The case involves a legal dispute between Al Ain FC, a football club from the United Arab Emirates, and two other clubs, Esporte Clube Vitória from Brazil and Club Atlético Lanús from Argentina, concerning the payment of a solidarity contribution under FIFA regulations. The dispute stemmed from the transfer of a player from Lanús to Al Ain in 2009 for a fee of €5,250,165. Vitória claimed a share of this fee as a solidarity contribution, arguing that the player had been registered with them from August 2001 to May 2002. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) partially accepted Vitória's claim, ordering Al Ain to pay €28,403 plus interest. Al Ain appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), contesting the standing of Vitória and Lanús to be sued and the scope of CAS's review.
The CAS addressed three main issues in its ruling. First, it examined the standing to be sued, concluding that Lanús lacked standing because it was not a party to the original FIFA proceedings and was not affected by the appealed decision. Second, the CAS considered the scope of its review, emphasizing that its power to review a case de novo is foundational but must respect the limits of the original decision and the principle of ne ultra petita. The CAS cannot decide on issues not raised or addressed in the original proceedings. Third, the CAS analyzed the solidarity contribution mechanism under FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), which mandates that the new club (Al Ain) is responsible for paying the solidarity contribution to the training club (Vitória), regardless of any agreements between the new club and the transferring club (Lanús).
Al Ain argued that the transfer agreement explicitly placed the responsibility for solidarity contributions on Lanús and that FIFA’s regulations do not prevent clubs from agreeing on alternative arrangements for such payments. However, the CAS rejected these arguments, upholding the FIFA DRC's decision and confirming that Vitória was entitled to the solidarity contribution for the period the player was registered with them. The CAS noted that Al Ain had failed to respond to Vitória's initial claim before the FIFA DRC, effectively waiving its right to contest the allegations. The award reinforced the principle that solidarity contributions are mandatory and cannot be circumvented by private agreements between clubs.
The CAS also dismissed Al Ain's procedural arguments, including its claim that Lanús should have been involved in the FIFA proceedings. The Sole Arbitrator ruled that Lanús could not be named as a respondent in the CAS proceedings because it had not been a party to the earlier FIFA DRC proceedings. The Arbitrator emphasized that CAS's review power is limited to the issues raised in the appealed decision and cannot extend to matters not previously addressed. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the FIFA DRC's decision was upheld in its entirety.
The case underscores the importance of compliance with FIFA's regulatory framework and the binding nature of solidarity contributions in player transfers. It also highlights the procedural requirements within FIFA's dispute resolution framework, reinforcing the finality of such rulings when upheld on appeal. The CAS decision serves as a reminder of the mandatory nature of solidarity contributions and the inability of clubs to bypass these obligations through private agreements. The ruling clarifies the responsibilities of clubs in player transfers and the procedural steps necessary for a fair and comprehensive adjudication process.