The case CAS 2015/A/4167 involved a dispute between Al Ain FC, Club Atlético Colón de Santa Fé, and Club Atlético Lanús concerning the payment of a solidarity contribution under FIFA regulations. The central issue was whether Al Ain FC, as the new club of a transferred player, was obligated to pay a solidarity contribution to Colón, which had trained the player during part of his career. The dispute stemmed from a 2009 transfer agreement between Al Ain and Lanús, where Al Ain paid a transfer fee of €5,250,165 for the player. Colón claimed a share of this fee as solidarity compensation for training the player during his professional registration period from August 1999 to February 2000. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) partially accepted Colón’s claim, ordering Al Ain to pay €10,185 plus interest, calculated as 3.88% of the 5% solidarity contribution, corresponding to the player’s seven-month training period with Colón.
Al Ain appealed the FIFA DRC’s decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that Lanús, not Al Ain, should bear the financial burden of the solidarity contribution, citing a transfer agreement that placed this obligation on Lanús. The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator João Nogueira da Rocha, examined the case under FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), particularly Annex 5, which governs solidarity contributions. The panel upheld the FIFA DRC’s decision, emphasizing that the "new club" (Al Ain) is responsible for paying the solidarity contribution, regardless of any agreements between the transferring club (Lanús) and the new club. The panel clarified that such agreements do not bind the training club (Colón), which is entitled to the solidarity contribution under FIFA rules.
The CAS also addressed procedural matters, including standing to be sued and the scope of CAS review. It ruled that Lanús, not being a party to the original FIFA proceedings, had no standing to be sued in the appeal. Additionally, the panel confirmed that its review was limited to the issues raised in the appealed decision and could not consider new arguments not previously presented. Al Ain’s primary argument relied on the transfer agreement with Lanús, which stipulated that Lanús was solely responsible for any solidarity contributions. Al Ain cited Swiss law, specifically Article 19 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, which permits contractual deviations from legal provisions unless they violate public policy. However, the CAS panel found that FIFA’s RSTP provisions clearly place the obligation on the new club, and any dispute over Lanús’s liability should have been raised in separate proceedings.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed Al Ain’s appeal, affirming the FIFA DRC’s decision that Al Ain was liable for the solidarity payment to Colón. The ruling reinforced the principle that the financial responsibility for solidarity contributions lies with the new club, ensuring training clubs receive compensation for their role in player development. The case underscores the binding nature of FIFA’s solidarity mechanism and the limited scope of CAS review in appeals against FIFA decisions. It also highlights the importance of involving all relevant parties in initial disputes to avoid procedural limitations in appeals. The decision serves as a reminder of the jurisdictional boundaries of CAS review and the enforceability of FIFA regulations in player transfer disputes.