Publication of CAS awards: (per March 2006).

The International Council of Arbitration (ICAS) has given its consent to the publication of summaries of major and non-confidential Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) awards in specialised journals like The International Sports Law Journal (ISLJ), while CAS will keep on publishing its awards in its official Digest. (eds)

CAS 2004/A/572 Arsenal Football Club / RCD Espanyol de Barcelona SAD, award of 23 September 2004 Panel: President: Dr Stephan Netzle (Switzerland), President; Mr Raj Parker (United Kingdom); Mr Juan Vives Rodriguez de Hinojosa (Spain)

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has decided to dismiss the appeal filed by Arsenal Football Club plc (the Appellant) against the decision of the FIFA's Player's Status Committee of 9 March 2004 dismissing the Appellant's claim on the grounds that RCD Espanyol de Barcelona SAD (the Respondent) was not to be held accountable for the cancellation of the Contract with the Appellant.

On 2 July 2002 the Appellant and the Respondent agreed terms for the transfer of the registration of a player from the Appellant to the Respondent for a transfer fee of GBP 500,000 to be paid until 31 August 2003 and further payments dependent on the matches played up to the maximum of another GBP 500,000, i.e. payments up to GBP 1,000,000.

The Contract, directed to the Respondent's General Manager, was accompanied by a separate message in which the Respondent's General Manager was asked to submit the Contract to the club's President for signature and further informing the Respondent that the Player would be required to sign a waiver to waive his right to the balance of a signing-on fee of GBP 80,000 payable to him by the Appellant under his previous employment contract with the Appellant.

On 9 August 2002, the Respondent wrote a letter to the Appellant explaining its reasons to "accept and affirm the [Appellants] intentions to reconsider and not to respect the said agreements]", the reasons stated therein being:

--the constant default of performance by the Appellant,

--the constantly expressed intention not to respect the Contract by the Appellant, and, eventually

--the impossibility in obtaining the Certificate.

In the same letter, the Respondent further informed the Appellant that it had cancelled all guarantees of payment.

On the merits, the Appellant bases its appeal on the grounds that the Decision ignored the oral agreement made by telephone on 14 July 2002 between the Appellant and the Respondent. According to this agreement, each of the parties would have had to contribute GBP 16,000 to the Player in respect of his signing-on fee. The Appellant therefore had rightfully withheld the Certificate as long as the Respondent refused to fulfil its obligations deriving from this agreement. As a consequence, the Respondent was not entitled to cancel the Contract as it did by withdrawing from the transaction on 31 July 2002. As the performance of the Contract would have entitled the Appellant to receive GBP 1,000,000 from the Respondent, the Appellant claims payment of this sum as damages.

The Respondent requests in its answer of 21 April 2004 that the appeal be dismissed and the Decision adopted on 19 February 2004 by the Player's Status Committee be confirmed. On the merits, the Respondent argues that there was no oral agreement between the parties as to any contribution of the Respondent to the Player's signingon fee. The Respondent argues that the Appellant acted unreasonably by (i) initially arguing that the Contract was conditioned to a waiver of the Player of his signing-on fee and withholding the Certificate until such waiver was signed and (ii) by later arguing that an oral agreement as to a contribution of the Respondent to the signing-on fee had been agreed upon as well as by the ongoing refusal of the Appellant to deliver the Certificate. As a consequence, the Respondent concludes that this behaviour of the Appellant's and the non-fulfilment of the Appellant's contractual obligation to deliver the Certificate rightfully entitled the Respondent to eventually cancel the Contract.

In its written decision the Panel considered that:

--It cannot be established that the signing of the waiver of signingon fee by the Player was a condition to the Contract, especially as the formal contract was aimed to "reflect what [the Parties had] agreed" the day before and did not itself mention such a condition in its terms. The Panel therefore holds that the Contract was not conditioned to the signing of the waiver by the Player.

--The Appellant has failed to prove that the alleged tripartite agreement over the signing-on fee was collateral to or modified the Contract. The Appellant has also failed to show that the tripartite agreement was agreed between the Appellant, the Respondent and the Player. The Panel therefore holds that no such tripartite agreement modifying the contract was validly concluded.

--The Panel holds that the Respondent was entitled to withdraw from the Contract as the conditions of Art. 102, 107 and 108 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO) were satisfied. (i) The Appellant was in default in a bilateral contract (Art.102 CO) as he unjustifiably retained the Certificate necessary for the completion of the transfer. This unjustified refusal to deliver the Certificate constituted an essential violation of his contractual obligations. (ii) The Respondent repeatedly asked for performance, receiving constantly the same response by the Appellant. The Respondent was therefore entitled to assume that the behaviour of the Appellant indicated that the setting of a time limit would be in vain (BGE 116 II 436, 440 Swiss Federal Court). As the Respondent was not in breach of contract, no compensation is due to the Appellant.

CAS 2004/A/620 Xerez Club Deportivo SAD / HNK Hajduk Split Club, award of 9 December 2004 Panel: Mr Raj Parker (England), President; Mr Jose J. Pinto (Spain); Mr Michele Bernasconi (Switzerland)

On 16 July 2002, Xerez Club Deportivo S.A.D. (Xerez) and HNK Hajduk Split Club (Hajduk) signed a transfer agreement (the Agreement) concerning the transfer of Mr Igor Musa (the Player). The Player was to be loaned from Hajduk to Xerez for the seasons 2002/3, 2003/4 and 2004/5. Three instalments of EUR 100,000 each were to be paid by Xerez to Hajduk under three promissory notes with the due dates of 15 September 2002, 20 December 2002 and 10 June 2003 respectively.

On 13 January 2003, Hajduk (acting through the Croatian Football Federation) complained to FIFA claiming non-payment by Xerez of the sums set out in the Agreement.

A decision by the FIFA Players' Status Committee (the FIFA Committee) was issued on 5 May 2004. It held that the documentation submitted by Xerez was not sufficient evidence to prove the discharge of its financial obligation under the Agreement.

Therefore, Xerez had to either prove the payment (e.g. by bank receipts, SWIFT, or receipts signed by Hajduk) or pay EUR 300,000 to Hajduk.

On 14 May 2004, Xerez appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to annul the decision of the FIFA Committee and to hold that Xerez had duly paid the three instalments as set out in the Agreement to Hajduk in cash. Once these cash payments had been made, the promissory notes were invalidated and returned to Xerez. As Xerez had the invalidated promissory notes in their possession (evidenced by a notary's certification), this was irrefutable proof of payment under them.

Hajduk has chosen not to file any submissions in this matter despite having been issued with several reminders from CAS. In its written decision the Panel considered that:

--According to Swiss Federal law, to obtain payment of a promissory note the holder of the note must present the original of it to the person carrying the obligation to pay (cf. art. 1028 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, "CO"). The person who pays a promissory note has the right to request the note to be returned to him/her, with a confirmation of receipt of payment on it (cf. art. 1029 CO). If a promissory note is paid and the paying party has not requested the return of it, that party may have to pay a second time to a third party who, in good faith, may have bought the promissory note and relied on the fact that no confirmation of payment was written on the note itself (cf. Meyer-Hayoz/von der Crone, "Wertpapierrecht", [sections] 10 N 24; Stephan Netzle, Basler Kommentar, art. 1029 N 2).

--Based on all evidence produced by the parties, the Panel is of the view that in the absence of any other evidence, the fact that Xerez has the promissory notes back in its possession is sufficient proof of payment under them. As a result, Xerez has proved its compliance with its obligations to make payments under the promissory notes as set out in the Agreement and the decision of the FIFA Committee must be overturned.

