Solidarity Contribution
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 February 2015,
by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge,
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 player Player E
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation from country
B, the player, Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 1 July 1986, was
registered with its affiliate, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 13 July
2006 until 25 June 2008.
2.
The relevant sporting seasons in country B ran as from 1 January until 31
December.
3.
The Football Association from country D informed FIFA that the player was
registered with its affiliated club, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 27 June
2012.
4.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS),
on 26 June 2012, the club from country F, Club G and the Respondent agreed
upon a transfer compensation for the transfer of the player of USD 4,800,000
payable as follows:
o USD 800,000 on 6 July 2012;
o USD 2,000,000 on 13 February 2013;
o USD 2,000,000 on 15 September 2013.
5.
Moreover, the transfer agreement provided that the Respondent should pay to
Club G the following amounts:
o USD 500,000 on 27 June 2012;
o USD 700,000 on 14 July 2012 “to go to cancel tariffs and/or charges
applicable to this final transfer agreement”.
6.
In this framework, on 14 January 2013, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming its
proportion of the solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the
player from Club G to the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant requested
1.25% of the total transfer compensation as solidarity contribution.
7.
In its reply, the Respondent rejected the claim and argued that “our club has
already paid the whole compensation to the player’s former club (…) 5% of the
compensation is not deducted”.
8.
Furthermore, the Respondent sustained that “there is not enough evidence to
prove the player had been received football training in Club A” and stressed that
“the training contract shall be presented. Otherwise, [the Respondent] is rightful
to reject paying any compensation”.
Solidarity contribution in connection with the player E
(Club A, from country B / Club C, from country D)
Page 2 of 7
II.
Considerations of the DRC judge
1.
First of all, the DRC judge analyzed 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 14 January 2013. Consequently, the 2012 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 of the 2012 and 2014 editions of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural
Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 lit. iii) in
conjunction with art. 22 lit. e) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2014), the DRC judge is competent to decide on the present
matter which is of an international dimension, does not contain complex factual
or legal issues and concerns the distribution of solidarity contribution claimed by a
club from country B in connection with the international transfer of the player
from a club in country F to a club in country D.
3.
Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with
the Respondent on 27 June 2012, the DRC judge analyzed 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 par. 2 of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012 and 2014) and considering that
the present claim was lodged on 14 January 2013, the 2012 version of the 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, the arguments of the parties as
well as the documentation contained in the file. However, the DRC judge
emphasized 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 noted that the Claimant claimed the payment of
USD 75,000 as solidarity contribution from the Respondent, corresponding to
1.25% of the total transfer compensation.
Solidarity contribution in connection with the player E
(Club A, from country B / Club C, from country D)
Page 3 of 7
6.
In addition to the above, the DRC judge considered that according to the
information contained in the TMS, the club from country F, Club G and the
Respondent agreed upon a transfer compensation of USD 6,000,000, payable as
follows:
a. USD 500,000 on 27 June 2012;
b. USD 800,000 on 6 July 2012;
c. USD 700,000 on 14 July 2012;
d. USD 2,000,000 on 13 February 2013;
e. USD 2,000,000 on 15 September 2013.
7.
Furthermore, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent argued that “our club has
already paid the whole compensation to the player’s former club (…) 5% of the
compensation is not deducted”. Moreover, it sustained that “there is not enough
evidence to prove the player had been received football training in Club A” and
stressed that “the training contract shall be presented. Otherwise, [the
Respondent] is rightful to reject paying any compensation”.
8.
Having established the above, the DRC judge referred to art. 21 in combination
with 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 and be distributed by the new club as a solidarity
contribution to the club(s) involved in the training and education of the player in
proportion of the number of years the player has been registered with the
relevant club(s) between the seasons of his 12th and 23rd birthday.
9.
In this respect and as to the Respondent’s argument that “there is not enough
evidence to prove the player had been received football training in Club A”, the
DRC judge wished to point out that the Football Federation from country B had
confirmed that the player, born on 1 July 1986, was registered with the Claimant
as from 13 July 2006 until 25 June 2008.
10.
On account of the above and in accordance with art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the
Regulations, the DRC judge considered, while rejecting the argument of the
Respondent, that the Claimant is therefore entitled to receive solidarity
contribution for the period as from as from 13 July 2006 until 25 June 2008.
11.
As to the issue of the obligation to pay solidarity contribution raised by the
Respondent, the DRC judge was eager to emphasize that, pursuant to art. 2 par. 2
of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, it is the responsibility of the new club to calculate
and distribute the solidarity contribution; the Regulations clearly establish that
the distribution of the solidarity contribution is incumbent on the new club. As a
Solidarity contribution in connection with the player E
(Club A, from country B / Club C, from country D)
Page 4 of 7
result, the DRC judge concluded that the Respondent is liable for the payment of
solidarity contribution.
12.
Having established that the Respondent is obliged to pay solidarity contribution
to the Claimant, the DRC judge then turned to the calculation of the pertinent
amount. In this respect, the DRC judge took in consideration that the player was
born on 1 July 1986.
13.
In view of the foregoing and in accordance with art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the
Regulations, the DRC judge considered that the Claimant is, thus, entitled to
receive solidarity contribution for 6 months of the season of the player’s 20 th
birthday, for 12 months of the season of the player’s 21st and for 6 months of the
season of the player’s 22nd birthday. In terms of the percentage of the 5%
solidarity contribution, the Chamber calculated that, on a pro rata basis, this
corresponds to 20% of 5% of the total transfer compensation.
14.
In view of all of the above, the DRC judge decided to partially accept the claim of
the Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the
amount of USD 60,000 as solidarity contribution in relation to the transfer of the
player from Club G to the Respondent.
15.
In continuation, 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 the
proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Chamber, including the DRC judge,
relating to disputes regarding solidarity mechanism costs in the maximum amount
of CHF 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’
degree of success in the proceedings.
16.
In respect of the above, and taking into account that the Claimant has been the
successful party, the DRC judge concluded that the costs of the current
proceedings before FIFA have to be paid by the Respondent.
17.
Furthermore and 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.
18.
On that basis, the DRC judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration
in the present proceedings is USD 75,000 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 CHF 10,000 (cf. table in Annex A).
Solidarity contribution in connection with the player E
(Club A, from country B / Club C, from country D)
Page 5 of 7
19.
In conclusion and 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 CHF 3,000, to be paid by the Respondent.
III.
Decision of the DRC judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 60,000
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. will fall 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 the Claimant is rejected.
5.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 3,000 are to be paid,
within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as
follows:
5.1 The amount of CHF 2,000 by the Respondent to the Claimant;
5.2 The amount of CHF 1,000 by the Respondent 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
Solidarity contribution in connection with the player E
(Club A, from country B / Club C, from country D)
Page 6 of 7
6.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of
the account number to which the remittances under point 2. and 5.1 above are 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: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the DRC judge:
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Encl. CAS directives
Solidarity contribution in connection with the player E
(Club A, from country B / Club C, from country D)
Page 7 of 7