Solidarity Contribution
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 May 2006,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Gerardo Movilla (Spain), member
John Didulica (Australia), member
Paulo Amoretty Souza (Brazil), member
Ivan Gazidis (USA), member
on a matter between
the club X,
represented by
and
the club Y,
and
the club Z,
as Intervening party
regarding the solidarity contribution related to the
transfer the player A
I.
Facts of the case:
1.
The XXXX Football Association confirmed that the player A, born on 27 February
1979, was registered with its member club X as from 1 September 1989 until 27
August 1998, that is, for 9 seasons between the ages of 10 and 19.
2.
According to the relevant transfer contract signed between Z and Y the player was
transferred in December 2003 for the amount of EUR 1,000,000.
3.
On 26 June 2005, the X contacted FIFA requesting 70% of 5% of the transfer
compensation paid by Y to Z, plus 5% interest for late payment and the
reimbursement of the legal expenses.
4.
The club Y explained that it agreed with the player’s former club, Z, that any
solidarity payment regarding the player A would be paid by the player’s former
club Z.
5.
FIFA explained to all three clubs that according to the well-established
jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber applied in similar cases, the
player’s new club is ordered to remit the relevant proportions of the 5% solidarity
contribution to the club(s) involved in the player’s training in strict application of
article 11 of the Regulations governing the Application of the Regulations for the
Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2001). At the same time, the player’s former
club is ordered to reimburse to the new club, the relevant proportions of the 5%
of the compensation that it received from the player’s new club.
6.
The club Z did not reply to any correspondence of FIFA asking for its position in
this matter.
7.
On 30 December 2005, X explained that it had still not received any amount and
requested the submission of the matter.
8.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber is asked to decide the amount due as solidarity
contribution to the Claimant, if any.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
2
1.
First of all, the Chamber analysed whether it was competent to deal with the
matter at stake. In this respect, it referred to art. 18 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber. The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 26 June 2005,
as a consequence the Chamber concluded that the previous Procedural Rules
(edition 2001) on matters pending before the decision making bodies of FIFA are
applicable to the matter at hand.
2.
With regard to the competence of the Chamber, art. 25 par. 2 of the FIFA
Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2001) establishes that, it
falls within the purview of the Dispute Resolution Chamber to review disputes
concerning the distribution of the solidarity contribution.
3.
As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is the competent body to
decide on the present litigation concerning the distribution of the solidarity
contribution claimed by X in connection with the transfer of the professional A
during the course of a contract.
4.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber analyzed which edition of the
Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 26 par. 1 and
2 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005) in the
modified version in accordance with the FIFA circular no. 995 dated 23 September
2005. Furthermore, it acknowledged that the professional had been registered for
his new club in December 2003. Equally the Chamber took note that the claim was
lodged at FIFA on 26 June 2005. In view of the aforementioned, the Chamber
concluded that the former FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players
(edition 2001, hereafter: the Regulations) are applicable on the case at hand as to
the substance.
5.
In continuation, and entering into the substance of the matter, the members of
the Chamber started by acknowledging that as further established in the article 25
of the Regulations, the new club concerned is to distribute 5% of any
compensation paid to the previous club to the club(s) where the player has played
between the age of 12 and 23.
6.
The Chamber made further reference to Art. 10 of the Regulations governing the
Application of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition
2001), which provides the figures for the distribution of the solidarity
3
contribution, in accordance with the time the player was effectively trained by the
clubs involved between the ages of 12 and 23.
7.
In the present case, the Chamber outlined that the period to take into account is
as from the season 1991/1992 at the player’s age of 12-13 until the season
1997/1998 at the player’s age of 18-19. In this respect, the Chamber concluded that
the period of effective training to be taken into account corresponds to 7 seasons.
8.
Therefore, the Chamber established that, in accordance with the breakdown
provided for in Article 10 of the Regulations governing the Application of the
Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players [edition 2001], X is entitled to
receive 60% of the 5%, and not 70% of 5% as claimed, of the compensation paid
in relation to the transfer of the player A from the club Z to the club Y in
December 2003 for the amount of EUR 1,000,000.
