Solidarity Contribution
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 8 June 2007,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Philippe Diallo (France), member
Zola Malvern Percival Majavu (South Africa), member
Theo van Seggelen (the Netherlands), member
John Didulica (Australia), member
on a matter between
the club A, X
and
the club B, Y
and
the club C, X
as Intervening party
regarding the solidarity contribution related to the
transfer of the player D.
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to a written statement of the football association of X, the player D,
born on 10 December 1979, was registered for its affiliated club A, from 15
September 1989 to 15 July 1993, i.e. from the age of 9 to the age of 13.
2.
On 16 June 2005, the club B from Y and the club C from X, signed a transfer
agreement concerning the player D for the amount of EUR 180,000. A copy of the
relevant transfer contract was submitted to FIFA.
3.
According to a written statement of the football association from Y, the player D
was registered with C on 14 July 2005.
4.
On 17 February 2006, A sent a complaint against B to FIFA demanding the
payment of solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player D.
5.
On 24 February 2006, B maintained that since it paid the entire transfer
compensation to the player’s former club, C, it would be the latter who is
responsible to pay the relevant solidarity contribution to the club A.
6.
On 2 November 2006, B informed FIFA that no solution could be found with C
regarding the reimbursement of the amount of solidarity contribution or a direct
payment to A.
7.
On 14 March 2007, FIFA provided C with a copy of the entire file and informed A,
B and C of the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in similar cases, in
accordance with which the player’s new club is ordered to remit the relevant
proportion(s) of the 5% solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in the
player’s training in strict application of the relevant provisions of the Regulations
for the Status and Transfer of Players. At the same time, the player’s former club is
ordered to reimburse the same proportion(s) of the 5% of the compensation that
it received from the player’s new club to the player’s new club.
8.
On 16 March 2007, B informed FIFA again that no solution could be reached with
C asking for a formal decision.
9.
On 24 April 2007, C confirmed having received the amount of EUR 180,000 from B
but considered that it is not responsible to pay solidarity contribution since the
relevant transfer agreement with B does neither include nor estipulate a payment
of solidarity contribution.
2
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
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 17 February
2006, as a consequence the Chamber concluded that the revised Rules Governing
Procedures (edition 2005) on matters pending before the decision making bodies
of FIFA are applicable on the matter at hand.
2.
With regard to the competence of the Chamber, art. 3 par. 1 of the abovementioned Rules states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its
jurisdiction in the light of articles 22 to 24 of the current version of the
Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005). In accordance
with art. 24 par. 1 in connection with art. 22 (d) of the aforementioned
Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on disputes
between two clubs belonging to different Associations related to solidarity
mechanism.
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 the Claimant in connection with the transfer of the
professional D 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 on 14 July 2005. Equally the Chamber took note that the claim was
lodged at FIFA on 17 February 2006. In view of the aforementioned, the Chamber
concluded that the current FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players
(edition 2005, 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 established in the art. 21 and
annex 5 of the Regulations, the new club of the player is to distribute 5% of any
compensation paid to the previous club to the club(s) involved in the training and
education of the player in proportion to the number of years the player has been
registered with the relevant clubs between the sporting seasons of his 12th and 23rd
birthdays.
3
6.
In the present case, the Chamber outlined that the entire period to be taken into
consideration with regard to the solidarity contribution would run from the
sporting season 1991/92, i.e. the sporting season of the player’s 12th birthday and
the sporting season 1992/93, i.e. the sporting season of the player’s 13th birthday.
7.
In continuation, the Chamber duly noted that, on the one hand, B (the player’s
new club) asserts having paid the entire amount of EUR 180,000, agreed upon as
transfer compensation, to C (the player’s previous club) and that therefore the
latter would be responsible to pay the relevant solidarity contribution to A. In
other words, B omitted to deduct 5% of the relevant transfer compensation
relating to the solidarity mechanism.
8.
Furthermore, the Chamber observed that in view of the aforementioned, B
maintained that it could not find a solution with C regarding the reimbursement
of the amount of solidarity contribution or a direct payment to A.
9.
Subsequently, the Chamber took note of the fact that, on the other hand, the C
confirmed having received the amount of EUR 180,000 from B but considered that
it is not responsible to pay solidarity contribution since the relevant transfer
agreement with B does neither include nor estipulate a payment of solidarity
contribution.
10.
On account of the above, the Chamber referred to its well-established
jurisprudence applied in similar cases, in accordance with which the player’s new
club is ordered to remit the relevant proportion(s) of the 5% solidarity
contribution to the club(s) involved in the player’s training in strict application of
art. 21 and annex 5 of the Regulations. At the same time, the player’s former club
is ordered to reimburse the same proportion(s) of the 5% of the compensation
that it received from the player’s new club.
11.
As a result and in consideration of the above-stated jurisprudence, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber decided to reject the allegations of C.
12.
The Chamber then referred to art. 1 of annex 5 of the Regulations, which provides
the figures for the distribution of the solidarity contribution, according to the time
the player was effectively trained by the clubs involved.
13.
In the present case, the Chamber outlined that according to the confirmation of
the football association of X the period to be taken into consideration (period of
registration of the player with the club A) went from 15 September 1989 until 15
July 1993, during the sporting seasons of the player’s 12th and 13th birthday. In this
respect, the Chamber concluded that the period of effective training to be taken
into account corresponds to two sporting seasons.
4
14.
Therefore, the Chamber established that, in accordance with the breakdown
provided for in art. 1 of annex 5 of the Regulations, A is entitled to receive 10% of
the 5% of the compensation paid in relation to the transfer of the player D from C
to B.
15.
The Chamber noted that according to the transfer contract remitted to the file the
player D was transferred for the amount of EUR 180,000.
16.
Based on all of the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that B must
pay to A 10% of the 5% of the transfer compensation paid in relation to the
transfer of the player D, i.e. EUR 900 and that C must reimburse the amount of
EUR 900 to B.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of A is accepted.
2.
B has to pay the amount of EUR 900 to A within 30 days as from the date of
notification of this decision.
3.
If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline an
interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiry 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.
4.
A is directed to inform B 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.
5.
C has to reimburse the amount of EUR 900 to B within 30 days of notification of
the present decision.
6.
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.
7.
B is directed to inform C 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.
5
8.
According to art. 61 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
General Secretary
Encl.
CAS directives
6