Solidarity Contribution
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 August 2018,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thom ps on (England), Chairman
Carlos González Puche (Colom bia), member
Eirik Mons en (Norw ay ), member
Juan Batis ta Mahiques (Argentina), member
Daan de Jong (The Netherlands ), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Club A, Country B,
as Claimant
against the club,
Club C, Country B
as Respondent
regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer
of the player, Player D
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of Country B, the
player, Player D, born on 8 February 1988, was registered with Club A (hereafter:
Club A or Claimant) as from 9 May 2001 until 10 July 2008. Furthermore, on 7
August 2008, the player was transferred from Club A to the Club of Country E, Club
F (hereinafter: Club F).
2.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on
20 December 2012, Club F and the Country B club, Club C (hereafter: Club C or
Respondent) agreed upon a transfer of the player from Club F to Club C and a
transfer compensation of EUR 3,500,000.
3.
Further, Club F and Club C agreed upon the following clause:
‘3. […] In case Club C receives an offer for the transfer of the player, Player D to
another club, Club C shall inform Club F immediately about the offer and its
contents. Club C is obligated to accept the offer to transfer the player, if the
transfer sum amounts to EUR 8.000.000,-- or higher.
4. In case Player D will be transferred to a third club, Club F is entitled receive 50%
of the transfer sum including all payments related to the transfer, but at least EUR
3.000.000,--. This means, in case the transfer sum is EUR 3.000.000,-- or lower, Club F
will receive the full amount. In case the transfer sum is EUR 6.000.000,-- or higher,
Club F will receive 50%.
The payment is due within 10 days after execution of the Transfer Agreement
between Club C and the third club and after proper invoice by Club F.’
4.
The football season in Country B follows the calendar year.
5.
The football season in Country E starts on 1 July and ends on 30 June of the
following year.
6.
In addition, according to the information contained in the TMS, on 8 January 2016,
Club C and the Club of Country G, Club H (hereafter: Club H) agreed upon the
transfer of the player from Club C to Club H and a transfer compensation
amounting to EUR 8,000,000. Said amount is payable ‘before the release of the ITC’,
in the following manner: EUR 5,000,000 net to Club C and EUR 3,000,000 net to Club
F. Furthermore, Club H and Club C agreed upon the following clause: ‘4. Party B [i.e.
Club C] and Club F shall provide party A [i.e. Club H] original invoices and copy of
business certificates (business registration form) with the transfer compensation
amount. This amount is net of any taxes, retentions or deductions. Besides the
Solidarity contribution for Player D (Club A, Country B / Club C, Country B)
2/13
transfer fee, Party A shall pay solidarity contribution to the player’s training clubs
(but not including party B and/or Club F), without any retention or deduction over
the transfer fee)’.
7.
According to TMS, the player was registered with Club H on 26 February 2016 and
his ITC was delivered on 23 February 2016.
8.
On 24 July 2017, Club A lodged a claim in front of FIFA against Club C, claiming its
proportion of the solidarity contribution in connection with (a) the sell-on clause
agreed upon between Club F and Club C for future transfers of the player, as well as
in connection with (b) the transfer of the player from Club C to Club H.
9.
In particular, Club A requests 58.48% of 5% of the total compensation in
connection with the sell-on clause (i.e. EUR 3,157,894.73), therefore, the total
amount of EUR 92,336.84, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due date. Alternatively,
Club A requests 58.48% of 5% of EUR 3,000,000, i.e. the amount of EUR 87,720, plus
5% interest p.a. as from the due date.
10.
In its claim, Club A explains that based on the sell-on clause agreed between Club F
and Club C, as well as the (subsequent) transfer of the player from Club C to Club H,
it is entitled to solidarity contribution. Club A explains that the transfer of the
player to Club H ‘triggered two payment obligations’, as follows:
- an obligation for Club H to pay an amount of EUR 8,000,000 to Club C and;
- an obligation for Club C to pay an amount of EUR 3,157,894.73 to Club F.
11.
Moreover, Club A explains that it can be noted from the transfer agreement
between Club C and Club H that said parties agreed upon a net amount of EUR
3,000,000 to be paid to Club C in relation to the sell-on clause. Club A argues that
‘in order to generate a net payment of EUR 3,000,000’, ‘the actual transfer fee
should have been fixed in the total amount of EUR 3,157,894.73’ and that it is
entitled to receive its share of the solidarity contribution calculated on this amount,
apparently agreed upon between Club C and Club F in relation to the sell-on clause.
12.