CAS 2003/A/648 Belarus Football Federation (ABFF)/ Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), Award of 26 January 2005 Panel: Mr Dirk-Reiner Martens (Germany), President; Mr Lars Halgreen (Denmark); Mr Stuart McInnes (England)

This is an Appeal by "Association Belarus Football Federation" (hereinafter "ABFF" or "Appellant") against Federation Internationale de Football Association (hereinafter "FIFA") moving the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to set aside a decision of FIFA dated 10 June 2004 which lifted a sanction imposed by the Appellant on Mr Nikolay Kashevsky (hereinafter the "Player").

Mr Nikolay Kashevsky (hereinafter the "Player") was subject to a player contract with FC Skvich, a Belarus fotball club for a period from 2 May 2002 until 31 December 2003.

The Player was loaned by FC Skvich to FC Metallurg, Ukraine, for a period from 30 July 2003 until 30 November 2003.

Upon the expiration of the loan agreement the Player did not return to FC Skvich and instead signed a contract with FC Krivoi, Ukraine where he started to play on 2 January 2004.

On 26 January 2004, the Disciplinary Commission of the "Association Belarus Football Federation" (hereinafter "ABFF" or "Appellant") suspended the Player for breach of his contract with FC Skvich for a period of four months beginning 15 April 2004 until 15 August 2004 (the "Belarus Sanction").

The Player filed an appeal against the Belarus Sanction with the Football Arbitration Body of the Appellant which appeal was rejected on 10 February 2004 (the "Belarus Appeal Decision").

On 17 March 2004, the Player filed an appeal against the Belarus Appeal Decision with the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber which, on 10 June 2004, upheld the Appeal and set aside the Belarus Sanction (the "FIFA Decision").

The FIFA Decision is the subject matter of these proceedings which were commenced by the Appellant by filing a statement of appeal received by CAS on 28 June 2004.

The FIFA Decision argues that in violation of Article 44 of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (the "Transfer Regulations") both the Belarus Sanction and the Belarus Appeal Decision were taken by bodies which "were not composed by equal representation of players and clubs" and " that therefore it [the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber] was entitled to intervene in this matter".

As to the sanction imposed on the Player the FIFA Decision is of the view that it was not proportionate to the extent of the breach of contract committed by the Player because during December 2003, the only month remaining under the Player's Player Contract with FC Skvich after the end of the loan arrangement, no official games were played in Belarus. As a consequence, in the FIFA Decision's opinion, no "serious problem" was caused to FC Skvich. Therefore, the FIFA Decision lifted the Player's sanction.

The Appellant argues that the FIFA rule directing FIFA member federations to establish a dispute resolution system and to provide that in that system there shall be equal representation of players and clubs in the decision-making bodies (Article 42 of the Transfer Regulations), is not mandatory for FIFA member federations according to the Preamble to the Transfer Regulations.

With respect to the sanction the Appellant submits that it is perfectly in line with the applicable regulations.

In the Respondent's view the equal representation of players and clubs in the federations' dispute resolution mechanism is a general principle mandated by the Transfer Regulations which, in turn, were drafted on the basis of an agreement between the EU-Commission and FIFA/UEFA dated 5 March 2001. Since, in the Respondent's view, this principle is not abided by in the Belarus regulations, FIFA has a

"... statutory obligation to supervise and intervene if deemed necessary when infringements or abuses may occur..." (emphasis added)

With respect to the sanction, the Respondent reiterates that it is disproportionate to the breach committed by the Player.

The Respondent thus requests that the Appeal be dismissed. In its written decision the Panel considered that:

--A right "to intervene" may very well follow from the applicable regulations and, in fact, from Association Belarus Football Federation's (ABFF) membership in FIFA if ABFF fails to abide by regulations promulgated in a democratic process within FIFA. However, absent an express provision to the contrary, this "intervention" is limited to reprimanding or sanctioning ABFF as a member of FIFA, but does not include the right to interfere with the ABFF's internal disciplinary proceedings. Article 6.6 of the ABFF Statutes stipulates that the decisions of the Appeals Commission are final and there is no FIFA rule which would authorise FIFA to interfere with this principle, even if it violates FIFA directions to its member federation.

--As a consequence of the Panel's decision above the Panel does not have to express a view on whether or not the ABFF sanction is proportionate or not. This is a matter for the ABFF to decide. Equally, it is not for this Panel to decide whether the ABFF rules have been approved by whatever external body, be it FIFA, UEFA or ABFF authorities.

CAS 2004/A/647 NK Maribor Branik /Sekerspor Club, award of 27 January 2005 Panel: President: Mr Quentin Byrne-Sutton (Switzerland), President; Mr Goetz Eilers (Germany); Mr Lars Hilliger (Denmark)

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has decided to upheld the appeal filed by NK Maribor Branik ("the Appellant"), a Slovenian football club and to annull the decision of 22 June 2004 issued by the FIFA Body of Appeal in connection with the compensation claimed by Sekerspor Club ("the Respondent"), a Turkish football club following the transfer of the player to his former club, the Appellant.

In the summer of 1997 Marko Simeunovic, a Slovenian football player (goalkeeper) was under contract and registered with the Appellant, when he was transferred to the Respondent. The employment contract (hereinafter "the Contract") Marko Simeunovic signed with the Respondent on 1 August 1997 contained a clause referred to in the submissions as art. 3, which provided:

"As from 30.05. 1999 the player has obligations towards the Club and must not leave the Club without the Club's approval. If by 30.05.1999 the player is sold to another club or he changes the club he is entitled to 30% and Sekerspor Club to 70% of the potential amount. If the player returns to his parent club he shall be without a compensation (no compensation shall be paid)." (Official translation from Slovenian to English, made in Maribor on 15 May 2000).

The Contract indicated that the Respondent had paid the Appellant a sum of DEM 300,000 for the transfer. In July 1999, the Respondent wrote to the Turkish Football Association requesting it to take the necessary steps to obtain payment of DEM 300,000 from the Appellant for the transfer of Marko Simeunovic to the Appellant. NK Maribor Branik indicated it considered no compensation was due and that it would never have re-engaged Marko Simeunovic had it believed any compensation was to be paid.

On 22 August 2001, the dispute was submitted to the FIFA Bureau of the Players' Status Committee for a formal decision which decided that the claim by Sekerspor Club was rejected because "the Art. 3 should be interpreted as meaning that only in case the players are re-transferred to their original club (NK Maribor Teatanic), no transfer compensation will be due by the Slovenian to the Turkish club".

[the decision mentions two contracts because it also related to another player not involved in this arbitration] that were signed between the players and the Turkish club, the Art. 3 should be interpreted as meaning that only in case the players are re-transferred to their original club (NK Maribor Teatanic), no transfer compensation will be due by the Slovenian to the Turkish club. It follows that the claim for transfer compensation from the Turkish club regarding the transfer of the player Simeunovic, must be rejected."

8. On 14 September 2001, the Turkish Football Association lodged an appeal with FIFA on behalf of Sekerspor Club against the foregoing decision. On 21 May 2004, the FIFA Executive Committee, convening as a Body of Appeal decided to partially accept the appeal and to modify the decision of the FIFA Players' Status Committee of 22 August 2001: "The Respondent, NK Maribor Teatanic, must pay compensation for training and/or development, of the player Simeunovic to the Appellant, Sekerspor. The Appellant's claim regarding the amount of compensation payment, i.e. DEM 300,000, is not considered, as the Body of Appeal did not allow itself as competent to decide in this issue."

On 1 July 2004, the Appellant filed a statement of appeal before the CAS. On the merits, the Appellant submits in particular that: The last sentence of article 3 of the Contract, whereby "If the player returns to his parent club he shall be without compensation (no compensation shall be paid)", is clear and speaks for itself by stating that any transfer back to his original club will be free of charge. It must be deemed a valid waiver under the meaning of article 15.2 of the FIFA Regulations.

