Solidarity Contribution
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 22 June 2007,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Philippe Diallo (France), member
Essa M. Saleh Al Housani (UAE), member
Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member
Philippe Piat (France), member
on an matter between
the club, V
and
the club, A
and
the club, B
as Intervening party,
regarding the solidarity contribution related to the transfer of the player,
G
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The player, G, born on 15 July 1976 and was registered for V from 4 October 1991
to 30 June 1992 (1991-92 season) and from 29 August 1997 to 20 August 1999
(1997-98 season and 1998-99 season) in accordance with the certificate issued by
the Football Federation (F1).
2.
On 24 August 2005, the club B, loaned the player to the club A, for the sum of EUR
530,000.
3.
On 21 February 2006, V contacted FIFA to demand the payment of a solidarity
contribution.
4.
On 27 June 2006, the Football Association (F2) responded on behalf of its
affiliated club, A, and noted that although the club was prepared to pay the
amount owed to V, A had already paid the entire loan fee to the player’s former
club, B, without deducting the 5% solidarity contribution. Consequently, the F2
asked FIFA to inform B that 5% of the said loan fee would have to be attributed
to the solidarity mechanism.
5.
On 1 September 2006, V and A were informed of the Dispute Resolution
Chamber’s jurisprudence, which stated that the new club had to pay the solidarity
contribution, and that in the event of 100% of the amount having already been
paid, the former club would have to reimburse the equivalent amount to the new
club.
6.
On 14 March 2007, the FIFA administration sent the entire file to the Football
Association (F3) for the attention of its affiliated club, B, and informed V, A and B
of the Dispute Resolution Chamber’s jurisprudence.
7.
On 21 March 2007, B proposed paying A the sum of EUR 6,625 at the end of April.
8.
On 27 March 2007, the parties were asked to inform FIFA whether they had been
able to reach an amicable settlement or whether they would prefer the Dispute
Resolution Chamber to reach a formal decision.
9.
On 18 April 2007, B informed FIFA that it had withdrawn its proposal in line with
article 6 of the loan contract concluded with A, which had explicitly stated that A
would be responsible for paying the solidarity contribution. A copy of this
agreement was submitted to FIFA. Article 6 reads as follows: “… In addition to the
payments mentioned under articles 2 and 3 A will have no obligation to pay B any
further amount (for solidarity and/or training and education) based on the FIFA
regulations. Payments based on these regulations to previous clubs will be paid by
A. This is the responsibility of A as the buying club, in conformity with the FIFA
regulations and the applicable FIFA circular letters…”
Solidarity Contribution for the player G
(Club V / Club A; Club B)
2
10.
Taking in consideration that it was not possible to settle this dispute amicable, on
24 May 2007 FIFA informed the parties that the present case will be submitted to
the Dispute Resolution Chamber for its decision.
11.
On 25 May 2007, A informed FIFA that it had not any objection that B would pay
the amount of EUR 6,625 to V. On 5 June 2007, A added that it is ready to pay the
relevant solidarity contribution on condition that B would reimburse the relevant
amount.
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 21 February
2006, as a consequence the Chamber concluded that the revised Rules Governing
the Procedures of the Players´ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (DRC),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 G 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, in the modified
version, in accordance with the FIFA circular no. 995 dated 23 September 2005.
Furthermore, it acknowledged that the professional had been transferred to his
new club on 24 August 2005. Equally the Chamber took note that the claim was
lodged at FIFA on 21 February 2006. In view of the aforementioned, the Chamber
concluded that the current FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players
Solidarity Contribution for the player G
(Club V / Club A; Club B)
3
(edition 2005, hereinafter: 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 the player G was transferred on 24
August 2005 from the club B (hereinafter: B) to the club A (hereinafter: A) on a
loan basis.
6.
The Chamber underlined that as established in art. 1 of the Annex 5 in connection
with art. 10 par.1 of the Regulations, the new club of the player has 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 numbers of years that
the player has been registered with the relevant clubs between the ages of 12 and
23.
7.
In the present case, the Chamber outlined that the relevant period to be taken
into account with regard to the solidarity contribution would run from the season
1988 (12-13 years) until the season 1999 (22-23 years).
8.
In continuation the Chamber duly noted that based on the aforementioned
transfer, B and A signed on 12 August 2005 a loan transfer agreement in
accordance with which the club A was obliged to pay to the club B a transfer
compensation to the amount of EUR 530,000.
9.
In this respect, the Chamber duly noted that A (the player’s new club) asserted
having paid the entire amount of EUR 530,000 agreed upon as loan compensation,
to B (the player’s previous club) and that therefore, the latter is responsible to pay
the relevant solidarity contribution to V. In other words, A omitted to deduct 5%
of the relevant transfer compensation related to the solidarity mechanism.
