Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber - FIFA Digital Assets Hub
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
REF TMS 9640
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 11 February 2022
regarding solidarity contribution for the transfer of the player Antonin
BARAK
BY:
Johan van Gaalen (South Africa)
CLAIMANT:
FC Sellier and Bellot Vlasim, Czech Republic
RESPONDENT:
HELLAS VERONA F.C. S.P.A., Italy
Page 2REF TMS 9640
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player: Antonin BARAK
Date of birth: 3 December 1994
Career history
of the player: based on the player passports issued by the Fotbalová Asociace Ceské republiky
(FACR) and by the Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC), both on 5 January
2022
Season Birthday Club(s) Registration dates Status
06/07 12th 1. FK Příbram, a.s. (FACR) 01/07/06 – 30/06/07 Amateur (permanent)
07/08 13 th
1. FK Příbram, a.s. (FACR) 01/07/07 – 30/06/08 Amateur (permanent)
08/09 14th 1. FK Příbram, a.s. (FACR) 01/07/08 – 30/06/09 Amateur (permanent)
09/10 15th 1. FK Příbram, a.s. (FACR) 01/07/09 – 30/06/10 Amateur (permanent)
10/11 16th 1. FK Příbram, a.s. (FACR) 01/07/10 – 30/06/11 Amateur (permanent)
11/12 17th 1. FK Příbram, a.s. (FACR) 01/07/11 – 30/06/12 Amateur (permanent)
12/13 18th 1. FK Příbram, a.s. (FACR) 01/07/12 – 30/06/13 Amateur (permanent)
13/14 19th 1. FK Příbram, a.s. (FACR) 01/07/13 – 30/06/14 Professional
(permanent)
14/15 20th 1. FK Příbram, a.s. (FACR) 01/07/14 – 23/07/14 Professional
(permanent)
FC Sellier & Bellot Vlašim, 24/07/14 – 25/01/15 Professional
a.s. (FACR) (loan from 1. FK
Příbram, a.s.)
14/15 20th 1. FK Příbram, a.s. (FACR) 26/01/15 – 18/02/15 Professional
(permanent)
FC Sellier & Bellot Vlašim, 19/02/15 - 30/06/15 Professional
a.s. (FACR) (loan from 1. FK
Příbram, a.s.)
15/16 21st 1. FK Příbram, a.s. (FACR) 01/07/15 – 04/02/16 Professional
(permanent)
15/16 21st SK Slavia Praha - fotbal 05/02/16 – 30/06/16 Professional
a.s. (FACR) (permanent)
16/17 22nd SK Slavia Praha - fotbal 01/07/16 – 30/06/17 Professional
a.s. (FACR) (permanent)
17/18 23rd SK Slavia Praha - fotbal 01/07/17 – 13/07/17 Professional
a.s. (FACR) (permanent)
17/18 23rd UDINESE CALCIO SPA 17/07/17 – 30/06/18 Professional
(FIGC) (permanent)
18/19 24th UDINESE CALCIO SPA 01/07/18 – 30/06/19 Professional
(FIGC) (permanent)
19/20 25th UDINESE CALCIO SPA 01/07/19 – 27/01/20 Professional
(FIGC) (permanent)
LECCE SPA (FIGC) 28/01/20 – 31/08/20 Professional
(loan from Udinese
Calcio SPA)
Page 3REF TMS 9640
20/21 26th LECCE SPA (FIGC) 01/09/20 – 16/09/20 Professional
(loan from Udinese
Calcio SPA)
HELLAS VERONA F.C. 17/09/20 – 30/06/21 Professional
S.P.A. (FIGC) (loan from Udinese
Calcio SPA)
21/22 27th HELLAS VERONA F.C. 01/07/21 - onwards Professional
S.P.A. (FIGC) (permanent)
Sporting season
of FACR & FIGC: 1 July to 30 June of the following year
Transfer: On 17 September 2020, from UDINESE CALCIO SPA (Italy) to HELLAS VERONA
F.C. S.P.A. (Italy) on loan
Financial Conditions:
According to the information provided by the FIGC, the Italian clubs UDINESE
CALCIO SPA and HELLAS VERONA F.C. S.P.A. agreed to the loan of the player
by way of a loan agreement dated 17 September 2020
The loan fee amounted to EUR 500,000, payable in one instalment, on 1 July
2021.
In accordance with the loan agreement, HELLAS VERONA F.C. S.P.A. had the
obligation to convert the loan of the player into a permanent transfer at the
first Serie A point scored during the 2020/2021 season as from 2 February 2021
(“al primo punto del VERONA in Campionato di Serie A 2020/2021,
successivamente alla data del 2 febbraio 2021”), against the payment of EUR
6,000,000 payable as follows:
- EUR 3,000,000 at the start of season 21/22; and
- EUR 3,000,000 at the start of season 22/23.
