Dispute Resolution Chamber
Texto da decisão
TMS 7234
Decision of the
Single Judge of the sub-committee of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 6 May 2021
regarding solidarity contribution for the transfer of the player Darwin Gabriel
Núñez Ribeiro
BY:
Stefano Sartori (Italy), Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber
CLAIMANT:
CLUB LA LUZ (ONFI), Uruguay
RESPONDENT:
UD Almeria, Spain
Page 2 of 10
TMS 7234
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Darwin Gabriel Núñez Ribeiro
Date of birth:
24 June 1999
Player passport:
issued by the Asociación Uruguaya de Fútbol (“AUF”) on 30 August 2019
Club(s)
Peñarol
San Miguel
Pirata Juniors
San Miguel
La Luz
La Luz
La Luz
La Luz
La Luz
La Luz
Type of reg.
Permanent
Permanent
Loan
Permanent
Permanent
Permanent
Permanent
Permanent
Permanent
Permanent
From
25.07.2013
25.07.2013
01.03.2013
28.06.2012
01.01.2012
01.01.2011
01.01.2010
01.01.2009
01.01.2008
27.07.2007
To
30.08.2019
25.07.2013
25.07.2013
01.03.2013
27.06.2012
31.12.2011
31.12.2010
31.12.2009
31.12.2008
31.12.2007
Status
Professional
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Sporting season:
1 January to 31 December (Uruguay)
Date of transfer:
30 August 2019, from CA Peñarol (Uruguay) to UD Almeria (Spain)
Financial conditions: As per clause 7 of the transfer agreement concluded between Peñarol and UD
Almeria, the clubs agreed upon a sell-on fee clause according to which Peñarol
would be entitled to a 20% sell-on fee on any future transfer to a third club.
As per clause 3.5. of the transfer agreement, the clubs further agreed upon the
following:
“Cualquier cantidad adeudada como contribución por derechos de solidaridad de la
FIFA de conformidad con el Reglamento de la FIFA en relación con la Compensación
total de esta transferencia, sea la Compensación Fija o la Compensación Contingente
que este Acuerdo estipula, será de cargo de Peñarol.
En consecuencia, los montos estipulados en este Acuerdo se abonarán íntegramente y
sin deducción de especie alguna a Peñarol.
Las partes convierten expresamente cualquier cantidad adeudada como contribución
por derechos de solidaridad y/o compensación que se pudiera devengar de
conformidad con el reglamento FIFA del estatuto y la transferencia de jugadores en
relación con esta transferencia, independientemente de que traiga causa en la parte
fija o variable del precio de la misma, será a cargo de Peñarol”.
Claimant club:
Club La Luz (ONFI), Uruguay
Page 3 of 10
TMS 7234
Respondent club:
UD Almeria, Spain
Claim and Response:
1.
On 18 November 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim for solidarity contribution against the
Respondent requesting payment of the solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of
the player from CA Peñarol to the Respondent. The Claimant requested the payment of 0,375%
of the amount to be paid by the Respondent to CA Peñarol, plus 5% per annum interest as of
the due date until the date of effective payment.
2.
According to the information contained in the player’s passport provided by the Claimant, the
player was registered with it as from 27 July 2007 until 27 June 2012.
3.
On 15 December 2020, the Respondent was requested to provide its comments on the
Claimant’s claim.
4.
The Respondent requested FIFA to dismiss the Claimant’s claim in its entirely.
5.
Referring to the provisions of clause 3.5. of the transfer agreement concluded with CA Peñarol,
the Respondent sustained the following: “it remains clear that Peñarol undertook to bear the
burden of paying any solidarity contribution that could arise from the fixed fee paid for the
transfer of the Player from Peñarol to Almeria, as well as from the payment of any variable
amount stipulated in the Transfer Agreement as, for example, Peñarol’s entitlement to a 20%
sell on fee of any future transfer of the Player”.
6.
In this context, making reference to the stipulations of clause 7 of the transfer agreement
concluded between CA Peñarol and the Respondent, the latter stated the following: “it is
evident and clear that Peñarol’s entitlement to a sell-on fee of 20% of any future transfer of the
Player is considered by the parties as an additional amount to be paid by Almeria for the
permanent transfer of the Player, and must also be subject to clause 3.5 of the Transfer
Agreement“.
7.
In support of its arguments, the Respondent referred to the “CAS’ long-standing jurisprudence”
(CAS 2015/A/4105 and CAS 2016/A/4518) according to which “parties can freely agree as to
which of them will bear the financial responsibility for paying, calculating and distributing the
solidarity contribution”.
8.
The Respondent further held that the agreement concluded with CA Peñarol on the shift of the
financial burden to calculate and distribute solidarity contribution cannot be considered as a
circumvention of the FIFA regulations nor a derogation to the player’s training clubs’ entitlement
to solidarity contribution, since such rights are not affected by art. 3.5 of the transfer agreement.
