Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 January 2014,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member
Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member
Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Club D, from country C
as Claimant
against the club,
Club K, from country G
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in connection
with the player B
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The country C Football Federation issued the following player passports
concerning the country F / country C player, Player B (hereinafter: the player):
Player passport received on 8 September 2010:
Date of birth
February 1993
Sporting seasons:
Club:
2005 – 2006
Club D
2006 – 2007
Club D
2007 – 2008
Club D
2008 - 2009
Club D
Player passport received on 11 October 2010:
Date of birth
February 1993
Sporting seasons:
Club:
2005 – 2006
Club D
2006 – 2007
Club D
2007 – 2008
Club D
2008 - 2009
Club D
Player passport dated 9 March 2011:
Date of birth
Dates of the beginning and the end of
the season:
05/03 – 11/11/2006 (2005 – 2006)
18/02 – 24/10/2007 (2006 – 2007)
04/02 – 03/08/2007 (2007 – 2008)
02/02 – 26/08/2008 (2008 – 2009)
Player passport dated 1 August 2011:
Date of birth
10 February 1993
Dates
of
the Club:
beginning and the
end of the season:
2005 – 2006
Club D
28/01/2006 –
11/11/2006
2006 – 2007
Club D
17/02/2007 –
24/10/2007
2007 – 2008
Club D
February 1993
Club:
Club D
Club D
Club D
Club D
Registration
period:
From 24/04/2006
until 26/07/2009
Status:
amateur
Training compensation in connection with the player B (Club D, from country C / Club K, from country
G)
2/12
09/12/2007 –
03/08/2008
2008 - 2009
29/10/2008 –
26/07/2009
Club D
Player passport dated 4 August 2011:
Date of birth
February 1993
Dates
of
the Club:
beginning and the
end of the season:
2004 – 2005
Club D
13/03/2005 –
10/12/2005
2005 – 2006
Club D
28/01/2006 –
11/11/2006
2006 – 2007
Club D
17/02/2007 –
24/10/2007
2007 – 2008
Club D
09/12/2007 –
03/08/2008
2008 - 2009
Club D
29/10/2008 –
26/07/2009
Registration
period:
From 20/03/2005
until 26/07/2009
Status:
amateur
2.
According to a written confirmation issued by the country G Football
Federation, the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club K
(hereinafter: the Respondent), as an amateur, on 31 August 2009 and as a
professional with the same club on 5 January 2010. The country G Football
Federation specified that the player had been registered with the Respondent,
“after having signed a declaration that he had never been registered with any
club.”
3.
The country G Football Federation confirmed that the Respondent belonged to
category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) during the season when
the player was registered with it.
4.
On 8 September 2010, the Club D, form country C (hereinafter: the Claimant),
lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting training compensation from the
Respondent, claiming that the player had been registered with the Respondent
Training compensation in connection with the player B (Club D, from country C / Club K, from country
G)
3/12
as a professional at the age of 16. In its claim, which was signed by its
president, Mr T, the Claimant explained that the player had been trained by
the “Mr T SPORTS ACADEMY (Club D)”, an institution which was founded by
Mr T, the father of the player.
5.
On 30 December 2010, the Claimant, this time via its legal representative,
reverted to FIFA specifying its claim and requesting the amount of
EUR 240,000.
6.
In its answer to the claim, the Respondent stated that according to the player,
his agent and its own research, the player, prior to having been registered with
the Respondent, had never been registered with any club, but had only played
football in his school. The Respondent had apparently been contacted by the
agent of the player in July 2009, who had confirmed that the player was living
in France and was free of any obligations. Therefore, and following a trial of
the player, the Respondent signed an employment contract with the player
and the latter was registered as a “scholar/trainee”. In January 2010, the
Respondent allegedly renewed the contract and the player was registered as a
“regular” player. The Respondent explained that the country G Football
Federation had not asked for any International Transfer Certificate (ITC) for the
player, since according to all the information available as well as the player’s
statement, he had never been registered with any other federation before. It
was only later on that the Respondent was contacted by the Claimant and the
Mr T Sports Academy claiming that they had lost track of the player until they
discovered that the player was registered in country G.
7.
Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the Claimant has no standing to sue
since the player was trained by the Mr T Sports Academy but not by the
Claimant. According to the Respondent, the Mr T Sports Academy and the
Claimant are two different entities. Moreover, the Respondent held that the
Mr T Sports Academy is not a club affiliated to the country C Football
Federation and, therefore, not entitled to receive training compensation.
8.
However, should the Mr T Sports Academy and the Claimant be one and the
same club, the Respondent pointed out that the player signed his first
professional contract with the Respondent on 31 July 2009. In particular, the
Respondent added that the naming “scholar/trainee” used by the country G
Football Federation derives from the system in country G and resulted from the
age of the player at that time. Nevertheless, the player had as from the
beginning the status of a professional which can established from the player’s
monthly salary, i.e. EUR 1,500, which was more than double of the basic salary
in country G. In this respect, the Respondent provided a copy of the
Training compensation in connection with the player B (Club D, from country C / Club K, from country
G)
4/12
employment contract dated 31 July 2009. Consequently, in the Respondent’s
view, the 2008 edition of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players is applicable and, thus, the Claimant is only entitled to the amount of
EUR 30,000 or EUR 40,000, depending on the registration dates to be taken
into consideration. In this respect, the Respondent pointed out that based on
the player’s passport issued by the country C Football Federation, it is not
possible to establish the exact period when the player was registered with the
Claimant.
9.
Having been requested by the FIFA administration to provide the exact
registration details of the player, the country C Football Federation provided
the player passports dated 1 and 4 August 2011.
10. On 9 August 2011, the Claimant contested the arguments of the Respondent
and pointed out that the research done by the Respondent was not done
properly. Furthermore, it referred to the circular nr. 1190 dated 20 May 2009,
which states that the training costs for players for the season between their
12th and 15th birthdays shall no longer be based on training and education costs
of category 4 clubs, but on the category of the new club if the event giving rise
to the right to training compensation occurs before the end of the season of
the player’s 18th birthday. According to the Claimant, this amendment would
fit to the case at hand. Equally, the Claimant held that the agreement signed in
July 2009 was never submitted to the country G Football Federation.
11. Furthermore, the Claimant provided a certificate issued by the country C
Football Federation, according to which the Mr T Sports Academy is the owner
of the Claimant, which is a club affiliated to the country C Football Federation.
12. Finally, the Claimant amended its claim requesting the amount of EUR 270,000
plus 5% interest as from 6 March 2010.
13. In its final position, the Respondent reiterated its previous statements, adding
that the certificate issued by the country C Football Federation would actually
confirm that the Mr T Sports Academy and the Claimant are two different
entities.
14. Moreover, the Respondent insisted that it was the first club with which the
player was registered. In this respect, the Respondent pointed out that, to
date, if one “googled” the player’s name, there were no indications of the
player’s career history prior to being registered with the Respondent. Also, the
Respondent held that the argument of the Claimant that it had lost track of
Training compensation in connection with the player B (Club D, from country C / Club K, from country
G)
5/12
the player’s whereabouts is hard to believe, since Mr T is the father of the
player.
15. In summary, the Respondent stated that it was not in a position to know if the
player had actually played for the Claimant and whether the entire story was
planned in order to mislead it. However, it underlined having acted in good
faith and it was therefore justified to believe that the player’s first registration
was in country G.
16. Furthermore, the Respondent once again referred to the various player
passports issued by the country C Football Federation and pointed out that it
was difficult to establish the exact period of time the player was registered
with the Claimant. The Respondent cannot understand that the country C
Football Federation issued 3-4 different passports for the same player and
requests not to accept the player’s passports dated 1 and 4 August 2011,
alleging that those two passports were obviously issued in order to help the
Claimant to claim a higher amount of training compensation.
17. Finally, the Respondent requested that the Claimant paid all the administrative
and procedural costs as well as the legal expenses incurred by the Respondent.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as
DRC or Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at
hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to
FIFA on 8 September 2010. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules), is applicable to the matter
at hand (cf. art. 21 of the 2008 and 2012 editions of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in
combination with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players (edition 2012), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal
with the matter at stake relating to training compensation between clubs
belonging to different associations.
Training compensation in connection with the player B (Club D, from country C / Club K, from country
G)
6/12
3.
Then, the Chamber continued to analyse which regulations should be
applicable as to the substance of the matter, this being an issue on which the
Claimant and the Respondent have divergent positions.
4.