10.
Furthermore, the Chamber took note that A put forward the argument that it is
ready to pay the proportion of the solidarity contribution claimed by V under the
condition that the player’s previous club i.e. B will reimburse A the relevant
amount.
11.
In continuation, 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 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.
12.
The deciding authority then took note that the intervening club, B, contested its
obligation to reimburse the relevant solidarity contribution to A based on the art.
6 of the loan transfer agreement. In this respect, B alleged that both parties
expressly agreed in the aforementioned article that A would make the relevant
Solidarity Contribution for the player G
(Club V / Club A; Club B)
4
payments in accordance with the FIFA Regulations to the previous clubs of the
player G.
13.
The Chamber drew its attention to the content of the loan transfer agreement
concluded between B and A on 12 August 2005 and noted that the parties
expressly agreed that A will be the sole responsible for doing eventual payments
in accordance with the Regulations to the training clubs of the player G.
14.
In particular, the Chamber focussed its attention to the last part of the art. 6 of
the cited loan agreement which states “Payments based on these regulations to
previous clubs will be paid by A. This is the responsibility of A as the buying club,
in conformity with the FIFA regulations and the applicable FIFA circular letters…”.
15.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber deemed that the relevant loan
agreement is in principle coherent with the above-referred jurisprudence when
stating that A as new club has the responsibility to pay contributions to the
training clubs in accordance with the Regulations.
16.
However, the Chamber clarified that the aforementined jurisprudence (cf. point II.
11. above) establishes two different obligations: 1) obligation by the new club to
pay the relevant proportion of solidarity contribution to the training clubs and 2)
obligation by the previous club to reimburse the same proportion to the new club
of the player.
17.
Taking into account all of the above and, in particular, the aforementioned wellestablished jurisprudence of the Chamber, the members of the Chamber deemed
that the arguments put forward by the intervening party, B, could not be taken
into consideration and thus has to be rejected.
18.
Therefore, B, having unduly received the amount of money pertaining to
solidarity contribution, is to be held liable for the reimbursement to the
Respondent of the relevant proportion(s) of the solidarity contribution payable by
the Respondent, A, to the player’s former training club(s) i.e. V.
19.
The Chamber then referred to art. 1 of the Annex 5 of the Regulations which
provides the percentage of the share for the distribution of the solidarity
contribution, according to the period at which the player was effectively trained
by the clubs involved.
20.
In the present case, the Chamber remarked that according to the confirmation of
the Federation (F1), the period of registration of the player G with the club V was
as from 4 October 1991 until 30 June 1992 and as from 29 August 1997 until 20
August 1999.
21.
In this respect, the Chamber concluded that the period of effective training to be
taken into account corresponds to the period from 4 October 1991 until 30 June
Solidarity Contribution for the player G
(Club V / Club A; Club B)
5
1992 at the player’s age of 15 until 16 and the period from 29 August 1997 until
15 July 1999 at the player’s age of 21 until 23 corresponding to three sporting
seasons.
22.
Therefore, the Chamber established that, in accordance with the breakdown
provided for in art. 1 of the Annex 5 of the Regulations, V is entitled to receive
25% of the 5% of the compensation paid in relation to the transfer of the player
G from B to A.
23.
Finally, the Chamber noted that according to the loan transfer agreement
remitted to the file, the player G was transferred for a total amount of EUR
530,000. In particular, the club A explained that it paid the total amount to the
club B and this fact was not contested by B.
24.
Based on all of the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that A has to
pay to V, 25% of the 5%, i.e. EUR 26,500, of the transfer compensation paid in
relation to the transfer of the player G, amounting to EUR 6,625, and that B has to
reimburse the aforementioned amount to A.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of V is accepted.
2.
A has to pay to V the amount of EUR 6,625 within the next 30 days as from the
date of notification of this decision.
3.
B has to reimburse A the amount of EUR 6,625 within the next 30 days as from
the date of notification of this decision.
4.
In the event that the above-mentioned amount is not paid by A to V within the
above-stated deadline, an interest rate of 5% per year will apply as from the 31st
day of notification of this decision and the present matter shall be submitted to
FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee, so that the necessary disciplinary sanctions may be
imposed.
5.
In the event that the above-mentioned amount is not reimbursed by B to A within
the above-stated deadline, an interest rate of 5% per year will apply as from the
31st day of notification of this decision and the present matter shall be submitted
to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee, so that the necessary disciplinary sanctions may
be imposed.
6.
V is instructed to inform A 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.
Solidarity Contribution for the player G
(Club V / Club A; Club B)
6
7.
A is instructed to inform B immediately and directly of the account number to
which the reimbursement is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution
Chamber of every payment received.
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
Solidarity Contribution for the player G
(Club V / Club A; Club B)
7