FIFA - Decisión disputa De Lima Junior 27052023

REF TMS 12286

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed on17May2023 regarding solidarity contribution for the transfer the player Jose Artur DE

LIMA JUNIOR

COMPOSITION:

Frans de Weger (The Netherlands), Chairperson Mario Flores Chemor (Mexico), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member

CLAIMANT:

Bahia BA, Brazil

RESPONDENT:

Houston Dynamo, USA Page 2of 10

REF TMS 12286

I. FACTS OF THE CASE Player: Jose Artur DE LIMA JUNIOR Date of birth: 11March 1996

Player passport: issued by the Brazilian Football Confederation(CBF)on 29May2018: Year Season Status Basis Country Period Club 2008 to 12/14 From 01.01.2008 to No record 2010 03.10.2010 found 2010 to 14/15 Amateur Def Brazil From 04.10.2010 to Atlantico 2011 24.03.20111 Esporte Clube/BA 2011 to 15/15 Amateur Def Brazil From 25.03.2011 to Palmeirinha/ 2011 31.12.2011 SP 2012 to 15/16 From 01.01.2012 to No record 2012 16.07.2012 found 2012 to 16/16 Amateur Def Brazil From 17.07.2012 to Bahia/BA 2012 22.08.2012 2012 to 16/16 From 23.08.2012 to No record 2012 23.08.2012 found 2012 to 16/16 Amateur Def Brazil From 24.08.2012 to Ypiranga/BA 2013 28.02.2013 2013 to 16/17 Professional Def Brazil From 01.03.2013 to Bahia/BA 2013 19.08.2013 2013 to 17/17 Professional Loan Brazil From 20.08.2013 to Galicia/BA

2013 30.11.2013 2013 to 17/18 Professional Def Brazil From 01.12.2013 to Bahia/BA 2015 01.01.2015 2015 to 18/19 Professional Def Brazil From 01.01.2015 to Bahia/BA 2015 02.07.2015 2015 to 19/19 From 03.07.2015 to No record 2015 08.07.2015 found 2015 to 19/19 Professional Def Brazil From 09.07.2015 to Ge 2015 31.07.2015 Juventus/SC 2015 to 19/20 Professional Loan Brazil From 01.08.2015 to Sao 2016 31.07.2016 Paulo/SP 2016 to 20/20 Professional Def Brazil From 31.07.2016 to Ge 2016 01.08.2016 Juventus/SC 2016 to 20/20 Professional Def Brazil From 01.08.2016 to Sao 2017 31.01.2017 Paulo/SP Page 3of 10 REF TMS 12286 2017 to 20/21 Professional Loan USA From 01.02.2017 to Columbus 2017 30.12.2017 Crew 2017 to 21/21 Professional Def Brazil From 31.12.2017 to Sao 2017 31.12.2017 Paulo/SP 2018 to 21/21 From 01.01.2018 to No record 2018 15.01.2018 found 2018 to 21/26 Professional Def USA From 16.01.2018 to Columbus 2023 16.01.2013 Crew Sporting season: From January to December Date of transfer: 11 November2022, from Columbus Crew (USA)toHouston Dynamo (USA) as professional: Financialconditionsof the transfer: According to the information provided by the Major League Soccer (MLS), Columbus Crew (USA) and Houston Dynamo agreed upon the transfer of

the player in exchange of USD 300,000 of General Allocation Money (GAM).

Claimant club: Bahia BA(Brazil)

Respondent club: Houston Dynamo (USA)

Claim and Response:

1. On 03 February 2023, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent requesting the payment of 1.116% of the total transfer amount over any compensation agreed upon and/or paid to the Former Club and any future payments, such as, but not limited to, bonus payments or sell-on fees agreements, plus 5% p.a. interest as of the due dates until the date of effective payment

2. On 08 February 2023, the Major League Soccer (MLS) disclosed the conditions agreed between Columbus Crew (Former club) and the Respondent for the transfer of the player. According to the MLS, (i) the player was re-assigned from Columbus Crew to the Respondent on 11 November 2022 without signing a transfer agreement; (ii) the abovementioned clubs agreed on the transfer of the player in exchange for USD 300,000 as General Allocation Money (GAM); (iii) no compensation payment was agreed upon for the transfer of the playerand the Claimant is not entitled to solidarity contribution.