In this regard, the Chamber took due note that, on the one hand, the Claimant
argued that the player was registered with the Respondent as a professional
on 5 January 2010 only and that therefore the 2009 edition of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable to the case at hand,
which came into force on 1 October 2009. On the other hand, the Chamber
noted that the Respondent argued that the 2008 edition of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable, since the player had
signed a professional contract with the Respondent already on 31 July 2009.
5.
In this context, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players which stipulates that “A professional is a player
which has a written contract with a club and is paid more for his footballing
activity than the expenses he effectively incurs. All other players are considered
to be amateurs”. The Chamber further stressed that a player’s remuneration as
set out in art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
constitutes the decisive factor in the determination of the status of the player
and that the legal nature or the designation of the agreement is of no
relevance in this regard.
6.
After having carefully examined the contract submitted by the Respondent,
the Chamber came to the unanimous conclusion that indeed the player had
already signed a professional contract with the Respondent on 31 July 2009,
since the player was earning EUR 1,500 per month as from the aforementioned
date. As a consequence, the Chamber concluded that it was evident that the
player, as from 31 July 2009, was paid more for his footballing activity than the
expenses he incurred and that, therefore, he was to be considered a
professional. In view of the foregoing, and taking into account that the player
is to be considered as having signed a professional contract already on 31 July
2009, the DRC determined that the 2008 edition of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to
the matter at hand as to the substance.
7.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The
members of the Chamber acknowledged the above-mentioned facts as well as
the documentation on file in relation to the substance of the matter. However,
the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only
to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered
pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
Training compensation in connection with the player B (Club D, from country C / Club K, from country
G)
7/12
8.
First of all, the Chamber recalled that the player, born on 10 February 1993,
was, according to the last player passport provided by the country C Football
Federation upon request of FIFA, registered with the Claimant as from 20
March 2005 until 26 July 2009.
9.
In continuation, the Chamber took note that the Claimant asserted that it was
entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount
of EUR 270,000, plus 5% interest as from 6 March 2010, since the player had
signed his first professional contract with the Respondent before the end of
the season of his 23rd birthday.
10.
Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of
the Claimant based on the following two arguments:
i)
ii)
The player was trained by the Mr T Thomas Sports Academy and not by
the Claimant;
According to its own research and the information received from the
player and the player’s agent, the player had never been registered
with any other club prior to his registration with the Respondent.
11.
Moreover, the Chamber observed that the Respondent, in the alternative, held
that if training compensation was due to the Claimant, only the amount of
EUR 30,000 or EUR 40,000 would be due, in accordance with the 2008 edition
of the Regulations.
12.
In this respect, the DRC first referred to the rules applicable to training
compensation, and stated that, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations as
well as in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 par. 1 lit. i. of
Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is payable, as a general
rule, for training incurred between the ages of 12 and 21 when a player is
registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of
the player’s 23rd birthday.
13.
In connection with the above, the members of the Chamber duly noted the
argument raised by the Respondent which held that, in fact, the player was
never registered with the Claimant, but rather with the Mr T Sports Academy,
which, according to the Respondent, is a different entity from the Claimant. In
this respect, the DRC stressed that the national association to which the
Claimant is affiliated, i.e. the country C Football Federation, had, from the very
beginning, unequivocally confirmed in all the different player passports that
the player was registered with the Claimant and thus not with the Mr T Sports
Training compensation in connection with the player B (Club D, from country C / Club K, from country
G)
8/12
Academy. Taking into account the foregoing information as well as
considering that the Respondent had not produced any evidence to the
contrary, the Chamber deemed that it could be established that the player was
registered with - and trained by - the Claimant, and that the latter would
therefore, in principle, be entitled to claim training compensation.
14.
In this context and considering the career history of the player, which
indicated that prior to his registration with the Respondent, the player had at
all times been registered as an amateur with the Claimant, the DRC
determined that the player was registered for the first time as a professional
with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.
15.
The Chamber then turned to the Respondent’s argumentation that according
to all the information available the player had never been registered with any
other club prior to his registration with the Respondent and that the player, as
well as the player’s agent, had confirmed the foregoing information to the
Respondent. In this context, the Chamber first emphasised that the Claimant is
not responsible – nor can it be held accountable - for the statements of the
player and the player’s agent. In other words, the information provided by the
player and his agent to the Respondent cannot work to the detriment of the
rights of the Claimant.
