The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on October 12, 2012, in a dispute between AS Nancy-Lorraine (Nancy) and FC Dynamo Kyiv (Dynamo) concerning financial obligations arising from the transfer of a football player in 2007. The case centered on the interpretation of FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), particularly regarding solidarity contributions and training compensation. The transfer agreement involved a fixed fee of €4 million, with additional performance-based bonuses, and a separate convention outlining payment terms, including Dynamo's commitment to pay solidarity contributions directly.
The CAS panel, composed of José Juan Pintó Sala, François Klein, and Michele Bernasconi, emphasized that solidarity contributions, amounting to 5% of the transfer fee, are mandatory under FIFA RSTP and cannot be waived by contractual agreements between clubs, as they affect third-party beneficiaries. However, clubs could agree that the new club (Dynamo) would bear the solidarity contribution in addition to the transfer fee, a position supported by prior CAS precedents. The panel ruled that the convention signed by Dynamo was valid and binding, despite Dynamo's arguments that it was signed under a misunderstanding and contradicted FIFA regulations. The panel found that Dynamo had acknowledged the convention's terms in subsequent correspondence and was therefore obligated to comply.
Nancy claimed Dynamo failed to fulfill its obligations, including a solidarity payment of €179,375 and additional amounts under the convention. The CAS partially upheld Nancy's appeal, ordering Dynamo to pay the solidarity contribution plus 5% annual interest from March 27, 2009, the date Dynamo was deemed in default. The panel dismissed Dynamo's counterclaim for reimbursement of a disputed payment, deeming it inadmissible. The ruling clarified that while clubs cannot alter FIFA's mandatory solidarity mechanism, they may agree on who bears the financial burden. The decision reinforced the binding nature of contractual agreements in player transfers and the limited scope of CAS's review in appeals concerning matters not initially decided by the competent FIFA body.
The case highlighted the complexities of international football transfers, including contractual ambiguities, compliance with FIFA regulations, and the enforcement of financial obligations. The CAS's decision underscored the importance of clear contractual agreements and adherence to FIFA's regulatory framework, ensuring that training clubs receive their due share of solidarity contributions. The ruling brought the dispute to a close, with Dynamo ordered to fulfill its financial obligations as specified in the convention.