The FIGC provided a correspondence of the Lega Nazionale (National League)
dated 4 August 2021 indicating that the player became permanently registered
with HELLAS VERONA F.C. S.P.A. on 1 July 2021.
Claimant club: FC Sellier and Bellot Vlasim, Czech Republic
Respondent club: HELLAS VERONA F.C. S.P.A., Italy
Claim and Response:
1. On 31 December 2021, the Claimant requested the solidarity contribution generated by the
player’s transfer from UDINESE CALCIO SPA to the Respondent.
Page 4REF TMS 9640
2. In particular, the Claimant uploaded in the “Grounds of the claim” section of the Transfer
Matching System (TMS) the copy of a correspondence addressed to the Respondent, dated 15
December 2021 and signed by the Claimant’s Sport Director, by means of which it requested its
share of solidarity contribution “in relation to the Transfer fee and Temporary Transfer fee” paid
for the player.
3. In addition, the Claimant referred to its calculations, which it explained having enclosed to said
correspondence. According to said documentation, also uploaded in TMS, the Claimant held
that it was entitled to EUR 27,226.03, corresponding to 8.7% of the due solidarity contribution
in respect of the loan and permanent transfer fee, i.e. a total amount of EUR 6,250,000.
4. On 11 January 2022, the FIFA administration submitted a proposal to the parties, informing
them that it was of the opinion that the Respondent should pay the amount of EUR 15,242.50
as solidarity contribution to the Claimant, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due dates.
5. The proposal was (de facto) accepted by the Claimant and rejected by the Respondent.
6. On 31 January 2022, the Respondent first explained that because it had not been provided with
“the correspondence from [the Claimant] to FIFA uploaded in TMS on 31 December 2021”, i.e.
the claim, it reserved “its right to amend its response if required, after receipt of all of the
documentation relating to the Claim.”
7. Furthermore, the Respondent acknowledged the Claimant’s entitlement to solidarity
contribution in connection with the temporary transfer and subsequent permanent transfer of
the player from the former club. In particular, the Respondent explained that it paid the
Claimant’s share of solidarity in connection with the temporary transfer and provided in this
respect a bank transfer statement referring to a payment of EUR 2,178.08 made to the Claimant
on 25 March 2021.
8. However, the Respondent argued that because the FIGC regulations and the national “clearing
house” system do not allow any deduction for solidarity contribution, it was unable to deduct
the relevant solidarity contribution due to the Claimant and had to pay the entire transfer
compensation to the former club.
9. As such, the Respondent deemed that in order to comply with the aforementioned national
requirements, it could not comply at the same time with the RSTP according to which, if a
professional moves during the course of a contract, 5% of any compensation paid within the
scope of this transfer shall be deducted from the total amount of this compensation and
distributed by the new club as a solidarity contribution.
10. Consequently, the Respondent held that, given the international dimension of the matter at
stake and in application of the RSTP’s prescriptions on the solidarity contribution system
applicable to domestic transfers, the former club should be included in the present proceedings
as an intervening party and should be ordered to reimburse it the relevant proportion of the
Page 5REF TMS 9640
(overpaid) transfer compensation that was not deducted for the solidarity contribution, in
accordance with FIFA’s established jurisprudence.
11. Finally, the Respondent held that should the former club not be included in the present
proceedings, the FIGC should be involved instead because the latter has “failed to regulate this
specific matter from the coming into force of FIFA’s domestic solidarity contribution system from
1 July 2020 until 1 July 2021” and “should be required to put the necessary processes in place
to allow the above-mentioned overpayment of transfer compensation to be reimbursed to [the
Respondent]”. In particular, the Respondent held that “Due to the lack of FIGC rules governing
the present matter at the time of the relevant transfer agreement, the present FIFA dispute,
which has an international dimension, represents the only remedy at [the Respondent]’s disposal
in order to protect its rights and obtain the reimbursement of the amount paid in excess to [the
former club]”.
12. On 8 February 2022, upon being requested to acknowledge the payment of EUR 2,178.08 made
by the Respondent, the Claimant explained having based its present request following the
“instructions” contained in an email correspondence held with the Respondent on 8 March
2021. As per the said correspondence, the parties agreed 1) to the payment of EUR 2,178.08 in
relation to the solidarity contribution in connection with the temporary transfer of the player
and 2) to a future payment of the solidarity contribution should the player be registered on a
permanent basis with the Respondent.
