Solidarity Contribution
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 11 March 2005,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Gerardo Movilla (Spain), Member
Philippe Piat (France), Member
Jean-Marie Philips (Belgium), Member
Paulo Rogerio Amoretty Souza (Brazil), Member
on the claim presented by
M , Russia
against
C, Brazil
regarding the financial dispute between the parties resulting from the transfer of the
player G, Brazil
./...
Facts of the case
- The player G was transferred from C, the selling club, to M, the buying club, for a
net amount of USD 2’000’000. The transfer contract signed between the parties on
1 August 2003 makes no mention of the solidarity contribution.
- M paid the entire sum of USD 2’000’000 to C, without retaining the 5% reserved for
solidarity contribution payments to the player’s former developing club(s).
- On 16 June 2004 one of the developing clubs, B, came forward with a claim to its
USD 60’000 proportion of the 5% solidarity contribution.
- FIFA advised M that in accordance with the established jurisprudence of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber, such payment was the responsibility of the buying
club, and that M was thus held to compensate B despite having neglected to
retain the 5% solidarity compensation when it paid C the amount of USD
2’000’000.
- M thus paid B the requested solidarity contribution of USD 60'000.
- M is now demanding reimbursement from C, but the latter refuses to do so. C
defends that according to clause 2 of their transfer contract, M had the obligation
to pay C a compensation amount of USD 2 million net, meaning free of any and
all taxes, costs and expenses. Therefore, the club reasons, there may not be
further
deductions
from
this
sum.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
The Dispute Resolution Chamber commenced its deliberations by referring to art. 25
of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the
Regulations), according to which it falls within the purview of the Dispute Resolution
Chamber to review disputes concerning the distribution of the solidarity contribution.
Subsequently, the Chamber noted that from the facts of the case it could be
observed that the solidarity contribution due to at least one of the player’s
developing clubs, i.e. B, had been duly paid and that, consequently, the litigation at
hand did not involve a dispute concerning the distribution of the solidarity
contribution, nor any other issue directly pertaining to the provisions in the FIFA
Regulations regarding the solidarity mechanism.
The fact that the claimant was not one of the player’s former developing clubs,
lends emphasis to the above.
Page 2 of 3
The Chamber continued by identifying the case at hand as a dispute over the
interpretation and execution of the transfer contract that had been signed between
the buying and selling clubs involved in the transfer of the player G.
Considering that such disputes are not of the competence of the Dispute Resolution
Chamber, but rather of the Players’ Status Committee, the Chamber concluded its
deliberations by deciding that it was not competent to deal with this claim, which
should be forwarded to next available meeting of the Players’ Status Committee or,
alternatively, of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
The Dispute Resolution Chamber is not competent to deal with the present claim of
the Claimant. The claim shall be referred to the competent body, the Players’ Status
Committee, for consideration and decision.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber
Urs Linsi
General Secretary
Page 3 of 3