Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 February 2014,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Todd Durbin (USA), member
Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Club L, from country P
as Claimant
against the club,
Club C, from country B
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in connection
with the player R
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The country P Football Federation confirmed that the player, Player R (hereinafter:
the player), born in January 1989, was registered as an amateur with its affiliated
clubs:
- Club A as from 8 October 2003 until 27 September 2004,
- Club L (hereinafter: the Claimant) as from 1 September 2008 until 13 August
2009,
- Club P as from 13 August 2009 until 30 August 2010,
- Club E as from 31 August 2010 until 24 July 2011.
2.
The player passport issued by the country P Football Federation indicates that also
in between the periods stipulated above, the player was at all times registered as an
amateur.
3.
The football season in country P lasts from 1 July until 30 June of the following year.
4.
According to a written confirmation of the country B Football Association, the
player was registered with its affiliated Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 11
July 2011 as an amateur and confirmed that the Respondent communicated on 14
June 2012 having signed a professional contract with the player.
5.
The country P Football Federation confirmed that the Claimant belonged to the
category IV (indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year within UEFA) during the time
when the player was registered with it.
6.
The country B Football Association confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the
category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year within UEFA) during the
season when the player was registered with the club.
7.
On 14 August 2013, the player’s transfer from the Respondent to Club D, from
country S was completed in the Transfer Matching System (TMS). According to the
player passport uploaded by the country B Football Association within the scope of
the pertinent transfer instruction in the TMS, the player was registered as a
professional with the Respondent during the seasons 2011/2012 and 2012/2013.
8.
On 8 November 2011, the Claimant contacted FIFA requesting training
compensation in relation to the transfer of the player to the Respondent and
therewith his first registration as a professional. In particular, the Claimant
requested the amount of EUR 35,000 plus 5% default interest p.a. on said amount
as from the 31st day of the player’s registration with the Respondent.
Training compensation in connection with the player R
(Club L, from country P / Club C, from country B)
2/15
9.
In support of its claim, the Claimant indicated that it was informed by the
Respondent that it considered that the player was an amateur as it only signed a
“formation contract” on 31 July 2011. However, the Claimant stated that in fact the
Respondent signed the player as a professional and that the official labelling of the
contract as “formation contract” should not have any influence on its actual nature.
10.
In addition to that, the mere fact that a country P player moves to country B in
order to play football may only be possible on the assumption that he was earning
sufficient remuneration to cover his daily expenses.
11.
In connection with this aspect, the Claimant quoted an interview given by the
Respondent’s managing director related to the player and to the contract with the
club, which also suggests that the player was signed as a professional:
“The agreement signed today, the only possible where the three parties at that
time could reach a consensus on all aspects: contractual, financial and other
conditions.”
12.
Finally, the Claimant indicated that according to the regulations of the country B
Football Association, there is no regulatory basis for formal non-professional
contracts in country B football.
13.
In its reply, the Respondent stated that on 31 July 2011 the player was only signed
on a “scholarship contract” as an amateur, whereas it signed the player as a
professional only after the player’s 23rd birthday as from 1 July 2012, which is why
no training compensation is due. In this respect, the Respondent submitted a copy
of the relevant “scholarship contract” which ran from 1 August 2011 until 30 June
2012 and indicated that the player was i) an amateur player and ii) was to receive
an amount of EUR 400 on a monthly basis (EUR 300 for “nutrition”, EUR 50 for
“transport” and EUR 50 for “sports equipment and the maintenance of such sport
equipment”).
14.
Equally, the Respondent submitted a copy of the contract of the player which ran
from 1 July 2012 until 30 June 2014. Said contract, inter alia, provided for a gross
monthly salary of EUR 2,000 and the payment of variable match bonuses. Moreover,
the contract in question stipulated the payment of a “sign-on-fee” in favor of the
player in the amount of EUR 45,000 for the season 2012/2013 and in the amount of
EUR 60,000 for the season 2013/14.
15.
