The dispute between Valencia Club de Fútbol and Fenerbahçe Spor Kulübü centered on the financial responsibility for solidarity contributions related to the transfer of a player in 2016. Valencia triggered the player’s buy-out clause of €8.5 million, paying the amount to Fenerbahçe, but a disagreement arose over whether this sum was net or gross of solidarity contributions. Valencia argued the payment was a transfer fee, making Fenerbahçe liable for the solidarity contribution, while Fenerbahçe claimed it was a net buy-out fee, shifting the obligation to Valencia. The case was brought before FIFA’s Players’ Status Committee, which ruled in favor of Fenerbahçe, stating Valencia was responsible for the solidarity payments. Valencia appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which upheld the decision, emphasizing the importance of clear contractual terms and the parties' common intention.
The CAS panel applied Swiss law to interpret the contractual terms, focusing on the principle of good faith and the hypothetical intent of the parties. It noted that ambiguous terms should be interpreted against the drafting party, in this case, Fenerbahçe. However, the panel found no evidence of a mutual agreement to deviate from the default rule that the releasing club (Fenerbahçe) bears the financial burden for solidarity contributions. The panel also considered the parties' behavior, including Valencia’s initial classification of the payment as a "transfer fee" in FIFA’s Transfer Matching System (TMS) and its subsequent amendment to "buy-out fee," which did not alter the contractual terms. Witness testimonies and post-transfer actions further supported the conclusion that the €8.5 million was intended as a net payment, excluding solidarity contributions.
The CAS ruling reinforced the principle that contractual ambiguities are construed against the drafting party and upheld standard practices in football transfers regarding solidarity payments. It dismissed Valencia’s claim for reimbursement of the €402,010.52 it had paid in solidarity contributions to the player’s former clubs, including Real Sport Clube and Sporting Clube de Portugal. The decision highlighted the complexities of transfer agreements and the need for explicit contractual terms to avoid disputes over financial obligations. Ultimately, the panel confirmed Valencia’s responsibility for the solidarity contributions, aligning with FIFA regulations and Swiss legal principles. The case underscores the importance of clear communication and precise contractual language in player transfers to prevent similar conflicts in the future.