The Respondent argues in particular that: "J. the meaning of art. 3 of the contract concluded between them and the player concerned on 25 December 1997 is very obvious: in case the player returns to the Respondent, his former club, he shall not be entitled to have any share from his "Licence Fee". According to the Appellant the "he" in the former sentence is clearly related to the player. "The aim of this provision was to promote the success of the player beforehand by giving him 30% of the transfer fee in case the player is sold to another club with a high transfer fee. If he returns to his former club, he shall be entitled with no compensation payment. As it is, the word "it" refers to the Appellant, and the word "he" refers to the player. If it was meant that the Appellant would not be entitled with a compensation fee, the sentence (he shall be without a compensation) would not have been written."...

The Respondent also argues that "Said Article determines the premium to be paid to the player personally and does not mention transfer compensation to be paid to the club."

In its written decision the Panel considered that:

--In connection with the player's re-engagement by Appellant in 1999 whether any transfer fee is due depends on the existence of a contract between the parties relating to such fee. In this case, there is no evidence that the matter of a transfer was negotiated between the football clubs in question or that any price was articulated in any form. More specifically, the Respondent has submitted no evidence of any offer made by the Appellant to pay a transfer fee to buy back the player in 1999 and the Respondent has not even alleged that any transfer price was ever discussed, let alone agreed. For the above reasons, the Panel considers the existence of a transfer agreement between clubs is not established. Consequently, the Panel finds the Appellant owes no contractual transfer fee to Respondent .

--Given the broad meaning of the term "compensation" when used without qualification and given the fact that Sekerspor Club drafted the Contract, the Panel considers thus that the player could and should reasonably have understood in good faith that the words "no compensation shall be paid" meant Sekerspor Club had agreed to waive all form of compensation. Consequently, whatever the Respondent's real intent was when including such wording, the last sentence in article 3 must be deemed a valid waiver under the meaning of article 15.2 of the FIFA Regulations. For the above reasons, the Panel considers the decision under appeal misapplied the FIFA Regulations and that, in application of article 15.2 of the FIFA Regulations, the Appellant cannot be deemed liable to pay the Respondent any compensation for training and/or development of the player Marko Simeunovic.

CAS 2004/A/635 RCD Espanyol de Barcelona SAD / Club Atletico Velez Sarsfield, award of 27 January 2005 Panel: Professor Massimo Coccia (Italy), President; Mr Jose Juan Pinto Sala (Spain); Mr Hugo Mario Pasos (Argentina)

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has decided to set aside the appealed decision issued on 21May 2004 by the Executive Committee of FIFA and to condemn RCD Espanyol de Barcelona (hereinafter "Espanyol" or "Appellant") to pay to Club Atletico Velez (hereinafter "Velez" or "Respondent") an amount of USD 300,000 as compensation for breach of contract.

The player Martin Andres Posse (hereinafter Mr Posse or the "Player") until the season 1997/98 he performed as a professional footballer with Velez which is a professional football club incorporated under the laws of Argentina.

During the season 1997/98, the Respondent and the Player signed two coordinated contracts, on 5 and 18 March 1998, according to which they agreed on a three-year employment relationship expiring on 30 June 2000.

On 4 August 1998, the Respondent and Espanyol, a Spanish professional football club, with the participation of the Player, signed a contract (hereinafter the "Contract"). Pursuant to the Contract, the Respondent agreed to sell and the Appellant agreed to purchase 50% of the rights over the Player's professional services for the price of USD 4,500,000, and to share in equal parts any benefits deriving from the sale of those rights to third parties. Moreover, the parties agreed that as long as Mr Posse played for Espanyol either club could propose to the other one to purchase or sell the remaining 50% of the rights.

The Player gave his express consent to such deal.

Besides the Contract, the parties and the Player filled out and signed an Argentinan Football Association (AFA) form, according to which--in compliance with the fourth clause of the Contract--the Player was going to be transferred "on loan" from Velez to Espanyol until the end of the season 1998/99 without any further charge in addition to the already agreed USD 4,500,000, and that--in compliance with the sixth clause of the Contract--Espanyol had the right to obtain the renewal of the loan for the following season 1999/2000 by paying to Velez USD 500,000. Accordingly, AFA issued an International Transfer Certificate, allowing for FIFA purposes the transfer of the Player "on loan" from Argentina to Spain for the 1998/99 season.

1.1 One year later, in August 1999, Espanyol paid to Velez the agreed sum of USD 500,000 and obtained the renewal of the loan for the new football season;

1.2 On 2 July 2000, Espanyol proposed to Velez to borrow again the Player until 30 June 2001 for the amount of USD 250,000, sending a draft transfer agreement on loan, to be signed for acceptance by Velez. However, this draft transfer agreement was never signed and thus never entered into force.

On 23 October 2002, Velez filed a petition claiming compensation for the transfer of the Player before the Players' Status Committee of FIFA (the "P.S. Committee").

On 31 October 2002, the P.S. Committee issued a formal decision on the matter (the "P.S. Committee Decision"), rejecting the claim and refusing to adopt any decision as the sale of 50% of the rights over the Player, in accordance with the established P.S. Committee's jurisprudence, was "against the spirit and terms" of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players, insofar as only 100% of the rights should be transferred and as both clubs had infringed the FIFA Regulations. A few months later, Velez requested once more FIFA to adjudge its claim for compensation. In the Second S.J. Decision dated 13 October 2004:

<<... given that the Argentine club had ensured an employment with the player Posse until 2002/2003, the stated club must be compensated for the missed benefit of having the player at its disposal. Therefore, and bearing in mind that the Spanish club had stated its agreement to pay a loan fee for the services of the player of USD 250,000 for one season, the Single Judge concluded that R.C.D. Espanyol shall pay an amount of USD 750,000 for the loan of the player to Atletico Velez Sarsfield until the end of the 2002/2003 season.

1.3 On 24 November 2003, the Executive Committee of FIFA, received, through the Spanish Football Federation, Espanyol's appeal against the Second S.J. Decision. The Executive Committee considered that Espanyol had not complied with the twenty-day time limit prescribed by art. 24.1 of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfers of Players of October 1997 (hereinafter the "1997 FIFA Regulations"), the Executive Committee dismissed the case.

Espanyol appealed the Executive Committee's Decision before the CAS.

In its written decision, the CAS has considered that:

--The Appellant, at the moment of the appeal against the Second Single Judge Decision, was unfairly put by the ambiguous FIFA provisions in a state of procedural uncertainty, which should have induced the Executive Committee to adopt a more prudent stance. The Panel deems that a plausible construal which would avoid any regulatory inconsistency could be the following: any substantive aspects of contracts entered into before 1 September 2001 are governed by the 1997 Regulations, whereas any procedural aspects (such as the settlement of disputes) are governed by the 2001 Regulations. This reading of the above FIFA provisions would be in full compliance with the tempus regit actum principle according to which--as a general rule--the substantive aspects of a contract keep being governed by the law in force at the time when the contract was signed, while any claim should be brought and any dispute should be settled in accordance with the rules in force at the time of the claim. In these circumstances, the Panel has no hesitation in deciding that the Executive Committee's Decision, in rejecting the Appellant's claim on the above mentioned formal grounds, was in breach of the fundamental principle of procedural fairness, which on many occasions the CAS has recognized and protected (see e.g. Watt/ACF, CAS 96/153, in Digest of CAS Awards, I, 341; AEK Athens-Slavia Prague/UEFA, CAS 98/200, in Digest of CAS Awards, II, 66).

