Solidarity Contribution
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 9 November 2004,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Philippe Piat (France), member
Philippe Diallo (France), member
on the claim presented by
the club, X, Uruguay,
as Claimant
against
the club, Y, Sweden,
as Respondent
regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the player, Z,
Facts of the case
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
The player, Z, was transferred on a loan basis from A (Uruguay) to Y by means of a loan
agreement signed on 31 March 2003.
A loan fee of EUR 25,000 was agreed upon.
In addition, according to this loan agreement, Y was given an exclusive option to acquire the
player’s services on a definite basis. This option had to be exercised in writing prior to 31 July
2003.
The Swedish Football Federation has confirmed that its member club has not exercised this
option.
Club X (Uruguay), the club with which the player was registered from 21 February 1991 until 29
May 1996 in accordance with the relevant confirmation of the Uruguay FA, claims that it is
entitled to receive from Y an amount of money pertaining to solidarity mechanism, even though
the fact that the player was transferred on a loan basis only.
The arguments put forward by X are the following:
Referring to Article 25 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players in
conjunction with Article 10 of the Application Regulations:
o The player is a non-amateur player;
o He moved to another club affiliated to another national association;
o He moved during the course of his contract;
o A compensation was paid to his previous club, i.e. a loan fee.
Referring to section 4 of circular letter nr 769:
o The loan of a player by one club to another club is dealt with administratively like a
transfer;
o The application of solidarity mechanism arises from “an international transfer
during the term of his contract”, which has transpired in the present case;
o His previous club received financial compensation.
X asks the Dispute Resolution Chamber to determine as to whether the loan of the player, Z,
from A to Y generates a right to solidarity contribution in favour of X.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
The members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber were summoned to pass a decision on this
matter by the Chairman pursuant to Art. 1 point 6) of the Rules Governing the Practice and
Procedures of the Dispute Resolution Chamber.
The members of the Chamber firstly proceeded to confirm that in accordance with Article 42 of the
FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players the Chamber is competent to deal with the
present matter.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber took due note of the argumentation put forward by X. The
Chamber agreed that the wording of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players does
not specify whether the payment of solidarity contribution is also due in the case of a loan of a
2
player. Indeed, the sole explanation contained in these regulations is that solidarity contribution
is owed when a player is transferred during the course of a contract. However, the Chamber
underlined that it had never been the intention of the legislator to apply the obligation of the
payment of solidarity contribution to the cases of a loan of a player. Essentially, the concept
behind the entitlement to solidarity contribution was to share a proportion of a transfer fee among
the clubs involved in the training and education of a player. A transfer fee is, however, only owed
when a player is transferred on a definite basis and cannot be equated to a loan fee. Therefore,
taking into consideration the above and in accordance with its jurisprudence, the Chamber
decided to reject the claim of the Uruguayan club.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, X, is rejected.
2.
According to art. 60 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 10 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:
Avenue de l’Elysée 28
1006 Lausanne
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:
Urs Linsi
General Secretary
Enclosed: CAS directives
3