The case revolves around a dispute between Sport Club Corinthians Paulista (Corinthians) and Clube de Regatas do Flamengo (Flamengo) concerning solidarity contributions related to the transfer of a football player, R., from Corinthians to Beijing Guoan FC (Beijing). The conflict arose when Flamengo claimed it was entitled to an additional solidarity contribution based on a sell-on clause in the player's transfer agreement. The dispute was initially brought before FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and later appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
R. was initially registered with Flamengo as an amateur from 2001 to 2008 before moving to Bayer 04 Leverkusen (Leverkusen). In 2012, Leverkusen transferred R. to Corinthians for €3.5 million, with a sell-on clause stipulating that Leverkusen would receive 50% of any future transfer fee, with a minimum of €3 million. In 2016, Corinthians transferred R. to Beijing for €8 million net. Due to the sell-on clause, Beijing paid €5 million to Corinthians and €3 million directly to Leverkusen on Corinthians' behalf.
Flamengo argued that the transfer triggered two separate payment obligations: one for the €8 million paid by Beijing and another for the €3 million paid to Leverkusen under the sell-on clause. Flamengo had already received a solidarity contribution from Beijing based on the full €8 million but sought an additional contribution from Corinthians based on the €3 million paid to Leverkusen. Flamengo claimed it was entitled to 58.48% of 5% of the gross amount of €3,157,894.73 (€92,336.84 plus interest) or, alternatively, 58.48% of 5% of the net €3 million (€83,720 plus interest).
Corinthians countered that the transfer involved only one compensation obligation (the €8 million total fee) and that Flamengo had already received its rightful share. They argued that the €3 million paid to Leverkusen was part of the total compensation, not a separate obligation, and that Beijing, not Corinthians, should be responsible for any solidarity payments.
The FIFA DRC initially ruled in Flamengo's favor, stating that the transfer agreement created two distinct payment obligations and that practical payment arrangements could not circumvent solidarity contribution rules under FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The DRC ordered Corinthians to pay Flamengo €92,336.84 plus interest.
Corinthians appealed to the CAS, arguing that the FIFA DRC decision violated legal principles and FIFA regulations. They contended that solidarity contributions should apply only to the full transfer fee, not the sell-on clause, and that Flamengo's claim amounted to unjust enrichment. The CAS panel, presided over by Sole Arbitrator Francisco Müssnich, examined the distinction between compensation and payments. It clarified that solidarity contributions are calculated based on the total compensation for a player's transfer, which includes all components of the fee (fixed, conditional, or player exchanges). The panel emphasized that payments made to fulfill the compensation (such as the €3 million to Leverkusen) are part of the total value and do not constitute separate compensation.
The CAS ruled that Flamengo was not entitled to an additional solidarity contribution, as doing so would violate the principle of ne bis in idem (not being compensated twice for the same claim). The panel upheld Corinthians' position, dismissing Flamengo's claim and annulling the FIFA DRC's decision. The ruling reinforced that solidarity contributions must be calculated on the total transfer compensation, not on individual payments made to fulfill that compensation. The case highlights the complexities of transfer agreements and the importance of clear interpretation of FIFA's rules to prevent overlapping claims in football-related disputes.