--FIFA rules require that a player be registered to play for only one club at any given time. This requirement does not prevent two clubs from apportioning between them the economic rights related to a player, as long as the player is under an employment contract with either team and expressly consents to such apportionment. The FIFA provision is quite meaningful in that it clearly distinguishes between the registration issue (and the related transfer certificate), which is a sporting administrative matter necessary to ascertain which club is entitled to actually field the player, and the "separate written contract between the two clubs and the player concerned", which is the private instrument dealing with the economic rights to the player's performances. In a loan situation, the title to the economic rights and the title to register and field the player are plainly split between two clubs. Logically, contract rights which can be loaned can also be partially assigned. In the Panel's view, as long as FIFA rules do not issue an express prohibition, clubs are allowed to treat those economic rights as assets and commercialize them in ways allowed by States' legal systems.

--In the Panel's view, by virtue of the Contract the two clubs have set up a sort of joint venture, insofar as they have arranged to jointly own and hold title to the economic rights to the performances of the Player. As a result of their reciprocal commitments, neither club was in a position to lawfully hire the Player or trade him to a third club without the other club's consent, in addition to the requisite Player's consent. The Panel finds, and so holds, that the Appelant breached the Contract insofar as it employed the Player without obtaining the Respondent's consent. As a result, Espanyol must compensate Velez.

CAS 2004/A/643 Superstar Rangers FC / Sport Lisboa e Benfica-Futebol SAD, award of 1 February 2005 Panel: Prof. Ulrich Haas (Germany), President; Mr Om Lalla (Trinidad & Tobago); Mr Olivier Carrard (Switzerland)

In April 2000, the Appellant Superstar Rangers Football Club Ltd (hereafter "Superstar Rangers" or "the Appellant") and The Respondent Sport Lisboa e Benfica--Futebol SAD (hereafter "Sport Lisboa e Benfica" or "the Respondent") signed an agreement for the transfer of the federative rights of the Italian football player Alejandro Enrique Cichero (hereafter "the Player") from the Appellant to the Respondent. The agreement (hereafter "the First Contract").

In July 2000 both parties (with the consent of the Player) concluded another contract (hereafter "the Second Contract") that reads inter alia as follows:

" ... Considering the definitive transference of the services of the player, by the first party on April 2000. ...

3) The parties state not to be reciprocally debtors or creditors of any sum, either by the contract now resolved, or by the present resolution. 4)

a) The parties establish, however, that the second party will be able to choose, until April 15, 2001, for the definitive transference of the player by the first party to the second party, by paying the amount of USD 1,500.000,00 ... .

b) Such amount will be paid within 30 days after the statement made on the above item.

c) The non execution of the mentioned payment will destroy the effects of the statement. ...

On 15 November 2000, following the request of Sport Lisboa e Benfica and the Portuguese Football Federation, an International Registration Transfer Certificate (hereafter IRTC) was issued by Trinidad and Tobago Football Federation (TTFF) and forwarded to the Portuguese Football Federation. The certificate contained--inter alia--a notice in conformity with art. 9 [sections] 2 FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players-1997 (hereafter "FIFA Regulations-1997") that reads as follows:

" Important

Any special agreements which have been concluded in accordance with the provisions of the FIFA Regulations governing the status and transfer of players must be attached to this international transfer certificate. The validity of this certificate may not be restricted to a certain period and any clauses to this effect appended to the certificate will be declared null and void."

On 5 December 2000 the Player signed a fixed term employment contract with the Respondent (having a fixed term from 1 November 2000 until 30 June 2001), which was registered the same day with the Portuguese Football Federation. During the entire term of the contract the Player did not play for the main team of Sport Lisboa e Benfica, in fact not even as a substitute. Shortly before expiry of the contract, namely on 26 June 2001, the Venezuelan Football Federation applied to the Portuguese Football Federation for an IRTC for the Player. The latter was issued by the Portuguese Football Federation by letter of 29 June 2001. The Player then moved to Venezuela without a transfer fee.

In a letter dated 2 and 11 January 2001 the Appellant asked the Respondent to inform the Appellant of how and when the Respondent would be able to pay the sum of USD 1,500,000.00 agreed on in the Second Contract. The Respondent refused to give any such information or to make any such payment.

On 22 March 2001 the Appellant referred the case to the FIFA Players' Status Committee and requested it inter alia, "to take all adequate and legal measures in order to compel the Respondent to fulfil its contractual obligation and namely to pay the amount of USD 1,500,000.00." In its decision dated 14 May 2002 the FIFA Players' Status Committee rejected the Appellant's request. The decision was communicated by letter dated 21 May 2002 to TTFF and the Portuguese Football Federation. TTFF informed the Appellant of FIFA's decision by letter dated 23 May 2002.

By letter dated 19 June 2002 FIFA advised the Portuguese Football Federation that Superstar Rangers had submitted an appeal and by letter dated 23 August 2002 FIFA notified Superstar Rangers of Sport Benfica e Lisboa's response.

On 21 May 2004 the FIFA Executive Committee convening as a Body of Appeal decided that, "the appeal lodged by the Appellant ... is not to be considered owing to non-fulfilment of formal requirements."

By letter dated 8 June 2004 the Appellant lodged an appeal against the decision of the FIFA Executive Committee with CAS. In its written decision the Panel considered that:

--The Second Contract is describing an option right in favour of the Respondent. Whether or not the agreement or the obligation relating to the payment of a transfer fee comes into being or not is therefore solely at the discretion of the option holder, who in this case is the Respondent.

--The issuance of the International Registration Transfer Certificate (IRTC) does not constitute an implied exercise of the option right by the Respondent and therefore does not imply the payment of a high transfer fee by the Respondent. Several arguments indicate that the Respondent did not want to exercise the option right: (i) the employment contract concluded between it and the Player was entered into in connection with and directly around the time when the IRTC was issued and provides for a term until 30 June 2001. Such a short term obviously conflicts with the high transfer fee stipulated in the Second Contract. (ii) The Respondent did not play the Player in a single official game on the main team not even as a substitute and (iii) after the Agreement had expired, the Respondent let the Player move from Portugal to Venezuela without any transfer fee.

--Strictly speaking the issuance of the IRTC is a purely administrative process between two national federations. If the issuance of the IRTC does not even involve a declaration of intent by the Respondent towards the Appellant, the latter cannot claim that it relied on any such declaration and that such reliance merits protection.

CAS 2004/A/573 Club Sportif Sedan Ardennes/Sharjah & Sports Club, award of 21 February 2005 Panel: Mr Olivier Carrard, President (Switzerland); Mr Francois Klein (France); Mr Michele Bernasconi (Switzerland)

Mr Modeste M'Bami ("the player") is a footballer of Cameroonian nationality. He began his career at the J.S. Yaounde club, before moving to Dynamo Club of Douala ("Dynamo").

In September 1998, an employment contract valid for three years was signed between the Sharjah Sports Club ("Sharjah") in the United Arab Emirates and the player.

In January 1999, the Cameroon Football Association asked Sharjah to allow the player to join the Cameroon team preparing for the African Youth Championship.

By July 1999, the United Arab Emirates Football Association had not heard any news of the player for several months. In October 1999, it requested the intervention of FIFA. The player then returned to Sharjah.

In December 1999, the player again left Sharjah, this time to join French club Sedan.

The player failed to disclose all relevant information to Sedan, claiming that his last club was Dynamo and withholding the fact that he was under contract to Sharjah for another two years.

In March 2000, a trainee player contract was signed between Sedan and the player for one season.

Having signed the contract with Sedan, the player represented Cameroon at the Olympic Games in Sydney in September 2000.

