The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on a dispute involving FC Porto, Hellas Verona FC, and Club Atlético River Plate concerning the payment of solidarity contributions under FIFA regulations. The case originated from a 2013 loan agreement where FC Porto transferred a player to Hellas Verona for €300,000, with an option for a permanent transfer for €15,000,000. The agreement stipulated that payments to FC Porto were net of all deductions, including FIFA solidarity contributions, implying Hellas Verona would bear this financial responsibility. However, Hellas Verona later deducted €15,000 (5% of the loan fee) for solidarity payments, citing FIFA regulations as mandatory. FC Porto contested this deduction, leading to arbitration.
The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Ulrich Haas, Mr. José Juan Pintó, and Mr. Alasdair Bell, ruled that FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) and Swiss law do not prohibit parties from agreeing on who bears the financial burden of solidarity contributions. The panel emphasized the principle of contractual freedom, allowing parties to shift this responsibility from the selling club to the receiving club. The decision highlighted the importance of interpreting contracts based on the parties' common intention, as per Swiss law. The panel also clarified that FIFA's Transfer Matching System (TMS) serves as a registry for transparency and does not constitute a legally binding declaration of intent.
FC Porto argued that Hellas Verona had agreed to bear the solidarity contribution under the loan agreement and that its subsequent deduction violated the contract. Hellas Verona countered that FIFA regulations mandate the former club to bear the solidarity contribution unless there is a clear agreement to the contrary. The CAS upheld FC Porto's claim, ordering Hellas Verona to pay the remaining €15,000. The decision reinforced the primacy of contractual agreements over standardized FIFA procedures, provided they comply with overarching legal principles.
The case also involved Club Atlético River Plate, which claimed its share of the solidarity contribution. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) initially ruled in favor of River Plate, ordering Hellas Verona to pay €31,824 and FC Porto to reimburse Hellas Verona. FC Porto appealed this decision to CAS, arguing that the loan agreement clearly assigned the solidarity contribution responsibility to Hellas Verona. The CAS panel sided with FC Porto, setting aside the FIFA DRC's decision and absolving FC Porto from any reimbursement obligation.
The ruling underscored the tension between contractual freedom and regulatory compliance in football transfers. FC Porto emphasized the sanctity of agreements and accused Hellas Verona of acting in bad faith, while Hellas Verona insisted on adherence to FIFA's mandatory solidarity mechanism. The CAS decision clarified that clubs are free to negotiate who bears the solidarity contribution, provided the payments are made, and that such agreements do not undermine FIFA's regulatory framework. The case highlights the importance of clear contractual terms and the enforceability of net payment agreements in player transfers.
Ultimately, the CAS ruling affirmed the principle of party autonomy in contractual agreements, provided they are legally valid and do not contravene public interest. The decision provides clarity on the permissible scope of internal arrangements between clubs in player transfers and reinforces the enforceability of contractual terms under Swiss law. The case concluded with FC Porto's appeal being upheld, and all other motions were dismissed, resolving the dispute in favor of FC Porto.