Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 February 2013,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member
Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member
Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member
Essah M. Saleh Al-Housani (United Arab Emirates), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Club V, from country S
as Claimant
against the club,
Club X, from country P
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in connection with the player M
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of country S,
the player M from country S (hereinafter: the player), born on 6 March 1991, was
registered with the country S clubs:
- Club A
as from 9 September 2004 until 30 August
2005;
- Club V
as from 31 August 2005 until 23 August 2009;
- Club B
as from 24 August 2009 until 24 August 2010.
2.
The Football Federation of country S confirmed that the player was registered
as an amateur with all above-mentioned clubs.
3.
The football seasons in country S during the period of time the player was
registered with Club V (hereinafter: the Claimant) started on 1 July and ended
on 30 June of the following year.
4.
According to the aforementioned player passport, the Claimant belonged to the
category IV (indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year) during the period of time
the player was registered with it.
5.
The Football Federation of country P confirmed that the player was registered
with Club X (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 31 August 2010 as a professional.
6.
Furthermore, the Football Federation of country P confirmed that the
Respondent belonged to the category II (indicative amount EUR 60,000 per year)
during the season when the player was registered with it, i.e. 2010/2011.
7.
On 27 January 2012, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of
training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player, in
July 2010, had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent. In
particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 200,000, as well as 5% interest p.a.
calculated as of the date on which the training compensation became due.
8.
On 2 July 2012, the Respondent stated in its reply that the player had already
signed a professional contract with Club B before he was transferred to the
Respondent, indicating that the transfer contract between the clubs contained
the wording “Club B is the holder of the federative rights of the professional
football player”. Consequently, the Respondent stated that the Claimant is not
Training compensation in connection with the player M
(Club V, from country S / Club X, from country P)
2/7
entitled to receive training compensation. However, it stated that the Claimant
is entitled to receive solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of
the player.
9.
The Respondent provided a copy of the transfer agreement concluded between
it and Club B on 23 June 2010 (hereinafter: the agreement). The agreement
stipulated that Club B is the holder of the federative rights of the professional
football player and that the Respondent would pay Club B the amount of EUR
6,000,000 in several instalments. The Respondent reiterated its statement that
the Claimant is not entitled to training compensation.
10.
In reply to the Respondent’s latest statements, the Claimant argued that the
Football Federation of country S confirmed that the player was registered in
country S as an amateur only. It is therefore the Respondent that shall prove the
contrary. According to the Claimant, it cannot be concluded from the agreement
that the player already had the status of professional when he was registered
with Club B.
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 27
January 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, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with
the Respondent on 31 August 2010, the Chamber analysed which 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 2009,
Training compensation in connection with the player M
(Club V, from country S / Club X, from country P)
3/7
2010 and 2012), and considering that the player was registered with the
Respondent on 31 August 2010, the 2009 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, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The
members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well
as the documentation on file.
5.
First of all, the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 6 March 1991 and
was registered with the Claimant as from 31 August 2005 until 23 August 2009
as an amateur.
6.
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 200,000, indicating that the player had signed his first professional
contract with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.
7.
Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rebutted the claim of the
Claimant, alleging that the player had already signed his first professional
contract with his previous club, Club B indicating that the transfer contract with
Club B contained the wording “Club B is the holder of the federative rights of
the professional football player”. Therefore, the Respondent argued that the
Claimant is not entitled to receive training compensation.
8.
Equally, the DRC took due note of the content of the transfer agreement
concluded between the Respondent and Club B, which stipulated that Club B is
the holder of the federative rights of the professional football player and that
the Respondent would pay to Club B the amount of EUR 6,000,000 in several
instalments.
9.
After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, taking into consideration
all the aforementioned arguments, the Chamber observed that the parties, in
particular, disputed whether the player had already obtained the status of
professional prior to his transfer from Club B to the Respondent.
In this regard, the DRC started by analysing the transfer agreement concluded
between the Respondent and Club B and referred to the wording of the
agreement, which stipulated that “Club B is the holder of the federative rights
of the professional football player”. Equally, the Chamber referred to the
10.
Training compensation in connection with the player M
(Club V, from country S / Club X, from country P)
4/7
transfer compensation of EUR 6,000,000 that was established in the agreement
and was to be paid by the Respondent to Club B for the transfer of the player.
11.
In light of the above, the members of the Chamber were comfortably satisfied
in their conclusion that, regardless of the information received from the The
Football Federation of country S indicating the status of the player as amateur
with Club B, the player had already obtained the professional status during the
time he was registered with Club B In other words, the fact that Club B transfers
the player as a professional and for the amount of EUR 6,000,000 clearly
indicates that the player was already a professional player when he was
registered with Club B.
12.
Taking into consideration the above, the Chamber referred to the rules
applicable to cases regarding training compensation and stated that, as
established in art. 20 of the Regulations as well as in art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of
the Regulations, training compensation is payable, as a general rule, when a
player is registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the
season of the player’s 23rd birthday or when a professional is transferred
between clubs of two different associations before the end of the season of the
player’s 23rd birthday. In case the latter occurs, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4
of the Regulations sets forth that training compensation will only be owed to
the player’s former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club.
13.
In this context, the DRC pointed out that, in fact, the player was transferred as
a professional from his former club, Club B, to the Respondent and that, taking
into account the relevant provisions mentioned above, the Claimant is not
entitled to receive training compensation since the Claimant was not the
player’s former club in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations.
14.
In light of all the foregoing, the Chamber rejected the Claimant’s claim.
15.
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 CHF 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.
Training compensation in connection with the player M
(Club V, from country S / Club X, from country P)
5/7
16.
In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 200,000 related to the claim of
the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount
of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000 (cf. table in Annex A).
17.
As a result, and taking into account the particularities of the present matter, the
complexity of the case as well as that the claim of the Claimant has been
rejected, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the
amount of CHF 18,000, which shall be borne by the Claimant.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club V, is rejected.
2.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 18,000 are to be paid
by the Claimant within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present
decision, to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of CHF
5,000 as advance of costs at the beginning of the present proceedings, the
amount of CHF 13,000 is to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with
reference to case nr.:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
*****
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).
Training compensation in connection with the player M
(Club V, from country S / Club X, from country P)
6/7
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 M
(Club V, from country S / Club X, from country P)
7/7