Page 4of 10

REF TMS 12286

3. The Respondent failed to provide its position in the matter at hand.

II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS Applicable law: Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): October 2022 edition Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (Procedural Rules): November2022 edition Jurisdiction: yes, uncontested.

Admissible: yes, uncontested.

Proposed Decision:

1. The Claimant requested the payment of solidarity contribution resulting from the transfer of the player from Columbus Crew (USA) to the Respondent.

2. The Respondent did not provide its comments in respect of the present claim.

3. Art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 5 RSTP stipulates that if a professional moves during the course

of a contract, 5% of any compensation, not including training compensation paid to his former club, shall be deducted from the total amount of this compensation and distributed by the new club as a solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in his training and education over the years. This solidarity contribution reflects the number of years (calculated pro rata if less than one year) he was registered with the relevant club(s) between the years of his 12th and 23rd birthdays.

4. It is uncontested that in accordance with the player passport issued by the CBF on 29

May 2018, the player was registered with the Claimant as follows: (i) from 17 July 2012 until 22 August 2012, corresponding to 37 days of the calendar thbirthday; (ii) (ii) from 01 March 2013 until 19 August 2023 and from 01 December 2013 until 31 th birthday; (iii) the entire calendar year of the thbirthday; and (iv) from 01 January 2015 until 02 July 2015, corresponding to 183 days of the calendar thbirthday.

5. It is uncontested that the player was transferred from Columbus Crew to the Respondent on 11 November 2022 in exchange for USD 300,00 asGAM.

Page 5of 10

REF TMS 12286

6. In view of that, the DRC must decide if the amount of USD 300,000 asGAM provided by the Respondent can be encompassed as compensationin the meaning of the RSTPand, if so, what it is the amount of solidarity contribution due to the Claimant.

7. Article 21 and Annexe 5, article 1, of FIFA RSTP, set forth that any compensation paid within the scope of the transfer of the player, except for training compensation, shall be subjected to solidarity contribution. Additionally, the FIFA Commentary on the solidarity contribution is subject to any compensation paid for the transfer of the player,

regardless of whether it is described as part of the transfer fee or not .

8. According to the DRC and CAS jurisprudence, cannot be considered as a narrow interpretation and therefore shall not be strict to the monetary naturepaidfor the transfer of the player, but it includes any financial benefit which may derive from the transfer of a player. This approach has been applied by CAS and the DRC in cases of entitlement of solidarity contribution triggered by the activation of a buy-out clause orthe swap of players. In fact, the DRC concluded several times that the exchange of players indirectly implied a financial agreement, i.e. an agreement with a monetary component, due to the fact that the relevant qualities of the players have an economic value in the football employment market.

9. Against the above framework, according to the MLS Rules, the GAM corresponds to an amount available to MLS clubs annually in addition to its salary budget, which can be used in several circumstances such as the signing of new players to MLS, the re-assigning of an existing MLS player, and to off-set loan and transfer fees.

10. In other words, the increasing of the GAM of an MLS club corresponds to a financial advantage to such club considering the different possibilities in which the club can spend this resource. The higher the amount of GAM available to a club, the higher the amount that can be spent on signing new players or on compensation of loan or transfer fees.

11. The MLS Rules also foresee that an MLS club may reduce 100% of a loan or transfer fee using the GAM.

12. In this respect and according to the strict financial MLS rules on the amount that can be spent by MLS clubs, it seems that any amount of GAM provided to an MLS club in exchange of the registration of a player corresponds to a payment of compensation that can be spend within the parameters established by the MLS Rules.