The United Arab Emirates Football Association responded by pointing out that the player was still under contract with Sharjah. The trainee player contract with Sedan was replaced with a professional player contract for a period of four years, starting on 9 November 2000.

The United Arab Emirates Football Association contacted FIFA again on Sharjah's behalf. The club demanded that its economic rights be protected, claiming that the player had no right to offer his services to Sedan, since he was under contract with Sharjah until the end of 2001.

The player accepted that he had indeed played in trial matches for Sharjah, but denied having signed a contract with the club.

The Players' Status Committee ruled that the federative rights to the player concerned belonged to Sharjah, who were therefore entitled to training compensation from Sedan pursuant to Article 14.1 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (1997 edition). On 17 March 2004, Sedan submitted a statement of appeal to the CAS against the decision of the FIFA Committee of 19 March 2004.

In its award, the Panel considered that:

--According to Art. 14.1 of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players in force at the time of the events, "if a non-amateur player concludes a contract with a new club, his former club shall be entitled to compensation for his training and/or development". Therefore, since the player had signed a contract with Sedan even though he was still under contract with Sharjah, the latter club owned the federative rights to the player and compensation was due under Art. 14.1 of the aforementioned Regulations.

--The Panel considered that the reference period used to fix the amount of compensation was wrong and did not take into account the actual training period completed by the player at Sharjah. The player was only physically present at the club from the end of September 1998 until mid-December 1999, i.e. for a total of five months. Sharjah could only therefore have trained the player for that limited period of time. It was therefore appropriate to reduce the compensation of USD 450,000 for 17 months of training to USD 132,353 by applying a simple rule of three, since this sum represented the compensation owed by Sedan to Sharjah for the five months of training received by the player.

CAS 2004/A/594 Hapoel Beer-Sheva / Real Racing Club de Santander S.A.D., award of 1 March 2005 Panel: Mr Michael Beloff (U. K.), President; Ms Deanna Reiss (USA); Mr Stuart C. McInnes (U.K.)

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has decided to dismiss the appeal filed by Hapoel Beer-Sheva F.C. (the Appellant), a football club registered with the Football Association in Israel, against the decision issued on 24 March 2004 by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) concerning the quantum of compensation due from Real Racing Club de Santander S.A.D. (the Respondent), a football club registered with the Spanish Football Association, to the Appellant for the training and education of Yossi Benayoun .

In July 1997 the Appellant and the Player entered into a contract of five-year span effective from 1 July 1997 until 30 June 2002 ("the Hapoel Contract"). At the completion of the 1997-1998 season the Appellant's team was relegated to the Israeli second league. At the of the Player, who was concerned with his own professional advancement, the Appellant and Maccabi Haifa, another Israeli club then in the Israeli first league, signed two agreements ("the Loan Agreements") for the lending of the Player from the former to the latter for the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 seasons and then for the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 seasons at a fee of USD 220,000 per season. During the loan period the Player remained registered with the Appellant.

On the 24 June 2002, the Respondent informed the Appellant that the Santander Contract had been signed between the Respondent and the Player with effect from 1 July 2002.

Due to the Player's perceived misconduct in negotiating with the Respondent while the Hapoel Contract remained in force, the Appellant filed a claim to the Arbitration Institution of the Football Association in Israel. The Arbitrator determined the Player had breached the Hapoel Contract and stated that the Appellant should apply to FIFA to determine any compensation due. On a date before 24 May 2004 the Appellant made accordingly a claim for EUR 570,000 from the Respondent.

Taking into consideration FIFA circular letter n. 826 dated 31 October 2003, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 90,000 to the Appellant.

On 12 April 2004, the Appellant filed a statement of appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Appellant's submission, in essence, may be summarised as follows:

* That pursuant to article 5 of the Regulations of Status and Transfer of the Players (hereinafter "the Regulations") the Appellant is entitled to receive compensation for the training and education costs of the player for a period 9 years.

* That the Appellant is entitled to receive training compensation for 9 years, as follows:

* For the ages 12-15 3x 10,000 [euro] = 30,000 [euro] * For the ages 16-21 6x 90,000 [euro] = 540,000 [euro] * Total Compensation payable = 570,000 [euro]

The Respondent's submission, in essence, may be summarised as follows:

* That the Appellant was the club at which the Player received his training and education and that any compensation payable was confined to the Appellant and no other club.

* That the Player was trained for only 5 seasons. That he had completed his training by the 1997-1998 season when he was assigned for a fee to Maccabi Haifa at the age of 17 years and that the computation of training and educations costs should be as follows:

* 1992-1993 12 years old = 10,000 [euro] * 1993-1994 13 years old = 10,000 [euro] * 1994-1995 14 years old = 10,000 [euro] * 1995-1996 15 years old = 10,000 [euro] * 1996-1997 16 years old = 30,000 [euro]

* Total compensation for training and education payable = 70,000 [euro]

* That the award of compensation made by the DRC was incorrectly calculated and that of the payment made by the Respondent to the Appellant [euro] 20,000 was repayable to Respondent.

In its written decision, the Panel decided:

--The quantum of compensation as a general rule must reflect the costs which are necessary to train the player (art. 5(4)(b) of the Application Regulations and art. 16 of the Regulations) Circular 826 p.3.

--The Player is to be deemed to have completed his training at the end of the 1996-1997 season. The Player was loaned from the Appellant to Maccabi Haifa during the 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 seasons, at a fee of USD 220,000 per season. The Appellant is not entitled to any compensation for this loan period since they did not train him during this time. Consequently, for the training compensation of the player (who was born 5 May 1980) for the years 12 through 15, the Appellant is entitled to 3 years x [euro] 10,000 (Europe Category 4) = [euro] 30,000.

--Furthermore the training compensation for the years in which the player was aged 15-17 the Appellant is entitled to be compensated by reference to the training costs of the country in which the Respondent is located multiplied by the amount corresponding the Category of the Appellant club (i.e. Europe Category 3) 2 x [euro] 30,000 = 60,000 [euro] (art. 7 para 1, para.3 of the Application Regulations and Circular Letter no.826).

--Based on the foregoing, the Panel concludes that the training compensation to be awarded to the Appellant shall thus amount to EUR 90,000.

CAS 2004/A/686 Reggina Calcio/Platense FC, award of 3 March 2005

Panel: Mr Jose J. Pinto Sala (Spain), President; Ms Margarita Echeverria Bermudez (Costa Rica); Mr Luc J. Argand (Switzerland)

1.4 The Court of Arbitration for Sport has decided to dismiss the appeal filed by Reggina Calcio challenging the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber decision issued on 22 July 2004 which condemn the Italian club pay to Platense FC USD 100,000 as contribution related to the solidarity mechanism.

1.5 The player Julio Cesar de Leon was born on 13 September 1979. It is undisputed that Julio Cesar de Leon was registered with Platense Football Club S.A. de C.V., the Respondent, during five sporting seasons, from 1996/1997 until 2000/2001. The Respondent is a football club with its registered office in Puerto Cortes, Honduras.

1.6 It is also undisputed that Julio Cesar de Leon was under contract as a non-amateur player with Club Deportivo Maldonado, in Uruguay, when he was transferred to Reggina Calcio S.p.A, the Appellant in August 2002 for a transfer fee of USD 4,000,000. The Appellant is a football club with its registered office in Reggio Calabria, Italy.

1.7 The Appellant paid the total amount of USD 4,000,000 to Club Deportivo Maldonado.

1.8 In 2004, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber was requested to order the Appellant to pay to the Respondent an amount of USD 100,000 as a solidarity contribution, pursuant to art. 25 of the FIFA Regulations for the Transfer and Status of Players (hereinafter referred to as "the FIFA Regulations").