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law: Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): August 2020.
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (Procedural Rules): October
2021 edition.
Jurisdiction: yes, uncontested.
Admissible: yes, uncontested.
Decision:
1. The Claimant requested the payment of the solidarity contribution on the national transfer of
the player to the Respondent on a loan and subsequent permanent basis.
2. The obligation to pay solidarity contribution on national transfers with an international
dimension was introduced with the June 2020 edition of the RSTP, which came into force on 1
July 2020.
Page 6REF TMS 9640
3. According to art. 26 par. 2 of the RSTP, solidarity contribution disputes “shall be assessed
according to the regulations that were in force when the contract at the centre of the dispute
was signed, or when the disputed facts arose”.
4. The loan agreement was concluded on 17 September 2020, and indicated that the loan would
become permanent at the first Serie A point scored by the Respondent during the 2020/2021
season as from 2 February 2021.
5. It is undisputed that the aforementioned condition was met at a certain point of time after 2
February 2021. It also remained uncontested that this occurred without further intervention of
the parties to the agreement.
6. On 4 August 2021, the FIGC indicated that the player became permanently registered with the
Respondent on 1 July 2021 as a consequence of the loan of the player having become
permanent without the further intervention of the parties to the agreement.
7. The formal registration of the player on a permanent basis with the FIGC occurred after the
February 2021 edition of the RSTP had entered into force.
8. Following the above, the player having been registered on loan with the Respondent on 17
September 2020 and on a permanent basis on 1 July 2021, without any further actions to be
taken by the parties in order for the temporary transfer to become permanent, the applicable
versions of the RSTP to the present matter is the August 2020 edition.
9. The Respondent, although not contesting the entitlement of the Claimant to receive solidarity
contribution in connection with the loan and permanent transfer, rejected the claim of the latter
arguing that:
a) it had not been provided with “the correspondence from [the Claimant] to FIFA uploaded in
TMS on 31 December 2021”;
b) it had already paid the Claimant’s share of solidarity contribution in respect of the loan fee
paid to the former club; and
c) because of the national regulations and payment system in place at the time of the payment
of the loan fee, it could not comply with the deduction of the 5% solidarity contribution as per
the RSTP, and it should therefore be reimbursed by the former club of the relevant proportion
of the loan compensation that was not deducted for the solidarity contribution.
10. Art. 27 of the Procedural Rules provides inter alia that a party must submit a claim for the
solidarity mechanism and its additional documents in TMS and which contains a statement of
claim, setting out full written arguments in fact and law, the full body of evidence, and requests
for relief.
11. On 31 December 2021, the Claimant uploaded in the “Grounds of the claim” section of the TMS
the copy of a correspondence addressed to the Respondent, dated 15 December 2021 and
signed by the Claimant’s Sport Director by means of which it requested its share of solidarity
contribution “in relation to the Transfer fee and Temporary Transfer fee” paid for the player.
Page 7REF TMS 9640
13. In addition, the Claimant referred in the said correspondence to two enclosures, also uploaded
in TMS on 31 December 2021, referring each to its calculations of the requested amount of
solidarity contribution, i.e. EUR 27,226.03, corresponding to 8.7% of the due solidarity
contribution in respect of the loan and permanent transfer fee, i.e. a total amount of EUR
6,250,000.
12. Based on the above, it can be concluded that the Respondent was in possession of the Claimant’s
correspondence and its annexes, uploaded in TMS on 31 December 2021, within the context of
its claim for the solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player Antonin
BARAK from the former club to the Respondent.
13. Art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 5 of the RSTP stipulates that if a professional moves during the course
of a contract, 5% of any compensation, not including training compensation paid to his former
club, shall be deducted from the total amount of this compensation and distributed by the new
club as a solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in his training and education over the
years. This solidarity contribution reflects the number of years (calculated pro rata if less than
one year) he was registered with the relevant club(s) between the seasons of his 12th and 23rd
birthdays.
14. As indicated in the FACR player passport of 5 January 2022, the player was registered with the
Claimant as from 24 July 2014 until 25 January 2015 and as from 19 February 2015 until 30
June 2015, i.e. 318 days of the season of the player’s 20th birthday.
15. Based on the above, the Claimant shall be entitled to receive 8.71% of any solidarity contribution
generated by the transfer of the player for the training and education provided to the player
during the 318 days of the season of his 20th birthday.
16. Art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 5 of the RSTP foresees that 5% of any compensation paid by the new
club to the former club shall be deducted and distributed by the new club as solidarity
contribution.
