The case involves a dispute between Genoa Cricket and Football Club S.p.A. (Genoa) and Club Bella Vista over the calculation of a solidarity contribution owed under FIFA regulations for the transfer of a player. The player, R., was trained by Club Bella Vista from 1991 to 2002 before moving to Club Atlético Boca Juniors and later being transferred to Genoa in 2009 for a total compensation of €2,510,000. The transfer agreement included a net transfer fee of €2,000,000 and additional obligations such as taxes and levies. Under FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), the new club must distribute 5% of the transfer compensation, excluding training compensation, to the player’s former training clubs. Club Bella Vista, having trained the player for 11 years, claimed 65% of the 5% solidarity contribution based on the total transfer compensation. Genoa argued that only the net transfer fee of €2,000,000 should be considered, not the full €2,510,000.
The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruled that the solidarity contribution must be calculated based on the total transfer compensation of €2,510,000, as contractual divisions of payments cannot override FIFA’s objective calculation method. The DRC determined that Club Bella Vista was entitled to 65% of 5% of the amount already paid by Genoa (€1,760,000), resulting in €35,987.67 plus interest, after deducting partial payments already made. Genoa appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the solidarity contribution should be calculated solely on the €2,000,000 transfer fee, excluding €510,000 in statutory duties. Club Bella Vista countered, requesting CAS to calculate the solidarity contribution as €60,362.67 plus interest or to confirm the DRC’s decision if the last instalment could not be included.
The CAS Sole Arbitrator upheld the DRC’s decision, emphasizing that the solidarity mechanism, akin to a tax, is designed to redistribute the value of training provided to the player by former clubs. The Arbitrator found that the Transfer Agreement clearly specified €2,510,000 as the transfer compensation, with Genoa agreeing to bear associated taxes and duties, thereby increasing the compensation. Consequently, the solidarity contribution should be calculated on the full €2,510,000. The Arbitrator also upheld the 5% annual interest rate as calculated in the FIFA decision, applying it to each overdue installment from the respective default dates. The final ruling ordered Genoa to pay Club Bella Vista a total of €60,362.67, comprising €35,987.67 from the DRC decision and €24,375 for the last instalment, along with specified 5% interest on various amounts from their respective due dates.
The case highlights the principle that solidarity contributions are mandatory and cannot be altered by contractual agreements between the transferring and receiving clubs. The purpose of the solidarity mechanism is to ensure fair compensation for clubs that contributed to a player’s training, and FIFA’s regulations prevent arbitrary reductions in the calculation basis. The decision reinforces the binding nature of FIFA’s rules on solidarity contributions, ensuring former clubs receive their rightful share regardless of how the transfer fee is structured between parties. The ruling underscores the importance of transparency and fairness in determining solidarity contributions, protecting the interests of clubs that invest in player development. The Arbitrator’s conclusion reaffirms the Respondent’s entitlement to the outstanding amount plus applicable interest, based on the full transfer fee and the principles of the RSTP.