Solidarity Contribution
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 June 2005,
in the following composition:
Mr Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Mr Maurice Watkins (England), Member
Mr Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), Member
on the claim presented by
A
as
Claimant
against
B
as Respondent
regarding the solidarity contribution related to the transfer of the federative rights to
the player X
Facts of the case:
The player X, born in1979, was registered for the A for five and a half sporting seasons,
from 1993 to 1998, from the age of 13 to the age of 19.
In May 2003, an agreement for the transfer of the player X from the C to B is concluded.
A claims the 5% payment established in article 25 of the FIFA Regulations for the Status
and Transfer of Players (edition September 2001) regarding the contribution to the
solidarity mechanism related to the transfer of the federative rights to the player X
from C to B.
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 ages of 12 and 23. In the present case, between 1993 and 1998.
A has acknowledged receipt of the amount of EUR 14,400 paid by B, which would be
the correct amount due as solidarity contribution, if the transfer sum was EUR 500,000.
However, the club states that the transfer amount paid by B to C for the transfer of the
player X was much higher than EUR 500,000, possibly even EUR 4,700,000.
Requested several times by FIFA to do so, B eventually produced a copy of the transfer
agreement it had concluded with C and giving evidence that the amount it paid for the
transfer of the player X was actually EUR 500,000.
In this respect, A stated that such agreement would not be valid, as it does not bear the
stamp of either the Football Federation of B or the Football Association of A and that it
may have been easily counterfeited by the two clubs concerned.
A asks the Dispute Resolution Chamber to sentence B to start with the distribution of
proportion of 5% of the actual transfer amount paid to C for the transfer of the player
X.
2
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 Article 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 article 25 of the FIFA Regulations
for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2001), according to which, it falls within
the purview of the Dispute Resolution Chamber to review disputes concerning the
distribution of the solidarity contribution.
In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that it has jurisdiction to pass a decision
on this matter.
In this sense, as further established in the article 25 of the FIFA Regulations for the
Status and Transfer and of Players (edition September 2001), ), as well as with Article 11
§1 of the Regulations governing the Application of the aforementioned 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 ages of 12 and 23.
In the present case, the Chamber outlined that the training period to take into
consideration is of five and a half seasons, from 1993, when the player X was 13, until
1998, at the age of 19.
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 contribution, according
to the time the player was effectively trained by the clubs involved.
It is therefore undisputed that A is entitled to receive 55% of the 5% of the
compensation related to the transfer of the federative rights to the player X to B.
Having established the above, the Chamber took note of A’s acknowledgement of
receipt of the amount of EUR 14,400 paid by B, which would be the correct amount
due to the club as solidarity contribution, if the transfer compensation was EUR
500,000.
On the other hand, the Chamber focussed its attention on A’s statement, whereby the
transfer sum paid by B to C for the transfer of the player X would be much higher than
EUR 500,000, possibly even EUR 4,700,000.
3
Consequently, the Chamber thoroughly examined the documentation provided by the
club in support to their position.
In this respect, the Chamber noted that, aside from a number of articles and interviews
from various football-related websites, A did not supply any legal evidence
corroborating their allegation that the amount paid for the transfer of the player X was
higher than EUR 500,000.
The Chamber was eager to emphasise that the sole legal evidence it was provided with
in this case, was a copy of the agreement concluded in May 2003 between B and C for
the transfer of the player X.
According to this transfer contract, B agreed to pay a transfer sum of EUR 500,000 to
the C
The Chamber then paid further attention to the club’s allegations, whereby the above
agreement would not be valid, as it does not bear the stamp of either the Football
Federation of B or the Football Association of A.
Therefore, according to A this transfer agreement may have been easily counterfeited
by the two clubs concerned.
In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that the applicable FIFA Regulations do not
foresee an obligation for the clubs involved in a transfer contract, to have the
document registered with or certified by the associations concerned.
What is more, the above-mentioned transfer agreement, which was duly received by
FIFA through the Football Federation of B, bears the signature as well as the stamp of
both B and C.
In addition to that, the Chamber recalled that FIFA does not have jurisdiction to
consider matters of forgery of documents.
In view of the above, the Chamber stated that it was left with no other choice than to
consider the transfer agreement concluded in May 2003 between B and C as a valid one.
In conclusion, the Chamber decided that the claim of A is rejected.
4
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the club A is rejected.
2. 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
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
Enclosed: CAS directives
5