The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on January 25, 2006, in a dispute between the Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) and Bayer 04 Leverkusen regarding FIFA’s solidarity contribution rules. The case revolved around whether CBF was entitled to a share of the 5% solidarity contribution from the transfer fee paid by Leverkusen for the player Françoaldo Sena de Souza ("França"). CBF argued that FIFA Circular No. 769 supported its claim for compensation during periods when França’s training could not be traced to any club, asserting that untraceable years should benefit the national association for youth training. Leverkusen countered that the circular lacked binding authority and that the 5% figure in FIFA regulations was a maximum limit, not a mandatory requirement.
The CAS panel, consisting of Jan Paulsson, Paulo Roberto Murray, and Goetz Eilers, rejected CBF’s claim. It ruled that Circular No. 769 was interpretive rather than legislative and could not establish new rights or obligations. The panel clarified that the circular’s purpose was to explain existing rules, not to create binding norms. It also found no evidence that FIFA intended the 5% solidarity contribution to be an absolute requirement rather than a ceiling. The decision emphasized that policy-making authority rests with FIFA’s rule-making bodies, not arbitral tribunals, and that CBF failed to demonstrate a legal entitlement under current regulations. The panel upheld the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber’s ruling, concluding that CBF’s claim lacked legal foundation.
The case underscored the limited role of circulars in shaping legal obligations and reinforced the principle that tribunals must adhere strictly to existing regulations rather than inferring new rules from interpretive documents. The panel dismissed CBF’s arguments, including references to subsequent FIFA regulatory changes and prior jurisprudence, as irrelevant or unconvincing. The ruling clarified that circulars cannot override or supplement regulations and that the burden of proving an entitlement lies with the party asserting it. By dismissing CBF’s appeal, CAS reaffirmed that only explicit regulatory provisions can create binding obligations, providing clarity on the interpretation of FIFA’s solidarity contribution rules. The decision serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the text of established regulations in sports arbitration.