In its reply to Club A’s claim, Club C explains that the club already received its
solidarity contribution in relation to the transfer of the player from Club F to Club C
and the transfer of the player from Club C to Club H. As a result, Club C argues that
in relation to the transfer of the player from Club C to Club H, any payments related
to solidarity contribution should be made by Club H, as this is to be considered the
player’s new club. Moreover, the amount of EUR 3,000,000 paid by Club H to Club F
‘never entered in Club C’ bank account’.
Solidarity contribution for Player D (Club A, Country B / Club C, Country B)
3/13
13.
Furthermore, Club C explains that ‘it does not make sense to assign to Club C the
responsibility’ to pay to Club A solidarity contribution calculated over the EUR
3,000,000 received by Club F from Club H, ‘because such amount represents the
financial interest belonged to Club F, which must not be confused with Club C’
financial and economic interest in the player’. Moreover, Club C denies that there
were two payment obligations ‘triggered’, as Club H ‘paid just once to different
parties’.
14.
In conclusion, Club C requests for the rejection of Club A’s claim, because otherwise
Club A will receive ‘three times the solidarity contribution over two transfers of the
player’.
15.
In its replica, Club A reiterates its previous arguments and clarifies that article 1,
Annexe 5 of the FIFA Regulations explicitly mentions that solidarity contribution is
payable calculated on ‘any compensation’, which according to Club A also includes
amounts received by the selling club in relation to a sell-on clause.
16.
As a result, Club A upholds its position that two separate payment obligations were
triggered. Finally, Club A states that the fact that Club H, Club F and Club C for
whatever reason agreed that the sell-on fee should be paid directly by Club H to
Club F, ‘shall not influence or circumvent Club A’s right to solidarity contribution’.
17.
In its duplica, Club C states that the EUR 3,000,000 paid by Club H to Club F, were a
part of the total transfer fee of EUR 8,000,000. As Club A already received its share
of the solidarity contribution in relation to this transfer amount, Club C holds that
the present claim of Club A should be rejected.
II.
Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or
Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this
respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on
24 July 2017. Consequently, the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’
Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2017; hereinafter:
Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural
Rules).
Solidarity contribution for Player D (Club A, Country B / Club C, Country B)
4/13
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 conjunction with art. 22
lit. e) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2016 and
2018), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on the present matter,
which concerns a dispute relating to the solidarity mechanism between two clubs
belonging to the same association, however, in connection with an international
transfer of the player between clubs belonging to different associations.
3.
Furthermore, the DRC analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this
respect, the members referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2015, 2016 and 2018)
and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged on 24 July
2017 and that the player was registered with Club H on 26 February 2016. In view of
the aforementioned, the Chamber confirmed that the 2015 edition of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established,
the DRC entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber
started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments
and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Chamber
emphasised 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.
5.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber noted that Club A claimed the
payment of the amount of EUR 92,336.84 as solidarity contribution from Club C,
corresponding to 58.48% of the 5% of the total value of the sell-on clause agreed
upon between Club F and Club C, which Club A holds to correspond in total to EUR
3,157,894.73.
6.
In its claim, Club A explained that first of all, it needs to be noted that in the scope
of the transfer of the player from Club F to Club C in December 2012, said parties
agreed upon a sell-on clause in case of a future transfer of the player. What is more,
Club A explains that in February 2016, the player was again transferred, from Club C
to Club H for a transfer fee amounting to EUR 8,000,000 and that as a result of this
transfer of the player from Club C to Club H, it is entitled to solidarity contribution.
As a result of the foregoing, Club A argues that two payment obligations had
arisen, namely (a) an obligation for Club H to pay an amount of EUR 8,000,000 to
Club C and (b) an obligation for Club C to pay an amount of EUR 3,157,894.73 to
Club F. Finally, Club A explains that it already received the solidarity contribution in
Solidarity contribution for Player D (Club A, Country B / Club C, Country B)
5/13
connection with the amount of EUR 8,000,000, however Club C failed to pay to Club
A the solidarity contribution in connection with the amount of EUR 3,157,894.73.
7.
Furthermore, the members of the Chamber noted that Club C, for its part, contested
Club A’s claim and explains that Club A already received all the due solidarity
contribution in relation to the transfer of the player from Club F to Club C for the
amount of EUR 3,500,000, as well as for the transfer of the player from Club C to
Club H for the amount of EUR 8,000,000. As a result, Club C argues that in relation
to the transfer of the player from Club C to Club H, any further possible payments
related to solidarity contribution should be made by Club H, as this is to be
considered the player’s new club. Moreover, the amount of EUR 3,000,000 related
to the sell-on clause, was paid by Club H directly to Club F and therefore, cannot
generate any financial obligations for Club C.
