Solidarity Contribution
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 6 May 2010,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member
Brendan Schwab (Australia), member
Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member
Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member
on the claim presented by the club,
V,
as Claimant
against the club,
O,
as Respondent
regarding solidarity contribution in connection with
the transfer of the player B
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The player M (hereinafter: the player) was born on 28 October 1981.
2.
According to the player passport issued by the Football Association X (FFX), the
player was registered with its affiliated club, V (former V; hereinafter: the
Claimant) as from 26 August 1992 until 13 September 1993. Furthermore, the
player passport mentions that the player was also registered with the club B as
from 16 February 1994 until 20 December 2001.
3.
The football season in the country X runs from August to July of the following
year.
4.
According to a statement from the Football Federation F, the player was
registered with its affiliated club, O (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 23 January
2007.
5.
On 25 April 2008, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA for solidarity
contribution for the player in connection with his transfer from the club, A, to O,
for the alleged amount of EUR 6,250,000. The Claimant, whilst asserting that the
player was registered with it from 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1993, claims the
amount of EUR 15,625 as solidarity contribution.
6.
In reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent alleged that, upon receipt of a
claim of the club B, which was sent to the Respondent by FIFA, it had paid the
amount of EUR 203,125 to B, who, according to information provided by the FAX,
was involved in the training and education of the player. However, according to
the Respondent, with the club V claim, it was now informed that, in addition to B,
the Claimant was also involved in the training and education of the player. In this
respect, the Respondent observed that, within the context of the Claimant’s claim,
the FAX had issued a different player passport from the one which it had issued
regarding the former claim of B.
7.
Thus, the Respondent asserted that it had already paid the entire amount due as
solidarity contribution in connection with the player to B, and suggested that the
Claimant should turn to B in order to receive the relevant solidarity contribution
which appeared to have been unjustly paid to B.
8.
In view of the Respondent’s allegations regarding the issuance by the FAX of two
different player passports, FIFA asked the said Association to clarify the exact
dates of registration of the player with B and the Claimant, respectively.
2/8
9.
On 15 February 2010, the FAX provided FIFA with the said player passport, which
showed the exact dates of the registration of the player with B and the Claimant
(cf. point I./2. above).
10.
The player passport which the FAX issued within the context of B’s claim
mentioned the same dates of registration of the player for B as the player
passport issued within the context of the Claimant’s claim.
11.
Having been provided by FIFA with the newly requested player passport, the
Respondent maintained its position that it had already paid to B the amount of
solidarity contribution which, in fact, appeared to be due to the Claimant.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed whether it was competent to
deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter
was submitted to FIFA on 25 April 2008. Consequently, the 2005 edition of the
Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at
hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules, edition 2008, in combination
with art. 18 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules).
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
combination with art. 22 lit. (d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2009) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on
the present litigation with an international dimension concerning the distribution
of the solidarity contribution claimed by the Claimant in connection with the
transfer of the professional M during the course of a contract.
3.
Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with his
new club on 23 January 2007, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be
applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in
accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players (edition 2009), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 25
April 2008, the 2005 edition of the regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4.
Entering into the substance of the matter, the Dispute Resolution Chamber first of
all recapitulated that, pursuant to art. 21 of the Regulations and art. 1 par. 1 of
Annex 5 of the Regulations, if a professional is transferred before the expiry of his
3/8
contract, 5% of any compensation, with the exception of training compensation,
paid to his former club shall be deducted from the total amount of this
compensation and distributed by the new club as a solidarity contribution to the
club(s) involved in his training and education over the years. Furthermore, the
Chamber recalled that the solidarity contribution will reflect the number of years
(calculated on a pro rata basis if less than one year) he was registered with the
relevant club(s) between the seasons of his 12th and 23rd birthdays.
5.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that, on the one
hand, the Claimant claimed solidarity contribution for the training of the player in
the amount of EUR 15,625. In this regard, the Claimant asserted that the player
was registered with it as from 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1993 and that
consequently, the Respondent was liable to pay to it the equivalent of 5% of 5%
of the alleged transfer compensation of EUR 6,250,000.
6.
On the other hand, the Chamber took due note of the argumentation of the
Respondent which, in its statements of defence, had submitted that the FAX had
allegedly produced two different versions of the relevant player passport and
that, prior to the Claimant’s claim, it had paid the amount of EUR 203,125 to
another club affiliated to the FAX, B, which also appeared to be involved in the
training and education of the player. The Respondent thus asserted that it
appeared that it had already paid to B the amount which was effectively due to
the Claimant based on an erroneous passport issued by the FAX. The Respondent
expressed the view that the Claimant should turn itself against B to claim the
amount it is apparently entitled to as solidarity contribution.
