fail to comply with the relevant
decision. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that it is not competent to impose
disciplinary measures and that such matters fall, if at all, within the competence of
FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee.
31.
Lastly, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to
which in the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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.
32.
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.
33.
As regards the amount in dispute to be taken into consideration, the Chamber recalled
that, in its last submission, the Claimant held that the value of the player B “must be set
at the discretion of FIFA”, and that “The lawyers have estimated the value of Player B to
at least 4 million pounds”, as well as that the Claimant claimed a proportion of 4.5% of
the relevant transfer amount of solidarity contribution, i.e. an amount of currency of
country U 180,000. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of
costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000.
34.
Considering that the case at hand allowed to be dealt with following a reasonable
procedure and that it did not pose particular factual difficulty, the Chamber determined
the final amount of costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of
country H 5,000.
35.
In view of the above, the Chamber reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is rejected.
Therefore, the Chamber decided that the Claimant had to pay the full amount of
currency of country H 5,000. In this respect, the Chamber took into account that the
Claimant had already paid the relevant amount of currency of country H 5,000 as
advance of costs at the outset of the present proceedings.
*****
Solidarity contribution in connection with the player B
(Club S, from country N / Club T, from country F)
12/13
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club S, is rejected.
2.
The final amount of costs of the proceedings amounts to currency of country H 5,000,
which have already been paid by the Claimant, Club S.
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 63 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: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Enclosed: CAS directives
Solidarity contribution in connection with the player B
(Club S, from country N / Club T, from country F)
13/13