9.
In continuation, the Chamber duly noted that the club Y explained that it agreed
with the player’s former club, Z, that any solidarity payment regarding the player
A would be paid by the player’s former club Z. In other words Y asserts having
paid 100% of the transfer compensation to the player’s former club, Z, i.e. it
omitted to deduct 5% relating to solidarity mechanism.
10.
Furthermore, the Chamber observed that Y deems that in accordance with the
transfer agreement signed with the club Z in December 2003 the latter should pay
the relevant proportion related to the solidarity contribution to the club X.
11.
Moreover, the Chamber noted that Z failed to provide any statement with regard
to the present matter although having been invited to provide its opinion.
12.
In this respect, the Chamber referred to par. 1 of art. 11 of the of the Regulations
governing the Application of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2001) which clearly states that the new club shall pay the amount
as a solidarity contribution to the training clubs.
13.
In addition, the members of the Chamber stressed that FIFA circular letter nr. 826
dated 31 October 2002, which deals with the interpretation of the FIFA
Regulations, elucidates that the 5% solidarity contribution is to be deducted from
the amount payable to the player’s former club.
4
14.
Furthermore, the deciding body recalled its well-established jurisprudence applied
in similar cases, in accordance with which the player’s new club is ordered to remit
the relevant proportion of the 5% solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in
the player’s training in strict application of article 11 of the Regulations governing
the Application of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players [edition
2001]. At the same time, the player’s former club is ordered to reimburse the same
relevant proportion of the 5% of the compensation that it received from the
player’s new club.
15.
Based on all of the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that in strict
application of article 11 of the Regulations governing the Application of the
Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players [edition 2001] the club Y must
pay to the club X 60% of the 5% of the transfer compensation paid in relation to
the transfer of the player A from the club Z to the club Y. In addition, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber decided that the club Z is held liable to reimburse the same
amount of 60% of the 5% of the transfer compensation to the club Y.
16.
In view of all of the above and considering that according to the relevant transfer
contract signed between the club Z and the club Y the player was transferred for
the amount of EUR 1,000,000, the Chamber concluded that the club Y must pay to
the club X the amount of EUR 30,000 and that the club Z must reimburse to the
club Y the same amount of EUR 30,000.
17.
In continuation, 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.
18.
Consequently, in light of the fact that this payment has been due since the thirtyfirst day after the transfer took place, respectively the player’s registration, i.e. by
December 2003 at the latest, the Dispute Resolution Chamber established that a
default interest payment of 5% p.a. as from 1 January 2004 at the latest, must be
applied.
19.
Finally, and with regard to the reimbursement of the legal expenses the Chamber
referred to its well-established jurisprudence and rejected the Claimant’s claim in
this respect.
5
20.
Taking into account all of the above the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that
the club Y must pay to the club X the amount of EUR 30,000 plus default interest
payment of 5% p.a. as from 1 January 2004 applicable until the effective date of
payment and that the club Z must pay to the club Y the amount of EUR 30,000.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of X is partially accepted.
2.
The club Y has to pay to X the amount of amount of EUR 30,000 plus default
interest payment of 5% p.a. as from 1 January 2004 applicable until the effective
date of payment within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision.
3.
Any further claims lodged by X are rejected.
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.
5.
X is directed to inform Y directly and 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.
The club Z has to reimburse the amount of EUR 30,000 to Y within 30 days of
notification of the present decision.
7.
If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline an
interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiring of the fixed time limit and the
present matter shall be submitted to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee, so that the
necessary disciplinary sanctions may be imposed.
8.
Y is directed to inform Z directly and immediately of the account number to which
the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of
every payment received
9.
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 21 days of receiving notification of this decision and
6
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
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:
Urs Linsi
General Secretary
Encl.
CAS directives
7