7.
In view of the allegations presented by both parties to the present dispute, first
and foremost, the Chamber was eager to clarify that contrary to the Respondent’s
assertion, the player passport issued by the FAX in the context of the present claim
did not contradict the one issued in the context of the claim lodged by B. Indeed,
it rather appeared that the FAX had initially issued a player passport which
contained only partial information regarding the career history of the player, this
is, that it contained only the dates of registration of the player with B and did not
mention that the Claimant was also involved in the training and education of the
player. The second player passport, however, clearly revealed that the player was
registered with both previously mentioned clubs during distinct periods of time.
8.
Additionally, the Chamber observed that the two player passports clearly
mentioned the exact same dates of registration of the player with B. Therefore,
the Chamber ruled that the Respondent could not, as asserted, have paid an
amount to B which should have in fact been paid to the Claimant, since the player
was registered with the Claimant at a different time which was not mentioned in
the first player passport.
4/8
9.
At this stage, the Chamber wished to underline that in accordance with art. 2 par.
2 of Annex 5 of the Regulations, it is the responsibility of the new club to calculate
the amount of the solidarity contribution and to distribute it in accordance with
the player’s career history as provided in the player passport. In this regard, the
Chamber came to the conclusion that in the case at hand, it was the Respondent’s
responsibility to proceed to the correct calculation and distribution of the
solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player.
10.
In light of the aforementioned, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to reject
the arguments of the Respondent as to why it deemed that it did not owe any
amounts to the Claimant as solidarity contribution.
11.
In continuation, the Chamber went on to establish whether the Claimant was
indeed entitled to solidarity contribution in accordance with the applicable
provisions.
12.
To that end, the Chamber referred to art. 1 of Annex 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.
13.
In this respect, the Chamber drew particular attention to the fact that according
to the player passport issued by the FAX, the player in question had been
registered with the Claimant as from 26 August 1992 until 13 September 1993. In
this regard, the Chamber was keen to establish that the aforesaid dates did not
match the ones mentioned by the Claimant in its claim. With the foregoing in
mind, the Chamber once again referred to art. 2 par. 2 of Annex 5 of the
Regulations which provides that solidarity contribution is payable in accordance
with the player’s career history as provided in the player passport and concluded
that it must take into account as a basis for the claim the dates communicated by
the FAX in the relevant player passport.
14.
Continuing its deliberations as to the Claimant’s entitlement to solidarity
contribution, the Chamber subsequently recalled that the player’s date of birth is
28 October 1981 and that the sportive season in the country X ran, at the time of
the player’s registration with the Claimant, from August to July of the following
year. Therefore, the Chamber established that the player was registered with the
Claimant, for the season 1992-1993, for eleven months during the season of his
11th birthday, and for the season 1993-1994, for one month during the season of
his 12th birthday.
5/8
15.
In this context, the Chamber had to recall that solidarity contribution is in
principle due for the training and education of a player which occurred between
the seasons of his 12th and 23rd birthday (cf. point II./4. above).
16.
In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant is not entitled to
solidarity contribution for the eleven months during which the player was
registered with the Claimant in the season 1992-1993, since this season
corresponded to the season of his 11th birthday.
17.
Consequently, the Chamber held that the Claimant is only entitled to solidarity
contribution for the season 1993-1994 which is the season of the player’s 12th
birthday. The player having been registered with the Claimant for one month
during said season, the Chamber held that, on a pro rata basis, the Claimant is
entitled to receive a proportion of 0.41% of 5% of the transfer compensation.
18.
In addition, the Chamber noted that according to the statement of the Claimant
which was uncontested by the Respondent, the player M was transferred to the
Respondent for the amount of EUR 6,250,000.
19.
On account of all of the above and as a conclusion, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber decided that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the
Respondent must pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 1,281 corresponding to
0.41% of 5% of the total transfer compensation of EUR 6,250,000.
20.
The Chamber concluded its deliberations by establishing that any further claims of
the Claimant were rejected.
*****
6/8
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, V, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, O, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 1,281 within
30 days as from the date of notification of this decision.
3.
If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the above-mentioned deadline,
interest at the rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiry of the stipulated time
limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s
Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a formal decision.
4.
Any further claim of the Claimant is rejected.
5.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the
account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute
Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
*****
7/8
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to article 63 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Encl. CAS directives
8/8