On 22 July 2004, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber issued a decision stating as follows on relevant part:

"According to Article 25 of the revised FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players and Article 10 of the Regulations governing the Application of the afore-mentioned regulations, a proportion of 5% of any compensation paid by the new club of a player to his previous club has to be distributed to the clubs involved in the training and education of the player concerned, if he moves to the new club during the course of a contract.

This distribution will be made in proportion to the number of the years the player has been registered with the clubs involved in his training and education between the ages of 12 and 23, whereas the club where the player concerned was registered from his age of 17 to 21 shall receive 10% of the proportion per season.

In the present case, the Dispute Resolution Chamber noticed that the player Julio Cesar de Leon, moved from Deportivo Maldonado to FC Reggina in August 2002, during the course of his contract with Deportivo Maldonado. The Dispute Resolution Chamber furthermore noticed that the amount of the transfer fee to be paid by FC Reggina to Deportivo Maldonado Sports was USD 4,000,000. And finally, the Dispute Resolution Chamber noted that the player concerned was registeredfor Platense FC during five sporting seasons, between the age of 17 and 21.

In the light of this, the Dispute Resolution Chamber first decided that the amount to be distributed from FC Reggina to the clubs involved in the training and education of the player Julio Cesar de Leon in relation to the solidarity mechanism is 5% of USD 4,000,000, i.e. USD 200,000.

Continuing, the Dispute Resolution Chamber stated that Platense FC, as being the club with which the player concerned was registered for five sporting seasons between the age of 17 and 21, is entitled to 10% of USD 200,000 for each season the player was registered for it, which is USD 100,000.

In view of the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that the Italian club FC Reggina shall pay to the Honduran club Platense FC USD 100,000 as contribution related to the solidarity mechanism."

On 13 August 2004, the Appellant filed a statement of appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (hereinafter "CAS"). It challenged the above-mentioned Decision.

In essence, the Appellant submitted that it paid to Club Deportivo Maldonado the entire transfer amount agreed upon and considered that the latter club was therefore bound to comply with the obligation of distributing the solidarity contribution.

The Respondent put forward that the FIFA Regulations as well as the Regulations governing the Application of the FIFA Regulations (hereinafter the "Application Regulations") clearly indicate that the new club of the transferred player is the only debtor of the solidarity contribution. There is no room for another interpretation.

In its written decision the Panel considered that:

   1.9 Based on art. 11 of the Application Regulations as well as on the
   FIFA Circular Letter No. 769, it is undisputable that the Appellant
   is responsible for the payment to the Respondent of the solidarity
   contribution of USD 100,000 :"The new club shall pay the amount
   due as a solidarity contribution to the training clubs. It is the
   responsibility of the new club to calculate the amount of the
   solidarity contribution and the way in which it shall be distributed
   in accordance with the player's career history." Furthermore, the
   position of the Appellant is in contradiction with the FIFA Circular
   Letter No. 769 (page 15), which confirms that "it is the
   responsibility of the new club to calculate the amount of the
   contribution and to effect the necessary payments". Such a Circular
   Letter reflects the understanding of the FIFA and the general
   practice of the federations and associations belonging thereto.

CAS 2004/A/708/709/713 Philippe Mexes & A.S. Roma/ S.A.O.S A.J. Auxerre & Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), award of 11 March 2005

Panel: Mr Jean Philippe Rochat (Switzerland), President; Mr Francois Klein (France); Mr Jean-Pierre Morand (Switzerland)

Mr Philippe Mexes is a French professional footballer. After playing for AJ Auxerre during the 1997-1998 season, Mr Mexes signed his first trainee player contract ("contrat Espoir") with the club in 1998.

On 20 June 2000, Mr Mexes signed a professional player contract with AJ Auxerre, valid until the end of the 2004-2005 season.

On 15 December 2002, AJ Auxerre, represented by its President and the player, signed a protocol under which, in particular, the contract was extended for one additional season, i.e. until the end of the 2005-2006 season, the player's salary conditions were improved and the club agreed to pay the player a transfer bonus if he moved to another club, depending on his number of years' service at the club.

The following day, i.e. on 16 December 2002, a second document, which was called a "contract", was agreed, setting out the terms of payment of the transfer bonus provided for in Article 4 of the protocol.

A few days later, AJ Auxerre informed Mr Mexes and his agent, Mr Jouanneaux, that the club was refusing to include these agreements in the ad hoc form of the Professional Football League ("LFP"), a formality that was indispensable to their being authorised.

Mr Mexes responded by instigating proceedings with the LFP's judicial organs in order to ensure the new agreements signed by the parties were authorised. On 16 July 2003, the National Joint Appeals Commission ordered AJ Auxerre to include the two aforementioned agreements in the official ad hoc form so that they could be authorised. Finally, they formed the subject of an amendment to the professional contract that was signed by the parties on 3 August 2003 and were authorised by the LFP on 12 August 2003.

Mr Mexes asked AJ Auxerre to let him know the transfer fee it would demand if the employment contract between them were to be terminated amicably. AJ Auxerre reminded the player that the contract expired on 30 June 2006 and required him to meet his contractual obligations.

AS Roma submitted an offer to AJ Auxerre for the transfer of Mr Mexes.

The two clubs' representatives, Mr Hamel and Mr Baldini, then met in order to negotiate the transfer fee. However, they were unable to reach an agreement.

Since AJ Auxerre had failed to respond to the player and to agree a fee for his transfer, Mr Mexes informed the club that he intended to ask the responsible authorities to rule on the consequences of him breaking his employment contract. To this end, he applied on the same day to the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Players' Status Committee ("the Chamber").

On 12 June 2004, Mr Mexes signed a professional player contract with AS Roma for four seasons, i.e. until 30 June 2008.

Despite formal demands issued on 21 June and 1 July 2004, the player did not attend any more training sessions with AJ Auxerre. The club therefore in turn asked the Chamber to rule on the dispute. The Chamber considered that Mr Mexes had unilaterally breached his employment contract with AJ Auxerre without just cause during the stability period defined in Article 23.1 (a) of the 2001 Regulations and suspended the player.

On 3 September 2004, Mr Mexes and AS Roma each submitted to the CAS a statement of appeal against the Chamber's decision of 31 August 2004.

In its award, the Panel considered that:

--In order to determine whether or not the extension of the term of a professional player contract triggered a new stability period for the player concerned, it was necessary to examine each individual case, taking into account all the circumstances, in accordance with the method used by the European Commission in application of the case-law developed by the Court of Justice of the European Communities. Hence, the legitimate objective of team stability could justify a new stability period linked to the extension of a player's contract, provided the means used were proportionate to the goal pursued.

--In the current case, neither the circumstances that had led to the signature of the agreements nor the precise objectives of the extension of the term of the player's contract enabled the Panel to make a clear and legitimate assessment of the start of a new stability period. The Panel had to find the ratio legis of the rules governing the relationship between the parties. It considered that, in this particular case, reference should be made to FIFA's interpretation of its own 2001 Regulations: in the new version, the extension of the term of a professional player contract automatically triggered a new stability period for the player concerned. The Panel therefore considered that, in this case, the signature of an agreement extending the term of a contract triggered a new stability period for the player.

--The Panel considered that the new stability period should take effect from the moment when the new agreement came into force. The Panel stressed that FIFA should clarify how the stability period should apply when an extension came into effect mid-season.

--The respondent club had no interest in the length of the sanction imposed against a player who was no longer part if its squad. It was not therefore in a position to submit pleadings concerning the length of the sanction. In the absence of a valid argument that the sanction should be increased, the Panel, which was bound by the conclusions according to the principle of ne ultra petita, could not take a decision that extended beyond that of the Chamber.

