The case CAS 2012/A/2929 Skeid Fotball v. Toulouse FC, decided on April 11, 2013, involved a dispute over a solidarity contribution under FIFA regulations. The conflict arose from the 2008 transfer of a player, D., from Bolton Wanderers to Toulouse FC. Skeid Fotball, a Norwegian club that had trained D. during his youth, claimed a solidarity contribution, arguing the transfer was part of a larger deal involving another player, J., and thus should trigger the solidarity mechanism. The key legal issue was whether the transfer involved compensable consideration under FIFA’s rules, which aim to reward clubs for investing in youth development. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel, led by Sole Arbitrator Prof. Massimo Coccia, clarified that the solidarity mechanism applies when a player transfers during his contract and the new club provides compensation, which can include non-monetary considerations like player exchanges if quantifiable. The panel emphasized the need to prevent circumvention of the rules to ensure fair compensation for training clubs.
The dispute centered on whether the transfers of D. and J. were interconnected. Skeid argued that D.’s transfer was tied to J.’s move to Bolton, forming a "cash plus player" deal, while Toulouse maintained the transfers were separate and D. was transferred for free. The CAS panel found the agreements were structured to avoid the solidarity rules, concluding the transfers were part of a single transaction. The panel ruled that the "nil" fee for D. did not reflect the true nature of the deal, which included J.’s transfer for €10.5 million. The solidarity contribution was calculated based on the economic value attributed to D., set at €600,000, resulting in a 5% contribution of €25,500 for Skeid. The panel also ordered Toulouse to pay interest at 5% annually from August 22, 2008, thirty days after D.’s registration.
The case highlights the complexities of transfer disputes and the importance of interpreting FIFA’s solidarity rules broadly to uphold their purpose. The decision reinforced that "compensation" includes non-monetary considerations and that interconnected transfers must be evaluated as a whole to prevent evasion. The ruling underscored the need for transparency in transfer dealings and ensured clubs contributing to youth development receive their fair share. The CAS partially upheld Skeid’s appeal, overturning the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber’s earlier dismissal and ordering Toulouse to pay the solidarity contribution with interest. All other claims were dismissed, finalizing the dispute in line with FIFA’s regulatory framework.