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 A, from country P
as Claimant
against the club,
Club J, from country L
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in connection with the player G
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the player passport issued by the country P Football Federation
,the player, Player G (hereinafter: the player), born in December 1988, was
registered as an amateur with the following country P clubs:
- Club U
- Club A
- Club U
- Club N
- Club U
- Club P
- Club D
- Club Q
as from 6 April 1998 until 12 October
2004;
as from 13 October 2004 until 25
August 2005;
as from 26 August 2005 until 22
November 2006;
as from 23 November 2006 until 2
January 2008;
as from 3 January 2008 until 5 August
2008;
as from 6 August 2008 until 29
December 2008;
as from 30 December 2008 until 22
October 2009;
as from 23 October 2009 until 15
September 2010.
2.
The country D Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered
with its affiliated club, Club H, as from 16 September 2010 until 31 January
2011 as an amateur. The country D Football Federation issued the International
Transfer Certificate (ITC) in favor of country L Football Federation) on 2
February 2011.
3.
The football seasons in country P during the period of time the player was
registered with Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant) started on 1 July and ended
on 30 June of the following year.
4.
The country P Football Federation confirmed that the Claimant belonged to
the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) during the period of
time the player was registered with it.
5.
The country L Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered
with Club J (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 10 February 2011.
6.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System
(TMS), the Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount EUR
30,000 per year) during the season when the player was registered with it, i.e.
the 2010/2011 season.
On 22 June 2012,
7.
Training compensation in connection with the player G
(Club A, from country P / Club J, from country L)
2/10
8.
On 29 October 2013, the Respondent referred in its reply to art. 2 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, stating that the player’s
salary with the club, amounting to EUR 800 per month, was far below the
social minimum in country L, amounting to EUR 1,921.03, according to art.
L.222-1 of the working code of country L. Therefore, the Respondent argued
that the player cannot be considered a professional. Moreover, the Respondent
stated that the player did not have an employment contract with the club but
a “contrat de louage d’ouvrage” which, according to the Respondent, does not
constitute an employment contract.
9.
In continuation, the Respondent stated that it is a purely amateur club, since its
training sessions take place during the evening and not during the day.
Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the player was already 22 years old
when he signed the contract with the club and that, therefore, the monthly
remuneration of the player has a different dimension than in case of a younger
player who is wanted by professional clubs.
10. In addition, the Respondent referred to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and stated that none of the
previous clubs of the player have offered him a professional contract or
showed their interest in keeping the services of the player. Further, the
Respondent explained that it has never recruited a player for whom it had to
pay training compensation of more than 20% of the financial capacity of the
club, especially not for a player who played only one match for the club’s first
team and for whom it did not receive any compensation upon his subsequent
transfer to a country C club. The Respondent stated that the player did never
have professional status in country L and that, therefore, no training
compensation is due.
11. Finally, in case FIFA decides that the Respondent is liable to pay training
compensation, the Respondent stated that the amount of training
compensation shall be reduced, in view of the club’s annual budget of EUR
620,000, and should anyway be paid by the player’s former club, Club H, which
is of a similar level as the Respondent. Furthermore, the Respondent referred
to jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which according to
the Respondent, established that a decision of FIFA must be based on objective
criteria such as the number of matches played in the club’s first team.
12. As to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players, the Claimant stated that this provision only applies to the player’s
former club, Club H.
Training compensation in connection with the player G
(Club A, from country P / Club J, from country L)
3/10
13. According to the information contained in TMS, the Respondent and the
player signed a “contract de louage d’ouvrage” on 20 January 2011, valid as
from that date until the end of the 2011/2012 season.
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 22 June 2012. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing
the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at
hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 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.
3.
Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the
matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010 and
2012), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on
10 February 2011, the 2010 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.
4.
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been
established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber
started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments
and the documentation submitted by the parties. 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.
In continuation, the DRC took note that the Claimant maintained that it is
entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount
of EUR 17,369.86, indicating that the player had signed his first professional
contract with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd
birthday.
5.
Training compensation in connection with the player G
(Club A, from country P / Club J, from country L)
4/10
6.
Likewise, the DRC noted that the Respondent rebutted the claim of the
Claimant, stating that the player’s salary with the club, amounting to EUR 800
per month, was far below the social minimum in country L, amounting to EUR
1,921.03, according to art. L.222-1 of the working code of country L. Therefore,
the Respondent argued that the player cannot be considered a professional in
view of art. 2 of the Regulations. Moreover, the DRC noted that the
Respondent stated that the player did not have an employment contract with
the club but a “contrat de louage d’ouvrage” which, according to the
Respondent, does not constitute an employment contract.