16.
Furthermore, and referring to the principle of the burden of proof as
stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber had not been
provided with any documentary evidence that the Respondent had indeed
done research and was therefore in good faith when signing the player. In
particular, the Chamber stressed that it had not been provided with a request
addressed to the country F Football Federation and the country C Football
Federation enquiring about the career history of the player, which, under the
given circumstances, may have been reasonably expected from the
Respondent. Indeed, the Chamber deemed that such enquiry was reasonably
expected, considering the fact that a young player with the country F and
country C nationality was offered to the Respondent by an agent, the latter
alleging that the player had never been registered within organized football.
Therefore, the Chamber decided to reject this argument of the Respondent
due to the lack of due diligence on the side of the Respondent.
17.
Therefore, and since it was undisputed that the player was registered for the
first time as a professional with the Respondent before the end of the season
of his 23rd birthday, the DRC decided that the Respondent is liable to pay
training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and art. 2
par. 1 lit. i. in conjunction with art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
Training compensation in connection with the player B (Club D, from country C / Club K, from country
G)
9/12
18.
Turning its attention to the calculation of the training compensation payable
by the Respondent to the Claimant, the Chamber referred to art. 5 par. 1 and
par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that as a general rule,
to calculate the training compensation due to a player’s former club, it is
necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club if it
had trained the player itself. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 5 par.
3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that to ensure that training
compensation for very young players is not set at unreasonably high levels, the
training costs for players for the seasons between their 12th and 15th birthday
shall be based on the training and education costs for category 4 clubs, i.e. on
the basis of EUR 10,000 per year in the case at hand.
19.
In continuation, the Chamber took into account that the Respondent belonged
to the category II within UEFA, which corresponds to the amount of EUR
60,000 per year, and that the player, born on 10 February 1993, was registered
with the Claimant as from 20 March 2005 until 26 July 2009, i.e. during 9
months of the season of the player’s 12th birthday, during the complete
seasons of the player’s 13th, 14th and 15th birthday as well as during 7 months of
the season of the player’s 16th birthday. In view of the foregoing, and
considering art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided
that the Respondent has to pay the amount of EUR 72,500 to the Claimant as
training compensation.
20.
Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim, the Chamber
established that the Respondent has to pay, in conformity with its
longstanding practice, interest at 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training
compensation as from 6 March 2010 until the date of effective payment.
21.
Lastly, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in
combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which in
the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Chamber relating to disputes
regarding training compensation and the solidarity mechanism costs in the
maximum amount of currency of country H 25,000 are levied. The costs are to
be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings.
22.
According to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings
are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute.
23.
In respect of the above, the DRC held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 270,000 related to the claim of
the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum
Training compensation in connection with the player B (Club D, from country C / Club K, from country
G)
10/12
amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H
25,000 (cf. table in Annexe A).
24.
As a result, taking into account the particularities of the present matter, the
number of issues that had to be addressed as well as that the Claimant’s claim
was only partially accepted, the DRC determined the costs of the current
proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 16,000, which shall be
split equally between the Claimant and the Respondent.
*****
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club D, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club K, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from
the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 72,500 plus 5%
interest p.a. on said amount as from 6 March 2010 until the date of effective
payment.
3.
In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the
stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to
FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
4.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
5.
The final amount of costs of the proceedings, amounting to currency of
country H 16,000, are to be paid within 30 days as from the date of
notification of the present decision as follows:
5.1. Currency of country H 8,000 by the Respondent to FIFA to the
following bank account with reference to case no. XXXXXX:
5.2. Currency of country H 8,000 by the Claimant to FIFA. Given that the
Claimant has already paid the amount of currency of country C 5,000
as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the
Claimant has to pay the amount of currency of country C 3,000 to FIFA
to the aforementioned bank account with reference to case no.
XXXXXX.
Training compensation in connection with the player B (Club D, from country C / Club K, from country
G)
11/12
6.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of
the account number to which the remittance under point 2. is to be made and
to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 67 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed
against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal
must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this
decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the
directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10
days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the
appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the
appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives).
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
______________________
Markus Kattner
Deputy Secretary General
Enclosed: CAS directives
Training compensation in connection with the player B (Club D, from country C / Club K, from country
G)
12/12