CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2021/A/8543 — Paris Saint-Germain Football v. Futbol Club Barcelona

"Neymar Solidarity" · PSG must pay FC Barcelona EUR 2,215,326.32 solidarity contribution on Neymar's EUR 222,000,000 buy-out clause activation.

What happened in Neymar Solidarity

In August 2017, Neymar exercised a contractual exit right under Clause 8(c) of his FC Barcelona employment contract, triggering payment of EUR 222,000,000 — funded by PSG — to FC Barcelona, after which he registered with PSG. FC Barcelona subsequently claimed solidarity contribution from PSG before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC). On 6 May 2021 (corrected 16 December 2021), the FIFA DRC partially upheld the claim, ruling the move constituted a 'transfer' under the FIFA RSTP, that the EUR 222,000,000 was a net amount representing 95% of the gross transfer value, and ordering PSG to pay EUR 2,215,326.32 to FC Barcelona plus 5% interest per annum from 11 September 2017. PSG appealed to CAS, arguing: (1) no transfer occurred because FC Barcelona never consented; (2) Clause 8(c) was a liquidated damages clause, not a buy-out clause; (3) solidarity contribution was already included in the EUR 222,000,000; (4) FC Barcelona's claim violated PSG's legitimate expectations; (5) the Player had completed his training before joining Barcelona; and (6) FC Barcelona abused its rights. CAS dismissed all grounds and confirmed the FIFA DRC decision in full. The case is significant as it authoritatively establishes that activation of a buy-out clause funded by the new club constitutes a 'transfer' triggering the solidarity mechanism, and that the buy-out amount is net of solidarity contribution.

Procedural history of CAS 2021/A/8543

On 2 September 2019, FC Barcelona filed a claim before the FIFA DRC (case no. TMS 4698) seeking solidarity contribution of EUR 2,336,842.11 plus 5% interest per annum from 11 September 2017. PSG objected on 23 October 2019. The FIFA DRC rendered its decision on 6 May 2021; the operative part was corrected by FIFA letter dated 16 December 2021, ordering PSG to pay EUR 2,215,326.32 plus 5% interest per annum from 11 September 2017, and awarding costs of CHF 25,000 (CHF 23,000 borne by PSG, CHF 2,000 by FC Barcelona). PSG filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS on 21 December 2021 under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code, within the 21-day limit set by Article 57(1) FIFA Statutes. FC Barcelona filed its Answer on 17 February 2022. A hearing was held in Lausanne on 1 June 2022. CAS was asked to set aside the Appealed Decision and declare no solidarity contribution payable, or alternatively to reduce the amount.

Key holdings in CAS 2021/A/8543

• Clause 8(c) of Neymar's employment contract with FC Barcelona constitutes a 'buy-out clause' rather than a 'liquidated damages clause', because it granted the Player a right to terminate early upon payment of EUR 222,000,000 without reference to breach or damages, and required FC Barcelona to issue the ITC and waive sporting sanctions.
• The activation of a buy-out clause funded by the new club (PSG) constitutes a 'transfer' within the meaning of Article 21 and Annex 5 FIFA RSTP, satisfying all four constituent elements including FC Barcelona's advance consent embedded in the clause itself.
• The EUR 222,000,000 buy-out fee represents a net amount equal to 95% of the gross transfer value; solidarity contribution of 5% is payable on top, making the gross transfer value EUR 233,684,211.
• The concept of early completion of training is relevant only to training compensation under Annex 4 FIFA RSTP and has no application to solidarity contribution under Annex 5 FIFA RSTP, which contains no such exception.
• FC Barcelona's two-year delay in filing its claim did not violate PSG's legitimate expectations or constitute an abuse of rights, as FC Barcelona filed within the applicable two-year limitation period and no waiver was established.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel applied Article 18 SCO to interpret Clause 8(c), focusing on the true and common intention of the parties. It found the clause's use of 'may', 'right', 'can' and 'mutual agreement' indicated a consensual exit right rather than a penalty for breach. The Panel distinguished CAS 2016/A/4585 (where the clause referred to breach and the club actively objected) and CAS 2010/A/2098 (which used 'unilateral breach ante tempus' language absent here), and found CAS 2013/A/3411 inapplicable because Clause 8(c) used 'compensation' not 'damages'. The Panel agreed with the FIFA Commentary (2021 edition) that buy-out fees funded by the new club are functionally equivalent to transfer fees for solidarity purposes, and that excluding them would allow clubs to circumvent the solidarity mechanism. PSG's own conduct — treating the move as a transfer for French tax purposes and paying approximately EUR 8,599,018.82 to Santos FC as solidarity — undermined its position. The Panel rejected the training-completion argument because Annex 5 FIFA RSTP contains no such exception, unlike Annex 4. The Panel found no waiver, no abuse of rights, and no legitimate expectation violated by FC Barcelona's timely claim.

Why Neymar Solidarity matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award authoritatively resolves the long-debated question of whether activation of a Spanish-law buy-out clause (clausula indemnizatoria) funded by the new club triggers the FIFA solidarity mechanism. The Panel confirmed that such clauses constitute 'buy-out clauses' for RSTP purposes, that the buy-out amount is net of solidarity contribution, and that the new club cannot escape solidarity obligations by characterising the clause as a liquidated damages provision — closing a potential loophole for high-value transfers structured around exit clauses.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2019/A/6525 CAS 2011/A/2356 CAS 2016/A/4585 CAS 2015/A/4188 CAS 2013/A/3411 CAS 2010/A/2098

Frequently asked questions about Neymar Solidarity

Did PSG have to pay solidarity contribution on Neymar's EUR 222 million buy-out clause?

Yes. CAS ruled that PSG's funding of the EUR 222,000,000 buy-out clause constituted a 'transfer' under Article 21 and Annex 5 FIFA RSTP, triggering the solidarity mechanism. The EUR 222,000,000 was treated as a net amount representing 95% of the gross transfer value of EUR 233,684,211, making the total solidarity contribution EUR 11,684,211, of which FC Barcelona was entitled to EUR 2,215,326.32 (18.96%) plus 5% interest per annum from 11 September 2017.

Was Neymar's release clause a buy-out clause or a liquidated damages clause for solidarity purposes?

CAS held it was a buy-out clause. The Panel found that Clause 8(c) of the employment contract used language of right and option ('may', 'can', 'mutual agreement'), required FC Barcelona to issue the ITC and waive sporting sanctions upon payment, and did not refer to 'damages' or 'breach' — all features distinguishing it from a liquidated damages clause. The self-description as 'clausula indemnizatoria' was not determinative.

Can a club avoid solidarity contribution by arguing the player had already completed his training before joining?

No. CAS confirmed that early completion of training is only a recognised exception under Annex 4 FIFA RSTP (training compensation) and has no application to solidarity contribution under Annex 5 FIFA RSTP, which contains no such exception. The total solidarity contribution remains 5% of the gross transfer fee regardless of the player's training status.

Did FC Barcelona's two-year delay in claiming solidarity contribution bar its claim against PSG?

No. CAS found that FC Barcelona filed its claim on 2 September 2019, within the applicable two-year limitation period under Article 25(5) FIFA RSTP. The Panel held that mere silence or inaction during the limitation period does not constitute a waiver or violation of legitimate expectations, and that under Article 2(2) of Annex 5 FIFA RSTP it is the new club's responsibility to distribute solidarity contribution proactively.

Topics: Transfers, agents, TPO & sell-on clauses at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.