13. Bearing in mind that the RSTP clearly establishes the entitlement of solidarity contribution on any compensation paid within the scope of the transfer of the player, regardless the nature of the compensation, the amount of GAM provided by the

Respondent shall be encompassed as a transfer compensation and the Claimant is entitled to solidarity contribution for the transfer of the player. Page 6of 10

REF TMS 12286

14. Finally, and again given the nature of the GAM as described above, the DRC held that any other conclusion as regards the GAM would be to the detriment of uniformity, equality and certainty on football at a global scale because it would enable USA (or Canadian) clubs forming part of the MLS to have a financial advantage over the rest

15. Consequently, the amount to be taken into account to calculate the solidarity contribution due to the Claimant is USD 300,000.

16. According to art. 1 and 2 of Annexe 5 of the RSTP, club, i.e. the Respondent, is ordered to remit the relevant proportion(s) of the 5% solidarity contribution to the club(s)

17. It remained undisputed that the Respondent did not pay the solidarity contribution to the Claimant in relation to the amount agreed for the transfer of the player, i.e. USD

300,000.

18. According to art. 21 and art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 5 of the RSTP, 5% of the above compensationshall be deducted as solidarity contribution.

19. As per art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 5 of the RSTP, solidarity contribution for the calendar year 6thto 23rdbirthday amounts to 10% of the total solidarity contributionand it is to be calculated on a pro rata basis if a player is registered for less than a year (cfr.

Art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 5 of the RSTP).

20. As established above in point II.4, the Claimant is entitled to receive 21.59% of the due solidarity contribution, i.e. 1.0795% of the total transfer amount agreed for the transfer

of the player, corresponding to: 10.11% of the 10% solidarity contribution for the 37 days the 10% solidarity contribution for the 365 d birthday; and 50.14% of the 10% solidarity contribution for the 183 days of the calendar .

21. Based on the above, the Respondent shall pay the Claimant solidarity contribution of

USD 3,237.94.

22. In addition, the Claimant requested the payment of interests over the claimed amount at a rate of 5% p.a.as of the due date. 23. -established jurisprudence of the DRC with regard to interest, the Claimant is entitled to receive interest of 5% p.a. over the amount payable as solidarity contribution as of the 31st day after the date of registration of the player on the permanent basis, i.e. 12 December

2022. Page 7of 10

REF TMS 12286

24. In view of all the above, the claim of the Claimant is accepted and the Claimant is entitled to receive USD 3,237.94 as solidarity contribution, plus 5% interest p.a., as from 12

December 2022 until the date of effective payment.

25. Art. 25 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules stipulates that costs in the maximum amount of USD 25,000 are levied in connection with proceedings before the DRC of the Football Tribunal relating to disputes regarding training compensation and the solidarity mechanism. Costs are to be bor the proceedings (art. 25 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules).

26. The amount claimed in the present dispute corresponds to an amount below USD 49,999. Therefore, procedural costs levied in this respect shall not exceed USD 5,000 (cf. art. 2 of Annexe 1 of the Procedural Rules).

27. In consideration of the amount claimed, the costs of the proceedings are set at USD

3,000.

28. In view of the outcome of the claim and the conduct of the parties, said costs shall be

born entirely by the Respondent.

29. Art. 24 of the RSTP applies.

Page 8of 10

REF TMS 12286

III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER

1. The claim of the Claimant, Bahia -BA, is accepted.

2. The Respondent, Houston Dynamo, shall pay to the Claimant USD 3,237.94 as solidarity contribution plus 5% interest p.a. as from 12 December 2022 until the date of effective payment.

3. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.

4. Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.

5. Pursuant to article 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players if full payment (including all applicable interest) is not paid within 45 daysof notification of this decision, the following consequences shall apply:

1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall be of three entire and consecutive registration periods.

2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not paid by the end of the of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.

6. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance with article 24 paragraphs 7 and 8 and article 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.

7. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of USD 3,000 are to be paid by the Respondentto FIFA with reference to case no. TMS 12286(cf. note relating to the payment of the procedural costs below).

For theFootball Tribunal: Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer Page 9of 10

REF TMS 12286

NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:

Pursuant to article 57 paragraph 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed before the Court of Arbitration for Sportwithin 21 days of notification.

NOTE RELATED TO PUBLICATION: FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules).

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Fédération Internationale de Football Association FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | chhelpdesk@fifa.org| T: +41 (0)43 222 7777 Page 10of 10