Solidarity Contribution
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 11 March 2005,
in the following composition:
Mr Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Mr Jean-Marie Philips (Belgium), Member
Mr Paulo Rogerio Amoretty Souza (Brazil), Member
Mr Gerardo Movilla (Spain), Member
Mr Philippe Piat (France), Member
on the claim presented by
X,
as
Claimant
against
Y,
as
Respondent
regarding the solidarity contribution related to the transfer of the federative rights to
the player A
Facts of the case:
On 30 June 2004 the club Z and the club Y concluded an agreement for the transfer
of the two players A and B to Y.
In October 2004 FIFA received several claims for solidarity contribution from all the
clubs where the two players had played between the age of 12 and 23.
Up to the date of the transfer at stake, Z and Y were involved in a longstanding
dispute pending before the FIFA competent bodies, whereby Z still owed the amount
of
EUR 13,587,000 to Y for the transfer of the player C from Y to Z, that had
taken place years before.
Due to its precarious financial position, Z could have never paid such a significant
amount of money.
For that reason, by means of the agreement signed on 30 June 2004 Z decided to
cancel such a debt, by transferring the two players A and B to Y.
The value of the transfer of the player B was agreed in the amount of
EUR 6,587,000, whereas the transfer of the player A was assigned a value of
EUR 10,000,000. Z and Y provided FIFA with a copy of this agreement.
In addition to these transfers occurred in reparation of the outstanding debt
between the two clubs, Y committed itself to pay to Z the amount of
EUR 3,000,000 by 5 July 2004. Such amount, which represents the difference between
the value agreed for the transfer of the two above-mentioned players and the
outstanding sum due to Y, was duly paid by the Y.
This amount was the only actual payment made by Y to Z.
The player A, born in 1976, was registered with X for three sporting seasons,
1988/1989, 1989/1990 and 1991/1992 at the ages of 12,13 and 15.
X claims proportion of the 5 % payment established in article 25 of the FIFA
Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players regarding the contribution to the
solidarity mechanism related to the transfer of the federative rights to the player A
from Z to Y.
According to the aforementioned Regulations, the new club concerned is to
distribute 5% of this compensatory amount to the club(s) where the player has
played between the age of 12 and 23. In the present case, the timeframe to be
taken into account relates to the seasons 1988/1989, 1989/1990 and 1991/1992.
2
As far as the Distribution of the Solidarity Contribution regarding the transfer of the
federative rights to A from Z to Y is concerned, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is
asked to decide whether the 5% should be distributed only out of the amount of
EUR 3,000,000 actually paid by Y, or out of the value of EUR 10,000,000 assigned to
the player’s transfer.
In this respect, X asks the Dispute Resolution Chamber to sentence the club Y to start
with the distribution of proportion of 5% related to the transfer of the federative rights
to the player A.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
After a careful study of the facts and allegations outlined above, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber commenced its deliberations by referring to article 25 of the
FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players, according to which, it falls
within the purview of the Dispute Resolution Chamber to review disputes concerning
the distribution of the solidarity contribution.
In this sense, as further established in the article 25 of the revised FIFA Regulations for
the Status and Transfer and of Players, the new club concerned is to distribute 5% of
any compensation paid to the player’s previous club to the club(s) where the player
has played between the age of 12 and 23.
Firstly, the Chamber focused its attention on the fact whether the amount due as a
solidarity contribution should be deducted only from the amount of EUR 3,000,000
actually paid by Y, or rather from the value of the player’s transfer agreed upon, i.e.
EUR 10,000,000.
The Chamber took duly note of the fact that the ratio behind A and B’s transfer from
Z to Y was to cancel a considerably longstanding debt between the two clubs.
Furthermore, the Chamber appreciated the endeavour of Z, which, due to its
unsteady financial position, could have never paid such a significant amount of
money to Y.
Nonetheless, the Chamber acknowledged the fact that the parties involved in the
transfer of A and B expressly agreed upon the value of each transfer. The value
assigned to A’s transfer is EUR 10,000,000.
Reference was also made to the Chamber’s previous pronouncements in similar
cases, whereby it was decided that the amount of 5% to be distributed as a solidarity
3
contribution shall be deducted from the entire value of the transaction, not only from
the financial amount factually paid as a transfer fee.
The Chamber placed emphasis to the fact that applying the distribution of the 5%
due as a solidarity contribution merely to the tangible amount of money remitted
would contravene the ratio itself of the solidarity mechanism.
On account of the above, the Chamber decided that the amount due as a
solidarity contribution related to the transfer of A from Z to Y shall be deducted from
the value of the player, i.e. from the sum of EUR 10,000,000.
In the case at stake, the Chamber outlined that the training period to take into
consideration relates to the sporting seasons 1988/1989, 1989/1990 and 1991/1992 at
the ages of 12,13 and 15.
The Chamber made further reference to Art. 10 of the Regulations governing the
Application of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players, which provides
the figures for the distribution of the solidarity contribution, according to the time the
player was effectively trained by the clubs involved.
It is therefore undisputed that X is entitled to receive 20% of the 5% related to the
transfer of the federative rights to the player A to Y.
Furthermore, the Chamber made reference to Article 11 of the Regulations
governing the Application of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players,
which reads that the new club shall pay the amount due as a solidarity contribution
to the training clubs at the latest within thirty days of the player’s registration.
As it was noted that the value assigned to A’s transfer is EUR 10,000,000, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber decided that Y must pay to X 20% of the 5% of the transfer
compensation, i.e. EUR 100,000.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of X is accepted.
2. The Y has to pay the amount of EUR 100,000 to X.
3. The amount due to the club X has to be paid by Y within 30 days as from the
date of notification of this decision.
4. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, the
present matter shall be submitted to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee, so that the
necessary disciplinary sanctions may be imposed.
4
5. The claimant is directed to inform the respondent immediately of the account
number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute
Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
6. According to art. 60 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes this decision may be appealed
before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be
sent to the CAS directly within 10 days of receiving notification of this decision
and has to contain all elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives
issued by the CAS, copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days
following the expiry of the time limit for the filing of the statement of appeal, the
appellant shall file with the CAS a brief stating the facts and legal arguments
giving rise to the appeal (cf. point 4 of the directives).
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 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
5