Solidarity Contribution
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 June 2005,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), chairman
Maurice Watkins (England), member
Theo van Seggelen (the Netherlands), member
on the claim presented by
the club, X
as Claimant
against
the club, Y
as Respondent
regarding solidarity contribution related to the transfer of the player
Z
Facts of the case
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
The player, Z, was born on 18 September 1980.
According to the written confirmation dated 10 March 2005 signed by the Football
Federation of X, Mr. Z was registered with X from 9 July 1993 until 1 August 2001.
In August 2004, the player was transferred from W to Y.
According to the written confirmation dated 13 August 2004 signed by W, the transfer
fee agreed upon with Y amounts to EUR 3,000,000 payable in three equal instalments
of EUR 1 million falling due immediately, on 31 January 2005 and on 31 July 2005.
The player having been registered with X during the above-mentioned period of time,
X maintains being entitled to 70% of the 5% solidarity payment in accordance with
article 25 of FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition September
2001) as well as article 10 of the Regulations governing the Application of the
aforementioned Regulations, i.e. the amount of EUR 105,000.
Y has not presented any response to the claim lodged by X to FIFA, in spite of having
been invited to do so.
However, the documents pertaining to solidarity contribution in connection with the
transfer of the player in question to Y include a correspondence dated 21 February 2005
and signed by Y stating that it rejects a claim for solidarity mechanism, given that the
player was registered with Y on a loan basis and that therefore, he has not been the
object of a “transfer”. Furthermore, in the same correspondence Y confirms that in
addition to this loan, it has partially obtained the “federative rights” to the player
referring to a clause of the “contrat de cession definitive”.
X rejects this position and refers to the written confirmation issued by W
demonstrating that the player was transferred on a definitive basis.
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.
After a careful study of the facts and allegations outlined above, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber commenced its deliberations by referring to art. 25 of the FIFA Regulations for the
Status and Transfer of Players (edition September 2001), according to which, it falls within the
purview of the Dispute Resolution Chamber to decide upon disputes concerning the distribution
of the solidarity contribution. Consequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber established that it
was the competent body to decide on the present litigation concerning the solidarity
contribution claimed by X.
Once its competence was thus established, the Dispute Resolution Chamber went on to deal
with the substance of the case. The members of the Chamber carefully studied the facts
2
outlined above, which show that the Respondent has not presented any response to the
claim put forward by X, in spite of having been invited to do so by FIFA. By doing so, the
Respondent renounced to its right of defence and accepted the allegations of the Claimant.
However, from the above-mentioned correspondence dated 21 February 2005 the Chamber
noted that Y refutes having to pay an amount of money pertaining to solidarity mechanism
in connection with the transfer of the player in question. The main reason put forward by Y
appears to be its assertion that the player was transferred on a loan basis to the Respondent.
The members of the Chamber took into consideration that indeed an agreement may have
been signed between the player’s former club, W, and Y regarding the transfer of the player
in question on a loan basis. However, such agreement may have included a buying option or
a transfer agreement may have been signed between the parties after the expiry of the loan
period. The Chamber further pointed out that in its correspondence dated 21 February 2005
the Respondent refers to a “contrat de cession definitive”, which seems to confirm that a
transfer agreement over the definitive transfer of the player was signed between the
player’s former club and the Respondent. Taking into account the above-mentioned facts,
the members of the Chamber concurred that the Claimant has amply substantiated its
statement that the player in question was transferred on a definitive basis to the
Respondent and that the parties have agreed on a transfer compensation of EUR 3 million.
Having ascertained that the transfer of the player to Y was definitive, the Chamber
emphasized that, as established in article 25 of the said Regulations, the new club, to which
a player is transferred during the course of an employment contract with his previous club, is
responsible for the distribution of 5% of the compensation payable to the player’s former
club to the former club(s) involved in the training and education of the player between the
ages of 12 and 23. In the case at hand, the compensation amounts to EUR 3,000,000 payable
in three equal instalments of EUR 1,000,000, the last one falling due on 31 July 2005.
The Chamber subsequently referred to art. 10 of the Regulations governing the Application
of the aforementioned Regulations, which provides the figures for the distribution of the
solidarity contribution, taking into consideration the period of time that the player was
effectively trained by the club concerned.
Considering that the player, Z, was registered with X from 9 July 1993 until 1 August 2001,
that is, between the ages of 13 and 20, 65% of the 5% solidarity contribution shall be
apportioned to this club.
Having ascertained that the amount agreed upon by and between the Respondent and W
for the transfer of Mr. Z is EUR 3,000,000, 65% of the 5% solidarity contribution amounts to
EUR 97,500.
In light of the above, the Chamber decided that Y is liable to pay the amount of EUR 97,500
to X.
3
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant, X, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, Y, shall pay the amount of EUR 97,500 to the Claimant, X, within 30 days
of notification of the present decision.
3. If the Respondent fails to comply with the above-mentioned deadline, an interest rate of
5% per year will apply and the case will immediately be presented to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee.
4. 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.
5. 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
CH-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
4