8.
In addition to the above, and referring to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the
Regulations, the members of the Chamber first of all, took into account that
according to the information contained in the TMS, Club C and Club H agreed upon
a transfer of the player from Club C to Club H in February 2016 for a transfer
compensation amounting to EUR 8,000,000, payable as follows: EUR 5,000,000 net
to Club C and EUR 3,000,000 net to Club F.
9.
At this point, the members deemed it necessary to emphasize that the
aforementioned payment schedule is the result of the previous transfer of the
player from Club F to Club C in 2012, in the scope of which the transfer Club F and
Club C had inter alia agreed upon the following: “In case Player D will be
transferred to a third club, Club F is entitled receive 50% of the transfer sum
including all payments related to the transfer, but at least EUR 3.000.000,--. This
means, in case the transfer sum is EUR 3.000.000,-- or lower, Club F will receive the
full amount. In case the transfer sum is EUR 6.000.000,-- or higher, Club F will
receive 50%”.
10.
From the information on file, the members of the Chamber understood that in the
scope of the transfer of the player from Club C to Club H, several payment
obligations arose. First of all, Club H, as the player’s new club agreed upon paying a
transfer fee of EUR 8,000,000 for the transfer of the player to its club, which
amount in principle needed to be paid to the player’s previous club, Club C. What is
more, in view of the sell-on clause agreed upon between Club F and Club C, the
latter club would subsequently be obliged to pay an amount of EUR 3,000,000 net
to Club F. Although, for mere practical reasons, the parties had agreed on a
different payment plan, i.e. an amount of EUR 5,000,000 net to be paid by Club H to
Club C, and an amount of EUR 3,000,000 net directly to Club F, the Chamber wished
to point out that said payment plan cannot lead to a circumvention of the
mandatory regulations regarding the payment of solidarity contribution, which
Solidarity contribution for Player D (Club A, Country B / Club C, Country B)
6/13
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.
11.
For the sake of completeness, the Chamber referred to art. 21 of the Regulations 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.
12.
It follows from the aforementioned article that the solidarity contribution shall also
be calculated on the amount of the sell-on fee agreed upon between Club C and
Club F, as the obligation to pay said amount arose directly from the subsequent
transfer of the player from Club C to Club H and is to be considered as a payment
made in the scope of said transfer.
13.
Based on all the foregoing, the members of the Chamber decided to reject Club C’
argumentation, and established that Club C is to be held liable for the payment of
the solidarity contribution to Club A, calculated on the amount of the sell-on fee
agreed between Club C and Club F.
14.
In conclusion, the Chamber established that the transfer of the player from Club C
to Club H lead to two different entitlements for the payment of solidarity
contribution Club A: (a) solidarity contribution in relation to the transfer
compensation of EUR 8,000,000 net, which was to be paid by Club H for the transfer
of the player from Club C, which Club A states to have already received and (b)
solidarity contribution in relation to the sell on fee of EUR 3,000,000 net, which was
to be paid by Club C to Club F for the subsequent transfer of the player from Club C
to Club H.
15.
As the matter regarding the solidarity contribution in relation to the transfer
compensation of EUR 8,000,000 net to be paid by Club H was indeed already
decided upon in another case before the DRC, with reference number XXX, as
confirmed by Club A, the members of the Chamber deemed it vital to outline that
the matter at hand will only deal with Club A’s entitlement to solidarity
contribution in relation to the sell-on fee agreed upon between Club C and Club F,
the payment of which was triggered by his subsequent transfer from Club C to Club
H.
Solidarity contribution for Player D (Club A, Country B / Club C, Country B)
7/13
16.
What is more, in relation to the aforementioned sell-on fee, the Chamber
considered that it had to determine exactly on which amount the solidarity
contribution should be calculated.
17.
In view of the above, the Chamber recalled the content of the transfer agreement
in relation to the sell-on fee, concluded on 20 December 2012 by Club C and Club F,
where the following was agreed upon “3. […] In case Club C receives an offer for
the transfer of Player D to another club, Club C shall inform Club F immediately
about the offer and its contents. Club C is obligated to accept the offer to transfer
the player, if the transfer sum amounts to EUR 8.000.000,-- or higher.
4. In case Player D will be transferred to a third club, Club F is entitled receive 50%
of the transfer sum including all payments related to the transfer, but at least EUR
3.000.000,--. This means, in case the transfer sum is EUR 3.000.000,-- or lower, Club F
will receive the full amount. In case the transfer sum is EUR 6.000.000,-- or higher,
Club F will receive 50%, payable within 10 days after execution of the Transfer
Agreement between Club C and the third club and after proper invoice by Club F”
18.
Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that in January 2016, Club C and Club H agreed
upon the transfer of the player to Club H for a transfer amount corresponding to
EUR 8,000,000, as well as that said parties agreed that said amount was payable
‘before the release of the ITC’, as follows: EUR 5,000,000 net to Club C and EUR
3,000,000 net to Club F, as well as that “Party B [i.e. Club C] and Club F shall provide
party A [i.e. Club H] original invoices and copy of business certificates (business
registration form) with the transfer compensation amount. This amount is net of
any taxes, retentions or deductions. Besides the transfer fee, Party A shall pay
solidarity contribution to the player’s training clubs (but not including party B
and/or Club F), without any retention or deduction over the transfer fee)”.
19.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber observed that in the aforementioned
agreements, it is clearly stipulated that the amount of EUR 3,000,000, payable by
Club H directly to Club F, was connected to the previously agreed sell-on clause, as
well as that said amount of EUR 3,000,000 is a “net” amount, as well as that Club H
is exclusively responsible for the payment of solidarity contribution, and that a
“retention or deduction over the transfer fee” is not permitted.
20.
According to the Chamber, under these circumstances, the above-mentioned
wording of the transfer agreement does not leave room for an interpretation that
the solidarity contribution must be deducted from the transfer compensation
stipulated in the transfer agreement.
21.
Having analysed the wording of the transfer agreement at stake, the Chamber
wished to underline that there is no legal obstacle which prevents the clubs from
Solidarity contribution for Player D (Club A, Country B / Club C, Country B)
8/13
agreeing that the new club, apart from paying the transfer compensation,
additionally bears the solidarity contribution. In this regard, the members of the
Chamber reiterated that this is indeed what the parties to the transfer agreement
clearly agreed upon. In this respect, the Chamber wished to emphasize that, as a
general rule, the relevant clause in the transfer agreement must make a clear
reference to a net amount as well as to the solidarity contribution.
22.
Furthermore, the Chamber highlighted that CAS has established, in line with its
jurisprudence, that an agreement on a net transfer compensation without
deducting solidarity contribution does not contravene the spirit of the Regulations.
Equally, CAS has established that a scenario in which the solidarity contribution is to
be deducted from a gross transfer compensation does not harm the entitlement of
the training club(s) since it would rather enhance the solidarity contribution.
23.
Having said that, the members of the Chamber held that the agreement between
Club C and Club H is also covered by the wording of art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the
Regulations which, as pointed out previously, provides that 5% of any transfer
compensation shall be deducted from the total amount of the compensation and
distributed by the new club. In this respect, the CAS held that the wording of the
Regulations does not prohibit that the amount specified in a transfer agreement
represents only 95% of the gross transfer value, as long as the solidarity
contribution in the end is still deducted from the gross transfer value and
distributed in conformity with the wording of art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations.
24.
As a consequence of the aforementioned, the Chamber concluded that the abovementioned provisions in the transfer agreement between Club C and Club H, in
connection with a sell-on fee payable to Club F, are valid, considering the clear
reference to a net amount as well as the explicit reference to the solidarity
contribution which may not be deducted from the transfer compensation stipulated
in the transfer agreement. Therefore, the Chamber held that the gross transfer
compensation shall serve as the basis for the calculation of the solidarity
contribution. In this respect, the members of the Chamber wished to emphasize that
Club A had explicitly claimed solidarity contribution on the basis of the gross
transfer compensation.
25.
In the present matter, the Chamber explained that the agreement on a net transfer
compensation without deduction leads to the situation that the agreed
compensation in connection with the sell-on fee of EUR 3,000,000 payable to Club F
constitutes only 95% of the total amount due for the subsequent transfer of the
player, while 100% of this amount corresponds to a total of EUR 3,157,894.73.
26.
Having established the above, the members of the Chamber went on to determine
which should be the relevant amount of the solidarity contribution to be paid by
Club C to Club A over the sell-on fee of EUR 3,157,894.73.
Solidarity contribution for Player D (Club A, Country B / Club C, Country B)
9/13
27.
To that end, the members of the Chamber referred again to art. 1 of Annexe 5 of
the Regulations which provides the figures for the distribution of the solidarity
contribution, according to the period of time the player was effectively trained by a
specific club and taking into consideration the age of the player at the time he was
being trained and educated by the club(s) concerned.
28.
In continuation, and by reiterating art. 21 in combination with art. 1 of Annexe 5 of
the Regulations, the Chamber recalled that according to the player passport issued
by the Football Federation of Country B the player, born on 8 February 1988, was
registered with Club A as from as from 9 May 2001 until 10 July 2008. Furthermore,
it appears that on 7 August 2008, the player was transferred from Club A to Club F.
