The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) case CAS 2011/A/2635 involved a dispute between Real Madrid Club de Fútbol, the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF), and São Paulo FC regarding a solidarity contribution payment under FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The controversy centered on whether CBF was entitled to receive USD 45,000 from Real Madrid for the training of a player during a period when his passport indicated he was "not registered with any club" (January 1992 to May 1994). São Paulo contested the payment, arguing it was erroneous and sought reimbursement. The case was brought before CAS after the FIFA Single Judge ruled in favor of São Paulo, prompting Real Madrid to appeal.
The sole arbitrator, Michele Bernasconi, established key principles for interpreting the RSTP. He emphasized that a national association claiming solidarity contributions must prove the player was trained within organized football during the relevant period. Claims are only valid if the training club no longer exists or fails to claim the contribution within 18 months of the transfer. If a player’s passport shows no club registration, no association can claim contributions for that period. The arbitrator also clarified that the rules must be interpreted based on the intent of the rulemakers or the objective understanding of the addressees, in line with Swiss jurisprudence.
The arbitrator addressed ambiguities in Article 2(3) of Annex 5 of the RSTP, particularly the term "link," concluding that a "successful link" must connect the player to an existing, affiliated club. If no such link is established within 18 months, the contribution goes to the association(s) of the country where the player was trained. The arbitrator further clarified that only affiliated clubs are entitled to solidarity contributions, as the RSTP applies solely to organized football under FIFA’s umbrella.
The case revealed that Real Madrid had paid CBF based on the player’s passport, though evidence showed the player had trained with an amateur club during the disputed period. São Paulo argued this payment was unjustified, leading to the FIFA Single Judge ruling in its favor. The CAS upheld this interpretation, stating no solidarity contribution was due to CBF for the period in question, as the player’s training club, though amateur, was not affiliated with CBF. The arbitrator emphasized the need for clarity in applying RSTP provisions and affirmed that contributions are only payable to entities within FIFA’s organized football structure.
The final ruling partially annulled the initial decision, ordering CBF to repay the USD 45,000 to São Paulo FC. Real Madrid was also directed to pay São Paulo FC interest of 5% per annum on the amount, calculated from March 3, 2006, until the payment was received. The decision dismissed all other claims and upheld the original cost allocation, requiring Real Madrid to pay CHF 5,000 for the first-instance proceedings. The case highlighted the complexities of FIFA’s solidarity mechanism and the legal challenges in resolving disputes over player training compensation, while reinforcing the importance of evidence in establishing entitlement to such contributions.