CAS 2004/A/701 Sport Club Internacional /Galatasaray Spor Kulubu Dernegi, award of 17 March 2005 Panel: Professor Massimo Coccia (Italy), President; Mr Michele Bernasconi (Switzerland); Ms Margarita Echeverria Bermudez (Costa Rica)

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has decided to uphold in part the appeal filed by Sport Club Internacional (hereinafter "Internacional" or the "Appellant") a Brazilian football club and to reverse partially the decision of the Single Judge of the FIFA Player's Status Committee. Thus the CAS has decided to entitle the Appellant to keep the compensation already received from Galatasaray Spor Kulubu Derne_i (hereinafter "Galatasaray" or the "Respondent") that is USD 100,000 and to receive in addition USD 400,000 from the Respondent as a result of the breach of a Co-ownership Agreement.

On 1 July 2002, by signing a "Professional Football Player Contract" (hereinafter the "Employment Contract"), Galatasaray, a Turkish football club, hired the Brazilian football player Fabio Pinto (hereinafter the "Player" or "Mr Pinto") for a period of five years. Mr Pinto was not a free agent, as the economic rights to his performances were held, with his consent, by Sport Internacional, a Brazilian football club, (50%) and by a third party (50%). Accordingly, Galatasaray acquired 50% of the rights from such third party, and dealt with Internacional in respect of the outstanding portion of the rights.

On 2 July 2002, Galatasaray, Internacional, the Player and his agent Mr Franck Logbi Henouda signed an agreement entitled "Convencao de Co-Propiedade" (hereinafter the "Co-ownership Agreement").

The Co-ownership Agreement provided that Galatasaray was authorized to hire the Player for five football seasons, until 31 May 2007. The parties agreed also that Galatasaray had the option, until 15 December 2002, to purchase 40% of the rights over the Player for the price of USD 1,000,000; after such date, the price would have been of USD 3,500,000. If the said purchase option was not exercised, Galatasaray had to pay a yearly fee of USD 100,000 to Internacional for the loan of 50% of the rights over the Player. In any event,

Galatasaray had the option to buy for itself or for a third club 100% of those rights at a minimum price of eight million USD. Galatasaray did not avail itself of the option to pay one million USD and purchase 40% of the economic rights over the Player by 15 December 2002. Subsequently, Galatasaray never offered to purchase all or part of the portion of economic rights held by Internacional.

With a letter dated 21 October 2003, the Player communicated to Galatasaray its decision to terminate the Employment Contract due to personal and professional reasons. The day after, on 22 October 2003, the Player and Galatasaray signed a Termination Agreement. Moreover, Galatasaray agreed "to pay to the Player the balance amounting to 600,000 USD" in six monthly instalments.

On 7 November 2003, Internacional filed through the Brazilian Federation a complaint before the Players' Status Committee of FIFA claiming the breach of the Co-ownership Agreement and requesting Galatasaray the payment of USD 3,500,000. On 20 May 2004, Galatasaray filed through the Brazilian Federation a response brief stating that the Co-ownership Agreement had not been breached because the Player had unilaterally terminated the Employment Contract. On 20 August 2004, the Single Judge of the FIFA Players' Status Committee communicated its decision, whereby:

<<I. The claim of the Claimant, Sport Club Internacional, is partially accepted. The Respondent, Galatasaray S.K., has to pay the amount of USD 100,000 to the Claimant;

II. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected [...]>>.

In compliance with the above decision of the FIFA Single Judge, on 16 September 2004 Galatasaray paid to Internacional USD 100,000.

On 30 August 2004, Internacional lodged an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport ("CAS") against the said decision of the Single Judge of the FIFA Players' Status Committee (hereinafter the "Appealed Decision").

Internacional alleges that Galatasaray clearly breached the Co-ownership Agreement. The Appellant submits that the termination of the Employment Contract was not unilateral but agreed by the parties, as demonstrated by the Termination Agreement and by the payment of 600,000 USD made by Galatasaray to the Player. Thus, the Player was released without the consent of Internacional which lost its 50% of the rights over the Player.

Galatasaray submits that the existence and enforceability of the Employment Contract is an essential precondition for the existence and enforceability of the Co-ownership Agreement. On this grounds, the Respondent argues that the termination of the Employment Contract caused the Co-ownership Agreement to lose its effects.

In its written decision, the Panel has decided that:

--Even assuming that the Player terminated unilaterally the Employment Contract, by signing the Termination Agreement and by not contesting the Player's attempt to leave the club, the Respondent did accept such termination, thus rendering it bilateral anyways. In particular, in order to prove its bona fide effort to protect the rights of the Appellant, the Respondent could and should have resorted to the FIFA rules for the "maintenance of contractual stability", which provide for possible compensation or disciplinary sanctions (art. 21 et seq. of the Status and Transfer Regulations). Quite the opposite, the Respondent adopted immediately an acquiescent attitude towards the Player's unilateral termination, even agreeing to perform some payments in his favour.

--The Co-ownership Agreement established a sort of joint venture between the two clubs, whereby they arranged to jointly hold title to the economic rights to the performances of the Player. As a result of their reciprocal commitments, both clubs had a duty of transparency and cooperation towards each other; in particular, neither club was in a position to lawfully hire or release the Player, or trade him to a third club, without the other club's consent. In the Panel's view the Respondent, by allowing the Player to become a free agent without the Appellant's consent, breached the Co-ownership Agreement. As a result, the Panel finds, and so holds, that the Respondent must pay some compensation to the Appellant.

CAS 2004/A/706 Reggina Calcio / Club Olimpia, Award of 14 April 2005

Panel: Prof. Ulrich Haas (Germany), President; Mr Luc Argand (Switzerland); Mr Ricardo De Buen Rodriguez (Mexico)

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has decided to dismiss the appeal filed by Regina Calcio against the decision issued by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber on 22 July 2004 regarding the solidarity contribution due to the Respondent, Club Olpimpia.

The Paraguayan football player Carlos Humberto Paredes Monges (hereafter "the Player"), born on 16 July 1976, was registered with CLUB OLIMPIA (hereinafter "Olimpia" or "the Respondent"), a Paraguayan football club, for eight sporting seasons, from 19 March 1992 to 6 June 2000. After that date he was registered with the Portuguese club Futebol Clube Do Porto--Futebol SAD (hereafter "FC Porto").

On 16 July 2002 REGGINA CALCIO S.P.A. (hereafter "Reggina Calcio" or "the Appellant"), an Italian football club, and FC Porto signed an agreement for the transfer of the federative rights of the Player from the Portuguese club to the Appellant. According to the "the Transfer Contract" Reggina Clacio will pay to FC Porto the amount of Euro 4.800.000.

By letter dated 12 February 2004 the Respondent informed FIFA that, with regard to the transfer of the Player, no payments according to FIFA's "solidarity mechanism" had been effected to it so far.

The relevant FIFA rules concerning the "solidarity mechanism" are to be found in Article 25 Chapter IX of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players, which in turn is supplemented by Article 10 ofthe Regulations Governing the Application of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter "Application Regulations").

