The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on 26 January 2017 in a dispute involving FC Porto, Hellas Verona FC, and Club Cerro Porteño concerning the payment of solidarity contributions under FIFA regulations. The case centered on whether clubs could mutually agree to shift the financial responsibility for solidarity contributions, typically 5% of a transfer fee, from the selling club to the receiving club. 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) do not prohibit such agreements, provided they do not circumvent the obligation to pay training clubs. Swiss law also permits such contractual arrangements, emphasizing the principle of party autonomy. The panel highlighted the importance of interpreting contracts based on the parties' common intention, as per Article 18 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, and clarified that FIFA's Transfer Matching System (TMS) serves as a transparency tool rather than a legally binding mechanism.
The dispute arose from a 2013 loan agreement between FC Porto and Hellas Verona for a player, which included an option for a permanent transfer. The agreement stipulated that payments to FC Porto were to be made net of any deductions, including solidarity contributions. Hellas Verona initially withheld €15,000, citing FIFA's mandatory solidarity mechanism, but FC Porto argued this violated their agreement. Correspondence revealed conflicting interpretations of the contractual terms and FIFA regulations. Hellas Verona maintained that FIFA rules required them to deduct the solidarity contribution, while FC Porto insisted the agreement clearly placed the burden on Hellas Verona. The CAS panel ultimately sided with FC Porto, ruling that the contractual terms were binding and that Hellas Verona had to comply with the agreed-upon net payment structure. The decision reinforced the principle that clubs can allocate financial responsibilities through mutual agreement, provided such arrangements do not violate mandatory regulations.
The case also involved Club Cerro Porteño, which claimed its share of the solidarity contribution (2.07% of the total transfer fee, amounting to €310,650) from Hellas Verona. When no payment was made, Cerro Porteño escalated the matter to FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC). On 3 September 2015, the DRC ruled partially in favor of Cerro Porteño, ordering Hellas Verona to pay €310,500 within 30 days and requiring FC Porto to reimburse Verona the same amount. The DRC emphasized that the solidarity mechanism, as per FIFA regulations, cannot be overridden by contractual agreements between clubs. FC Porto appealed this decision to CAS on 23 March 2016, challenging the ruling that it must reimburse Verona for the solidarity contribution.
The CAS panel examined jurisdiction and admissibility, confirming its authority to rule on the dispute based on the loan agreement’s dispute resolution clause and FIFA statutes. The panel also addressed procedural issues, including witness statements and a request by Cerro Porteño for a partial award, which was denied. The panel found that neither FIFA regulations nor Swiss law prohibit parties from agreeing to shift the financial burden of solidarity contributions, provided the agreement is clear and lawful. The panel dismissed concerns about destabilizing effects, aligning with prior CAS rulings that upheld contractual freedom in such matters. The panel concluded that the Loan Agreement validly assigned the financial responsibility for solidarity contributions to Hellas Verona, as the term "net" was clearly defined in the contract. The panel also ruled that TMS data was not legally binding and did not alter prior agreements.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld FC Porto's appeal, setting aside the FIFA DRC's decision and ruling that FC Porto was not obligated to reimburse Hellas Verona for solidarity contributions owed to Club Cerro Porteño. The decision underscored the importance of contractual clarity and the enforceability of party autonomy in financial obligations under Swiss law. The case highlights the tension between contractual agreements and FIFA's regulatory framework, emphasizing the need for precise contractual language to avoid disputes. The ruling provides clarity on the financial responsibilities agreed upon by the parties and reaffirms the principle that standardized TMS information does not override existing legal agreements.