The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) case 2006/A/1018 involved a dispute between C.A. River Plate and Hamburger S.V. over the payment of a 5% solidarity contribution under FIFA regulations, stemming from a 2002 player transfer. The transfer agreement specified a fee of 3.5 million USD "without any deduction," but FIFA's solidarity mechanism required 5% of the fee to be distributed to clubs involved in the player's training. After the player's former training clubs claimed their share, FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber ordered Hamburger S.V. to pay the 5% (USD 140,000), which the club did but then sought reimbursement from River Plate. FIFA's Single Judge ruled that River Plate, as the old club, should bear the cost, while Hamburger S.V.'s role was to distribute the contribution. River Plate appealed to CAS, arguing the "without any deduction" clause placed responsibility on Hamburger S.V.
The CAS panel analyzed the case, noting that FIFA circulars, though non-binding, aid in interpreting regulations. It clarified that while the new club (Hamburger S.V.) must calculate and distribute the solidarity contribution, it could deduct the 5% from the transfer fee. If the new club failed to withhold the amount, it could seek reimbursement from the old club. The panel also ruled that the "no deductions" clause in the transfer agreement did not override FIFA's solidarity mechanism but implied Hamburger S.V. would cover the 5%. The CAS upheld the Single Judge's decision, ordering River Plate to reimburse Hamburger S.V. the USD 140,000.
However, in a subsequent review, the CAS panel revisited the interpretation of the transfer agreement's wording, concluding that the "without any deduction" clause explicitly shifted the burden of the solidarity contribution to Hamburger S.V. The panel found no violation of FIFA regulations, as clubs are permitted to negotiate such terms. It annulled the Single Judge's decision, ruling that Hamburger S.V. was responsible for the 5% payment. The case underscored the flexibility of FIFA's solidarity mechanism and the importance of clear contractual terms in transfer agreements. The final CAS decision, issued on 10 November 2006, reinforced that the new club bears the solidarity contribution unless otherwise agreed, aligning with prior jurisprudence and ensuring training clubs receive due compensation.