Page 4 of 10
TMS 7234
9.
In view of the above, the Respondent requested FIFA to determine that CA Peñarol is the only
responsible to bear the financial burden of paying solidarity contribution for the transfer of the
remaining 20% of the player’s economic rights to the Respondent.
10.
Lastly, the Respondent further provided a document entitled “ANEXO ACUERDO PARA LA
TRANSFERENCIA DE REGISTRO CON FECHA 28 DE AGOSTO DE 2019” (hereinafter, “the
Annex”), according to which CA Peñarol and the Respondent agreed that “instead of
performing the payment of 20% of the total amount of the transfer, [the Respondent] would
be entitled to an option to acquire the remaining 20% of the Player’s economic rights from
Peñarol against the payment of a total of €6.000.000,00 (six million euros)”.
11.
According to the aforementioned Annex, the Respondent committed itself to pay to CA Peñarol
the amount of EUR 6,000,000 in two instalments as follows: (i) EUR 1,000,000 on 8 October
2020; and (ii) EUR 5,000,000 on 30 October 2020.
Replica:
12.
Keeping in mind the stipulations of the Annex provided by the Respondent (cf. see point I.10.
above), the Claimant amended its claim and requested the payment of EUR 22,500 (0.375%
from the amount of EUR 6,000,000). In particular, the Claimant requested to receive the
following payments: (i) EUR 3,750 (0.375 of EUR 1,000,000) plus 5% interest per annum as from
8 November 2020 until the date of effective payment; and (ii) EUR 18,750 (0.375 of EUR
5,000,000) plus 5% interest per annum as from 30 November 2020 until the date of effective
payment.
13.
Referring to the provisions of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), as
well as to the well-established jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), the
Claimant held that the solidarity contribution shall be deducted and distributed by the new club,
i.e. by the Respondent.
Duplica:
14.
The Respondent reiterated that CA Peñarol was the only responsible to perform the payment(s)
of the solidarity contribution.
Page 5 of 10
TMS 7234
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): June 2019 edition.
Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (Procedural Rules): 2021 edition.
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested.
Admissible:
Yes, uncontested.
Decision:
1.
The Claimant requested the payment of the solidarity contribution on the transfer of the
remaining 20% of the player’s economic rights to the Respondent.
2.
The entitlement of the Claimant to receive solidarity contribution remained uncontested.
3.
It is undisputed that the player was registered with the Claimant as indicated in the player
passport issued by the AUF on 30 August 2019, i.e. between 27 July 2007 until 27 June 2012.
4.
It is also uncontested that the Respondent did not pay to the Claimant its proportion of the
solidarity contribution generated by the permanent transfer of the remaining 20% of the player’s
economic rights from CA Peñarol to the Respondent.
5.
The Claimant acknowledged the validity of the Annex concluded between CA Peñarol and the
Respondent (cf. points I.10. and I.12. above).
6.
In accordance with art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 5 of the RSTP, the new club of a player shall pay the
solidarity contribution to the training club(s) no later than 30 days after the player’s registration
or, in case of contingent payments, 30 days after the date of such payments.
7.
As such, any solidarity contribution due on the transfer fee would be due 30 days after the date
of the contingent payments, i.e. as of 7 November 2020 (first instalment) and as of 29 November
2020 (second instalment).
8.
The amount to be taken into account to calculate the solidarity contribution due to the Claimant
is EUR 6,000,000.
9.
The Claimant is entitled to receive its proportion of the due solidarity contribution for the training
and education provided to the player between the seasons of his 12th and 13th birthday.
10.
As per art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 5 of the RSTP, the solidarity contribution for the seasons of a
player’s 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th birthday amounts to 5% of the total solidarity contribution.
Page 6 of 10
TMS 7234
11.
If a player is registered for less than a year this amount is to be calculated on a pro rata basis (cf.
art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 5 of the RSTP).
12.
Taking into account the time that the player was registered with the Claimant as established in
point II. 3. above, the Claimant is entitled to receive 7.45% of the solidarity contribution due,
i.e. 5% for the season of his 12th birthday and 2.45% for the season of his 13th birthday. In total,
the solidarity contribution amounts to EUR 22,350.
13.
The Respondent rejected the claim arguing that solidarity contribution was to be paid by the
former club, i.e. CA Peñarol.
14.
Annexe 5 of the RSTP established that the responsibility to pay solidarity contribution is
incumbent on the new club of a player.
15.
In accordance with the jurisprudence of the DRC, in strict application of the provisions set forth
in the RSTP, the player’s new club of a player is ordered to remit the relevant proportion(s) of
the 5% solidarity contribution due to the club(s) involved in the player’s training in strict
application of art. 1 and 2 of Annexe 5 of the RSTP even if the new club had agreed otherwise
with the former club of the player in the relevant transfer or loan agreement.