29.
On account of the above and in accordance with art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the
Regulations, the DRC considered that Club A is, thus, entitled to receive solidarity
contribution for the period as as from 9 May 2001 until 10 July 2008.
30.
Further to that, and specifically entering into the calculation of the due solidarity
contribution in relation to the season of the players 20th birthday, the members of
the Chamber equally observed that the dates of the seasons in Country E and
Country B overlapped, i.e. whereas the season in Country B runs from 1 January to
31 December of every year, the season in Country E runs from 1 July until 30 June of
the following year.
31.
Taking into consideration the foregoing information, the Chamber pointed out that
in view of the overlapping seasons in Country B and Country E and taking into
consideration that the player was born on 8 February 1988, the duration of the 2008
season had to be shortened to a timeframe shorter than the standard 12 months.
32.
What is more, the Chamber emphasised however that there is not more to be
distributed as solidarity contribution than 100% of 5% of any compensation paid to
the player’s former club within the scope of an international transfer of a player. As
a result, the only logical way to ensure an adequate distribution of the solidarity
contribution for the relevant seasons is to establish that the season of the player’s
20th birthday lasted 6 months, i.e. from 1 January 2008 (beginning of the season of
his 20th birthday) to 30 June 2008 (end of the season of his 20th birthday with respect
to Country B) and that the season of the player’s 21st birthday lasted from 1 July
2008 until 30 June 2009. Thus, the season of the player 20th birthday only lasted for
6 months, whereas the season of the player’s 21st birthday followed the standard of
12 months.
33.
As a result and considering that the player was registered with Club A for the entire
6 months during the season of the player’s 20th birthday, Club A is, thus, entitled to
receive solidarity contribution for the periods as from 9 May 2001 until 10 July 2008,
Solidarity contribution for Player D (Club A, Country B / Club C, Country B)
10/13
i.e. for 8 months of the season of the player’s 13th birthday and for the entire
seasons of the player’s 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th birthdays.
34.
As a result of the aforementioned, and considering the claim of Club A, the
Chamber decided to accept the latter, and decided that Club C is liable to pay the
amount of EUR 92,336.84 to Club A, corresponding to the claimed percentage of
58.48% of 5% of the total gross value of the sell-on fee, i.e. EUR 3,157,894.73 as
solidarity contribution, in relation to the subsequent transfer of the player from
Club C to Club H.
35.
Furthermore, the members of the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration
both the claim of Club A, as well as art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations,
Club C has to pay, in conformity with the well-established and longstanding practice
of the DRC, interest on the amount of EUR 92,336.84 at rate of 5% p.a. as from 18
February 2016, i.e. “10 days after execution of the Transfer Agreement between
Club C and the third club”, namely 8 January 2016, plus 30 days as per art. 2 par. 1
of Annexe 5 of the Regulations.
36.
In continuation, the deciding authority 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 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.
37.
In this respect, the DRC reiterated that the claim of Club A is accepted and
established that Club C has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of
FIFA.
38.
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.
39.
The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is
EUR 92,336.84 related to the claim of Club A. Therefore, the Chamber concluded
that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000
(cf. table in Annexe A).
40.
Considering that the case at hand showed relative factual difficulty and legal
complexity, the Chamber determined the final amount of costs of the current
proceedings to the amount of CHF 8,000, which, considering that the claim was
accepted, needs to be totally covered by Club C.
41.
In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the amount of CHF 8,000
has to be paid by Club C to cover the costs of the present proceedings.
Solidarity contribution for Player D (Club A, Country B / Club C, Country B)
11/13
III.
Decis ion of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, w ithin 30 day s as from the
date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 92,336.84 plus 5% interest
p.a. on said amount as from 18 February 2016 until the date of effective payment.
3.
In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid by the
Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted,
upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal
decision.
4.
The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 8,000 are to be
paid by the Respondent w ithin 30 day s as from the date of notification of the
present decision as follows:
4.1.
The amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid to the Claimant.
4.2.
The amount of CHF 6,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank
account with reference to case no. XXX:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the
account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 4.1. are to be made and
to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
*****
Note relating to the m otiv ated decis ion (legal remedy):
According to art. 58 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
Solidarity contribution for Player D (Club A, Country B / Club C, Country B)
12/13
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:
Omar Ongaro
Football Regulatory Director
Enclosed: CAS directives
Solidarity contribution for Player D (Club A, Country B / Club C, Country B)
13/13