17. It is uncontested that the Respondent paid to the former club a loan fee of EUR 500,000.
18. In addition, it remained uncontested that the player was registered on a permanent basis with
the Respondent on 1 July 2021. As such, the first installment of the transfer fee amounting to
EUR 3,000,000 fell due on 1 July 2021 as per the loan agreement.
19. Consequently, the total amount to be taken into account is EUR 3,500,000.
20. Therefore, the total solidarity contribution generated by the loan and permanent transfer of the
player from the former club to the Respondent corresponds to 5% of EUR 3,500,000, i.e. EUR
175,000.
21. The Claimant is entitled to receive 8.71% of the solidarity contribution.
Page 8REF TMS 9640
22. Therefore, the Claimant is entitled to EUR 15,242.50.
23. 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.
24. The Respondent alleged having paid the amount of EUR 2,178.08 to the Claimant on 25 March
2021. The latter acknowledged de facto having received the said amount by means of its
correspondence submitted on 8 February 2022.
25. Based on the above, the Respondent shall pay the Claimant solidarity contribution of EUR
13,064.42 (EUR 15,242.50 - EUR 2,178.08).
26. The Respondent held that because of the national regulations and payment system in place at
the time of the payment of the loan fee, it could not comply with the deduction of the 5%
solidarity contribution as per the RSTP, and should therefore be reimbursed by the former club
of the relevant proportion of the loan compensation that was not deducted for the solidarity
contribution.
27. In accordance with the jurisprudence of the DRC, in strict application of the provisions set forth
in the RSTP, 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. 1
and 2 of Annexe 5 of the RSTP even if the new club and the former club agreed otherwise in
the relevant transfer or loan agreement.
28. Art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules indicates that a party that asserts a fact has the burden of
proving it.
29. The Respondent did not provide evidence in support of its allegations that it had been prevented
form deducting the 5% solidarity contribution of the loan compensation because of the
regulations and payment system in place at national level at the time of issuing the payment of
the loan compensation to the former club.
30. In addition, the loan agreement concluded on 17 September 2020 with the former club does
not contain a clause according to which the Respondent and the former club agreed to shift the
distribution of the relevant solidarity contribution form the former to the latter.
31. Hence, in casu, a potential reimbursement by the former club cannot be discussed.
32. Finally, a claim of the Respondent against the FIGC shall not be assessed by the Dispute
Resolution Chamber of the Football Tribunal. Thus, the Respondent’s request to involve the FIGC
in the present matter cannot be accepted.
Page 9REF TMS 9640
33. Bearing all the above in mind, it is established that the Respondent shall pay the Claimant
solidarity contribution of EUR 13,064.42. No interest requested.
34. Consequently, the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
35. According to art. 25 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, procedural costs are payable for disputes
between clubs regarding the payment of training rewards.
36. The Claimant claimed the amount of EUR 27,226.03.
37. Thus, the amount claimed by the Claimant corresponds to an amount lower than USD 49,999.
Therefore, procedural costs levied in this respect are fixed at a maximum of USD 5,000 (cf. art.
2 of Annexe 1 to the Procedural Rules).
38. According to art. 25 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the chamber will decide the amount that
each party is due to pay, in consideration of the parties’ degree of success and their conduct
during the procedure, as well as any advance of costs paid. In exceptional circumstances, the
chamber may order that FIFA assumes all procedural costs.
39. In view the specific circumstances of the case, procedural costs shall be set at USD 3,000.
40. In view of the outcome of the claim and the conduct of the parties, said costs shall be borne by
the parties in view of the outcome of the case, as follows:
a. The amount of USD 500 shall be paid by the Claimant;
b. The amount of USD 2,500 shall be paid by the Respondent.
41. Art. 24bis of the RSTP is applicable to the matter at hand.
Page 10REF TMS 9640
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant, FC Sellier and Bellot Vlasim, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, HELLAS VERONA F.C. S.P.A., shall pay to the Claimant EUR 13,064.42 as
solidarity contribution.
3. Any further claim of the Claimant is rejected.
4. Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in the
enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5. Pursuant to article 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not paid within 45 days of notification of this decision, the
following consequences shall apply:
▪ 1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall be
of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee in
the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not paid by the end of
the of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance with
article 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of USD 3,000 are to be paid as follows:
a. The amount of USD 500 shall be paid by the Claimant;
b. The amount of USD 2,500 shall be paid by the Respondent;
c. The above costs shall be paid to FIFA with reference to case no. TMS 9640 (cf. note relating to
the payment of the procedural costs below)
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 11REF TMS 9640
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
Pursuant to article 57 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 17 par. 2 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 | CHhelpdesk@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 12You can also read
