The case involves a dispute between RCD Mallorca and Al Arabi regarding the financial responsibility for a solidarity contribution related to the transfer of an Argentine player, L. Under the 2005 FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the solidarity contribution is typically the obligation of the new club (Al Arabi) toward third-party clubs entitled to such payments. However, the regulations allow the transferring club (Mallorca) and the new club to agree on shifting this financial burden. The dispute arose from a 2006 transfer agreement where Mallorca transferred the player to Al Arabi for a net price of $4,650,000. The agreement did not explicitly address the solidarity contribution, though Al Arabi later attempted to include a clause holding Mallorca responsible, which Mallorca refused. Mallorca insisted on signing the agreement as originally drafted, and Al Arabi ultimately agreed.
After the transfer, Argentinos Juniors, the player’s former club, claimed a solidarity contribution from Al Arabi. Al Arabi acknowledged its obligation to pay but sought reimbursement from Mallorca, arguing that the financial burden should fall on them. FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruled that Al Arabi must pay Argentinos Juniors $186,000 but did not explicitly address the reimbursement claim against Mallorca. Mallorca appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that Al Arabi, as the new club, was responsible for the contribution. The CAS examined whether the transfer agreement implicitly shifted the financial burden to Mallorca and concluded that since the agreement specified a "net price" and Mallorca refused to include any clause holding them responsible, the burden remained with Al Arabi. The CAS emphasized that the parties’ intent, as reflected in the contract, was for Mallorca to receive the full transfer fee without deductions.
The CAS upheld the principle that internal arrangements between clubs must be clearly stipulated in the transfer agreement to alter default obligations under FIFA regulations. It found that Al Arabi had accepted responsibility for the solidarity contribution by signing the agreement without the contested clause. The ruling overturned the DRC’s decision that had ordered Mallorca to reimburse Al Arabi, clarifying that Mallorca was not obligated to pay the $186,000 plus interest. The case underscores the importance of explicit contractual terms in determining financial responsibilities in player transfers and highlights the balance between contractual freedom under Swiss law and FIFA’s regulatory framework to protect the rights of training clubs. The final decision reaffirmed that while parties may agree on who bears the financial burden, such agreements must not undermine the legal rights of third-party clubs entitled to solidarity contributions.