7.
Equally, the DRC noted that the Respondent referred to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe
4 of the Regulations and stated that none of the previous clubs of the player
had offered him a professional contract or showed their interest in keeping
the services of the player. The Respondent stated that the player did never
have professional status in country L and that, therefore, no training
compensation is due.
8.
Finally, the DRC took note of the Respondent’s submission that in case it
decides that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation, the
Respondent stated that the amount of training compensation shall be
reduced, in view of the club’s annual budget of EUR 620,000, and should
anyway be paid by the player’s former club, Club H, which is of a similar level
as the Respondent.
9.
After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, the Chamber held that
it first had to establish whether the player held the amateur status or the
professional status at the time he was registered with the Respondent. To this
end, the Chamber examined the “contract de louage d’ouvrage” that was
uploaded in the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
10.
In this regard, the members of the Chamber duly noted that, according to said
contract, the player was entitled to receive from the Respondent, in exchange
for his services during the 2010/2011 season, the fixed amount of EUR 800 per
month, as well as EUR 100 if he played in the starting eleven and EUR 50 if he
participated as a substitute. Furthermore, during the 2011/2012 season, the
player was entitled to receive the fixed amount of EUR 800 per month, as well
as EUR 150 if he played in the starting eleven and EUR 75 if he participated as
a substitute. Additionally, the player was entitled to receive a bonus
amounting to EUR 25 per point, travel expenses in the amount of EUR 1,000
per season, as well as EUR 2,000 in case the Respondent would become the
national champion during the seasons 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 and EUR 500
in case the Respondent would qualify for a European competition at the end
of the seasons 2010/2011 and 2011/2012.
11.
In this context, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations, which
stipulates that “A professional is a player who has a written contract with a
Training compensation in connection with the player G
(Club A, from country P / Club J, from country L)
5/10
club and is paid more for his footballing activity than the expenses he
effectively incurs. All other players are considered to be amateurs”.
12.
Taking into consideration the criteria set out in art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations
as well as the amounts payable to the player on the basis of the
aforementioned contract, the members of the Chamber unanimously
concluded that the player was in fact paid more for his footballing activity
than the expenses he effectively incurred. In this regard, the Chamber was
eager to emphasize that a player’s remuneration as per the criteria set out in
art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations constitutes the decisive factor in the
determination of the status of the player and that the legal nature or the
designation of the contract is of no relevance in this regard. This approach has
been confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in its decision CAS
2006/A/XXXX, whereby the Panel also emphasized that the definition
contained in the mentioned provision is the only ground to establish a player’s
status. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber pointed out that according
to said decision, the classification of a player made by the association of his
club is not decisive to determine the status of a player.
13.
Equally, the Chamber highlighted that the second element contained in said
art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations, i.e. the existence of a written contract, is met.
14.
On account of all the above, the Chamber concurred that the player was
registered as a professional with the Respondent.
15.
Having established the above, the Chamber referred to the rules applicable to
training compensation. In this context, the Chamber started by stating that, as
established 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 professional
is registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of
the player’s 23rd birthday. In case the player is registered for the first time as a
professional, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that
the club with which the player is registered is responsible for paying training
compensation within 30 days of registration to every club with which the
player has previously been registered and that has contributed to his training
starting from the season of his 12th birthday.
16.
The aforementioned having been established, the Chamber then referred to
art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which contains special provisions
regarding players moving from one association to another association inside
the territory of the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA). In
this regard, the Chamber indicated that, since the player moved from one
association to another association inside the territory of the EU, said article is
applicable. Hence, the Chamber concluded that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations applies in the case at hand as lex specialis.
Training compensation in connection with the player G
(Club A, from country P / Club J, from country L)
6/10
17.
However, in this regard and with reference to the Respondent’s argument that
the Claimant did not offer the player a contract, the Chamber pointed out
that, in casu, a possible obligation to offer the player a contract in compliance
with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations would in principle lie with the
former club of the player and not with the Claimant. In this respect, the
Chamber recalled that the Claimant was not the player’s former club, since the
player was registered with six other clubs after he had left the Claimant (cf.
point I./1. and I./2. above). As stated in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations, said provision is without prejudice to the right of training
compensation of the player’s previous club(s).
18.
On account of all of the above considerations, the Chamber decided that the
Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant.
19.
Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber
referred to art. 5 par. 1 and par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which
stipulate that as a general rule, to calculate the training compensation, it is
necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club if it
had trained the player itself.
20.
In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the player was born in December
1988 and was registered with the Claimant as from 13 October 2004 until 25
August 2005.
21.
Therefore, the DRC considered that the Claimant is, thus, entitled to receive
training compensation for the period as from 13 October 2004 until 25 August
2005.
22.
Furthermore, the DRC recalled that the Respondent belonged to the category
III within UEFA, which corresponds to the amount of EUR 30,000 per year, and
the Claimant belonged to category II within UEFA, which corresponds to EUR
60,000 per year.
23.
In view of all of the above and taking into account the amount claimed as well
as art. 6 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, the DRC decided to accept the claim of
the Claimant and held that the Respondent is, in principle, liable to pay the
amount of EUR 17,369.86 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation
to the registration of the player with the Respondent.
24.
However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent had, on a
subsidiary note, requested the Chamber to consider a possible reduction of the
amount of training compensation payable to the Claimant. In particular, the
Respondent is of the opinion that the payment of training compensation
amounting to EUR 105,000 (together with the claims lodged by Club U, from
country P and Club P) would not be in a reasonable relation to the
Training compensation in connection with the player G
(Club A, from country P / Club J, from country L)
7/10
Respondent’s yearly budget of EUR 620,000. In addition, the DRC noted that
the Respondent alleged that the player had remained registered with it for
four months only and that the player had only played one single match in the
first team of the Respondent during these four months.
25.
In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, according to art. 5 par. 4 of Annexe
4 of the Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber may review disputes
concerning the amount of training compensation payable and shall have
discretion to adjust this amount if it is clearly disproportionate to the case
under review. In this regard, the members of the Chamber were, however,
eager to emphasize that such possibility allowed by the Regulations would, in
any case, have to be analysed on a case-by-case basis.
26.
In this context, and reverting to the Respondent’s arguments (cf. point II./24.
above), the Chamber pointed out that, according to art. 20 and art. 2 of
Annexe 4 of the Regulations, and as pointed out by the Court of Arbitration
for Sport (CAS) in the case CAS 2006/A/XXX Club M v/ Club T & country F
Football Federation, the player’s first registration as a professional before the
end of the season of his 23rd birthday is, in itself, sufficient to trigger the right
of training clubs to claim training compensation. Moreover, in the
aforementioned case, in which the CAS also dealt with a request to reduce the
amount of training compensation, the CAS highlighted that the Regulations
do not set out any minimum length of the contractual relationship between
the player and the club where he signs his first professional contract.
27.
Similar to the aforementioned considerations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
deemed that the allegation that the player only played one match in the first
team could not be taken into account as an element to reduce the amount of
training compensation.
28.
What is more, the DRC underlined that the Respondent had not substantiated
its request with any pertinent documentary evidence in accordance with art.
12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which stipulates that any party claiming a
right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. In fact, the
Respondent merely alleged that the amount payable would be
disproportionate without having produced any evidence to corroborate such
allegation.
29.
On account of these considerations and in the absence of any well-founded
arguments and documentation in support of the Respondent’s request to
adjust the amount, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the
Chamber had no alternative but to decide that the amount of training
compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant could not be
adjusted and that therefore the amount of EUR 17,369.86 is payable.
Training compensation in connection with the player G
(Club A, from country P / Club J, from country L)
8/10
30.
Moreover, taking into account the Claimant’s claim, the DRC decided that the
Respondent has to pay interest of 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training
compensation as from 1 August 2011 until the date of effective payment.
31.
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
proceedings before the DRC relating to disputes regarding training
compensation, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25’000
are levied. It is further stipulated that the costs are to be borne in
consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and that, in
accordance with Annex A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings
are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute.
32.
In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 17,369.86 related to the claim
of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum
amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 5,000
(cf. table in Annex A).
33.
As a result, and taking into account that the case at hand did not compose any
complex factual or legal issues as well as the degree of success, the Chamber
determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of
country H 3,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent.
III.
*****
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club J, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from
the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 17,369.86 plus 5%
interest p.a. on said amount as of 1 August 2011 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.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 3,000
are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of the
notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account
with reference to case nr. :
5.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of
the account number to which the remittance under point 2. above is to be
made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment
received.
Training compensation in connection with the player G
(Club A, from country P / Club J, from country L)
9/10
*****
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 G
(Club A, from country P / Club J, from country L)
10/10