16.
As per the same jurisprudence, and in line with the principle of procedural economy, the DRC
has rendered decisions in the past in which it would at the same time order the former club to
reimburse the same proportion(s) of the 5% of the solidarity compensation that it had received
from the player’s new club as transfer or loan fee.
17.
In the present matter, the Respondent did not request the reimbursement from the former club
of the solidarity contribution payable to the Claimant on the transfer fee. Hence, in casu, a
potential reimbursement by the former club cannot be discussed. Should it wishes to do so, the
Respondent can lodge a separate claim in front of the Players’ Status Committee (PSC) against
the former club to seek reimbursement of the solidarity contribution.
15.
In view of the above, the Claimant is entitled to receive 7.45% of the due solidarity contribution,
i.e. 7.45% of 5% of EUR 6,000,000, which amounts to EUR 22,350.
16.
Furthermore, the Claimant requested to be awarded interest amounting to 5% per annum.
17.
Taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 5 of the RSTP,
the Respondent has to pay, in conformity with the long-standing practice of the DRC, interest
of 5% p.a. over the amount payable as solidarity contribution as of 31 days after the date of
payment of the due instalments.
18.
As such, the Claimant is entitled to receive interests as follows:
-
5% p.a. interest on the amount of EUR 3,725 as from 8 November 2020 until effective
payment; and
Page 7 of 10
TMS 7234
-
5% p.a. interest on the amount of EUR 18,625 as from 30 November 2020 until effective
payment.
18.
Consequently, the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
19.
No procedural costs are levied (cf. arts. 17 par. 1 and 18 par. 1 of the Rules Governing the
Procedure of the Players’ Status Committee and Dispute Resolution Chamber).
19.
The relevant provisions of art. 24bis of the RSTP are applicable to the present matter.
Page 8 of 10
TMS 7234
III. DECISIÓN DEL JUEZ ÚNICO DE LA SUBCOMISIÓN DE LA CÁMARA DE
RESOLUCIÓN DE DISPUTAS
1.
La demanda del demandante, Club La Luz (ONFI), es parcialmente aceptada.
2.
El demandado, UD Almería, tiene que pagar al demandante EUR 22,350 en concepto de contribución
de solidaridad, más un interés anual del 5% de la siguiente manera:
- sobre la cantidad de EUR 3,725 desde el día 8 de noviembre de 2020 hasta la fecha del pago
efectivo;
- sobre la cantidad de EUR 18,625 desde el día 30 de noviembre de 2020 hasta la fecha del pago
efectivo.
3.
Cualquier otra demanda del demandante es rechazada.
4.
El demandante debe informar inmediatamente al demandado de la cuenta bancaria en la cual el
demandado debe proceder al pago de la cantidad adeudada (incluyendo todos los intereses aplicables).
5.
El demandado deberá remitir a la FIFA prueba del pago de la cantidad adeudada de conformidad con
la presente decisión, al correo electrónico [email protected]. De ser necesario, la prueba de pago
será traducida a un idioma oficial de la FIFA (alemán, español, francés, inglés).
6.
En el caso de que el demandado no pague la cantidad adeudada con sus respectivos intereses, dentro
de los 45 días siguientes a la notificación por parte del demandante al demandado de sus respectivos
datos bancarios, se producirán las siguientes consecuencias:
7.
1.
El demandado se verá impuesto con una prohibición de inscribir nuevos jugadores, tanto en el
ámbito nacional como en el internacional, hasta el momento en que se abonen las cantidades
adeudadas y por un máximo de tres periodos de inscripción completos y consecutivos.
2.
Dicha prohibición se levantará inmediatamente y antes de su cumplimiento total, una vez las
cantidades adeudadas (incluyendo todos los intereses aplicables) hayan sido recibidas por el
demandante.
3.
En el caso de que la cantidad adeudada de conformidad con la presente decisión continúe sin
ser abonada después del cumplimiento total de la prohibición descrita, el presente asunto será
remitido, a petición de la parte interesada, a la Comisión Disciplinaria de la FIFA.
No se impondrán costas procesales (v. art. 17 párr. 1 y art.18 párr. 1 del Reglamento de
Procedimiento de la Comisión del Estatuto del Jugador y de la Cámara de Resolución de Disputas de
la FIFA).
Por el Juez Único de la Subcomisión de la Cámara de Resolución de Disputas:
Emilio García Silvero
Director jurídico y de cumplimiento
Page 9 of 10
TMS 7234
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
Pursuant to article 58 paragraph 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed before the Court
of Arbitration for Sport within 21 days of notification.
NOTE RELATED TO PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party
within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted
version (cf. article 20 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 10 of 10