By letter dated 8 March 2004 FIFA advised the Italian Football Federation of the Respondent's letter dated 12 February 2004 and requested the Italian Federation to inform the Appellant to start distributing the proportion of 5 % as provided in Art. 25 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players by 22 March 2004 at the latest. As the letter remained unanswered FIFA sent a reminder on 29 March 2004 in which a new deadline of 12 April 2004 was fixed. By letter dated 21 April 2004 the Appellant informed FIFA that the transfer payments had been fully effected to FC Porto and that, therefore, it was up to the Portuguese club to carry out the "solidarity payments" to the Respondent. By letter dated 12 May 2004 FIFA requested the Portuguese Football Federation to inform its affiliated club FC Porto to start distributing the "solidarity dues" by no later than 31 May 2004. After expiry of the deadline FIFA informed the various clubs involved via their respective federations by letter dated 7 June 2004 that the file would be submitted to the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber for a formal decision.

In its decision dated 22 July 2004 the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber decided, inter alia, that,

   " ... [the Appellant] has to pay the amount of EUR 192.000 to the
   ... [Respondent] ..." and that "on the aforementioned amount, a
   Default interest payment of 5% p.a. as from 16 August 2002 until
   the day of the payment must be applied." Furthermore, the Dispute
   Resolution Chamber decided that, "the amount due to the ...
   [Respondent] has to be paid by ... [the Appellant] within 30 days as
   from the date of notification of this decision." Finally, "the
   Chamber maintained that the ... [Appellant] may turn to FIFA upon
   paying the amount owed to the ... [Respondent], should it encounter
   any difficulties in recovering the sum paid as solidarity
   contribution from FC Porto."

By letter dated 30 July 2004 the Appellant lodged an appeal against the decision of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber with CAS.

In its statement of appeal dated 30 July 2004 the Appellant is challenging "the decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber taken in Zurich on 22 July 2004". In particular the Appellant requests the Panel to "cancel" the decision and to declare that the Appellant "must give nothing" to the Respondent.

In support of its claim, the Appellant contends, inter alia: that according to the rules in force at the time of the signing of the transfer contract it was up to FC Porto to fulfil the "solidarity obligations" towards the Respondent.

The Respondent requests, "the rejection of the appeal ... against the decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber" and the "affirmance of the judgement ordering ... [the Appellant] to pay to the ... [Respondent] the amount of EURO 192,000 plus interest".

In its written decision, the Court of Arbitration for Sport has decided:

--FIFA's Regulations must be interpreted in accordance with their objective meaning. Who it is who owes the "solidarity contribution" derives from the reference in Art. 25(2) of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players to Art. 11(1) of the Application Regulations. According thereto it is quite clear that it is the "new club", and therefore the Appellant, who owes the "solidarity contribution". The Panel's opinion, which is in line with the past established case law of the CAS (CAS 2004/A/686), namely that the Appellant is the debtor who owes the "solidarity contribution", is ultimately confirmed by the FIFA Circular Letter No. 769 (page 15 et seq.). The latter confirms that, "it is the responsibility of the new club to calculate the amount of the contribution and to effect the necessary payments". Said Circular Letter reflects the understanding of the FIFA and the general practice of the federations and associations belonging to FIFA (CAS 2003/O/527; CAS 2004/A/560). Thus, the Panel also considers this Circular Letter to be relevant for the interpretation of FIFA's Regulations (on this note see CAS 2004/A/686).

--Payment by the Appellant can only have the effect of a discharge if payment is made to the "correct creditor". However, if the Appellant pays the wrong creditor--as in the present case--it does so at its own risk with the consequence that the Respondent is not prevented from still taking action against the Respondent for the "solidarity contribution".

--The Appellant's alternative application to have the solidarity contribution reduced must also be dismissed. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber calculated the amount of the solidarity contribution correctly pursuant to Art. 10 of the Application Regulations.

CAS 2004/A/605 Pamesa Valencia / Euroleaugue Basketball, award of 12 May 2005

Panel: Francois Carrard (Switzerland), President; Jose Juan Pinto (Spain); Peter Leaver (Great-Britain)

The Court of Arbitration for Sports has decided to dismiss the appeal filed by Pamesa Valencia Basket Club SAD on 23 April 2004 against the decision issued on 14 April 2004 by the Appeals Judge of the Euroleague and to confirm such decision.

Pamesa Valencia Basketclub SAD (hereafter "Appellant") is a spanish basketball club. It is a member of the Spanish basketball league which in turn is a member of the Euroleague.

Within the fourth round of the Euroleague competition, which gathered the best 16 qualified European basketball teams, a game between the Appellant and Maccabi was scheduled to be played on 25 March 2004 in Tel Aviv, Israel.

On 22 March 2004, a special operation implemented by Israeli services resulted into the death of Sheik Yassin in Gaza, Palestine. Sheik Yassin was a leader of the Palestinian Hamas movement. As a consequence of his death, Israel feared terrorist attacks on its territory. In view of the situation described above, the Appellant requested from the Respondent, by letters of 24 and 25 March 2004, the postponement or change of venue of the game scheduled on 25 March 2004 against Maccabi in Tel Aviv.

On 24 March 2004, the CEO of the Respondent replied to the Appellant that Euroleague decided neither to change the date of the game, nor its venue. The Respondent further notified to the Appellant that the latter should play the game as instructed, it being clear that if it were not the case, a disciplinary procedure would be undertaken in accordance with the Bye-laws of the Respondent.

On 25 March 2004, the Appellant confirmed to the Respondent that it was maintaining its decision not to travel to Tel Aviv to play the game on 25 March 2004.

On 31 March 2004, after considering the arguments which had been submitted by the Appellant, the Euroleague Disciplinary Judge issued the decision 25/2003-2004 in which, applying article 35 of the Euroleague Regulations as well as article 34a and 37 of the Euroleague Disciplinary Regulations, the said disciplinary Judge held that the Appellant had not given a "suitable justification" for its failure to appear at the game.

On 7 April 2004, the Appellant appealed from the decision rendered by the Disciplinary Judge of the Euroleague on 31 March 2004.

On 14 April 2004, the Appeals' Judge of Euroleague issued his decision (hereafter "the Decision"), whereby the appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed and the decision of the disciplinary Judge of Euroleague confirmed.

On 23 April 2004, the Appellant lodged with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) an appeal against the Decision. In its written decision, the CAS has decided:

--On the basis of article 6.2.1. of the Protocol of Constitution of Euroleague, the Appellant had a contractual duty to appear at the game, unless excused by the Regulations. The existence of such an excuse has to be proved by the Appellant. The Panel considers that the situation in Israel does not constitute a "suitable justification" for the non-appearance of the Appellant. The situation in Israel which is far from being "normal" has not prevented the Euroleague competition from taking place in safe and undisturbed environments for the competition. The situation is considered to have been carefully evaluated by Euroleague, when it decided that the game at hand be played in Tel Aviv and took into account the security measures offered to prevent any risk and/or accident. There was no existence of a specific and individual threat to the life of the members of the Appellant's team. As to the fact that Euroleague had convened an extraordinary meeting to discuss the venue of the Final Tour, the Panel is of the opinion that such extraordinary meeting does not constitute a "suitable justification" on which the Appellant could rely. Thus, the Panel reaffirms a principle already developed by CAS in re CAS 2002/A/388, Ulker v/Euroleague.

--The first consequence of the lack of "suitable justification" is that the game is to be considered as lost by the Appellant by the result of twenty to zero (20-0). This results clearly from article 35 litt. d of the Euroleague Disciplinary Regulations, which, in accordance with article 34 of the same Regulations, is applicable to an infringement consisting of a failure to appear at the game without justification.

--The Appellant is declared responsible "for compensation of all the expenses associated with refereeing and other costs that the organization of the games might have caused that are duly justified before the Euroleague" art. 35 of the Euroleague Regulations). The Panel considers that the amount of the compensation due by the Appellant as a consequence of its failure to appear without "suitable justification" should be limited to the possible expenses associated with refereeing the game which was scheduled on 25 March 2004.