Lo que hay abajo transcrito es un extracto del laudo del TAS en el caso 2016/A/4462 Hellas Verona FC v FK Donji Srem.

Voy a reproducir lo que pone al final de la transcripción: “Donji Srem’s commitment as a “seller” was to consent to the termination of the employment contract with the Player, and Hellas Verona’s commitment as the “buyer” was to pay EUR 300,000 for that consent”.

Clarito, clarito: un transfer fee es la indemnización que paga el nuevo club al anterior por la extinción (o la suspensión; o incluso la cesión, según dice este laudo) del contrato de trabajo del futbolista.

No sé, a mí me parece que lo dice bastante claro. Eso sí, me parece reprochable que diga que no hay ventas ni compras y lo resuelva utilizando exactamente esos términos, así como avergonzadamente, entre comillas.

Transcript

The Panel recalled the considerations made in the award of case CAS 2010/A/2098, according to which, in the world of professional football, the term “sale” is used inaccurately as in fact it is not possible to describe the transfer of a player from a club to another in terms of a sale (or the contract entered into by the old and the new club as a sale contract) in the same way as one could refer to the sale of goods or other property. That it was inconceivable for clubs to have property rights in, or equivalent title, to players, which could be transferred from one entity to another. That in order to make up for this lack of property or title and to establish a “right” which can be transferred, a category of so-called “federative rights” has been identified, i.e. rights stemming from the registration with a football association or league of a player with a club. The “sale” of a player, therefore, is not an agreement affecting a club’s title to a player, transferred from one entity to another against the payment of a purchase price. The transfer consented by the seller, and the price paid in exchange, do not directly consider a property right, but are part of a transaction affecting the employment relation existing between a club and a player, which always require the consent of the “transferred” player and the clubs involved. Through the “sale”, the parties express their consent to the transfer of the right to benefit from the player’s performance, as defined in the employment agreement; which, in turn, is the precondition to obtain the administrative registration of the player with a federation in order to allow the new club to field him. In the context of a “sale” contract, a transfer, being object and purpose of the parties’ consent, can be made in two ways: 50 (i) by way of assignment of the employment contract; and (ii) by way of termination of the employment agreement with the old club and signature of a different employment agreement with the new club. In both cases, the old club expresses its agreement (to the assignment or to the termination of the old employment contract, as the case may be) against receipt of a payment – which substitutes for the loss of the player’s services; the new club accepts the assignment of the existing employment contract or consents to enter into a new contract with the player; and the player consents to move to the new club. The Panel concluded that also in the Agreement, the term “buy-sale” had been used inaccurately and that the parties were well aware that they were not “purchasing” the Player: Donji Srem’s commitment as a “seller” was to consent to the termination of the employment contract with the Player, and Hellas Verona’s commitment as the “buyer” was to pay EUR 300,000 for that consent.