Furthermore, the Respondent held that the country B Football Association
recognizes formal non-professional contracts such as the contract concluded with
the player and made reference to a DRC decision dated 28 July 2005 according to
Training compensation in connection with the player R
(Club L, from country P / Club C, from country B)
3/15
which the status of a player at the association has to be respected by FIFA and
cannot be disputed. Said decision stipulates inter alia the following:
“In continuation, the Chamber pointed out that in disputes concerning training
compensation, the nature of a contract between a player and a club is determined
by the relevant association. As a principle, the Chamber will not enter into the
question concerning the status of the player. In such case, the autonomy of the
Association must be respected by the Dispute Resolution Chamber, and therefore,
the status of the registration of such player at the Association shall be taken into
consideration in order to determine whether the conditions stipulating the payment
of training compensation have been fulfilled.”
16.
Moreover, the player was allegedly only “reimbursed at an acceptable height (400
EUR per month – travel expenses included)”, which ”corresponds with the expenses
the player effectively incurs in return to his training activity”. Hence, according to
art. 2 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the
Regulations), the player should be regarded as an amateur.
17.
In addition to the above, the Respondent indicated that, according to the
“scholarship contract”, the player did not have the obligation to participate in
professional games, which allegedly also indicates that the player was not signed as
a professional.
18.
Furthermore, the Respondent indicated that the quote from the interview with the
club’s managing director was falsely translated, as it was actually said:
“The present agreement, was the only possibility on which the three parties could
agree on that moment…” This allegedly also “affirms that there is no other contract
than the scholarship contract signed on the 31th of July 2011 and that the three
parties weren’t ready to sign a professional contract at that moment.”
19.
Finally, the Respondent argued that the amount claimed by the Claimant is
disproportionate. In this context, the Respondent pointed to the general purpose of
training compensation and provided its own calculation as to the actual training
costs the Claimant had allegedly occurred during the time the player was registered
with the latter club.
20.
In its replica, the Claimant stressed that that the player on 10 January 2012 entered
a written contract with the Respondent, in which the player was addressed as “a
full-time paid sportsman”. Therefore the player was allegedly a professional after
signature of said contract.
Training compensation in connection with the player R
(Club L, from country P / Club C, from country B)
4/15
21.
In addition, the Claimant held that the Respondent has not given sufficient proof
for the player’s alleged amateur status as they only provided registration forms
where the player was labelled as an amateur, instead of an official player passport
or written confirmations from the country B Football Association.
22.
In this context, the Claimant stated that the regulations of the country B Football
Association distinguish between “contractual players” and “amateurs”, which is
why there was no such thing as an amateur player with a written contract.
Therefore, the player could only be considered a professional.
23.
Furthermore, the Claimant raised doubts as to why the player would sign a
scholarship contract resp. a “Contrat de Formation” with the Respondent in the first
place, as the player was already 22 years old, had already played his fourth season
as a senior and was therefore “no longer in a proper age of going to school”.
24.
In this connection, the Claimant pointed out that the player was an important
member of the senior squad, playing 34 out of the 41 official matches during the
season of 2011/2012, which allegedly shows that the player already had the same
playing and training level as the other professional players, which should also
indicate that the training of the player had already ended, contrary to the content
of the scholarship contract.
25.
As for the remuneration of the player, the Claimant referred to art. 528 of the
regulations of the country B Football Association, which states that “the contract of
a non-amateur player must not provide an annual remuneration inferior to €
2.047,60”, whereas the player received a so called reimbursement of his expenses
for an annual amount of EUR 4,800. Bearing this in mind and in accordance with
art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations the player should therefore be considered a
professional.
26.
Finally, the Claimant stated that its claim was not disproportionate as it was in
accordance with art. 6 par. 1b of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
27.
In its final position, the Respondent admitted on the one hand that the player had
one good season in 2011/2012, but saw his performances diminish during the
following seasons. This and the fact that until the age of 23 no other team had
made a professional contract offer to the player, allegedly shows that the player’s
training was in fact not yet finished.
28.
Moreover, the Respondent objected to the Claimant’s interpretation of the
regulations of the country B Football Association, stating that “a player is qualified
as a professional player if he engages oneself to organize his footballing activity as
Training compensation in connection with the player R
(Club L, from country P / Club C, from country B)
5/15
a professional occupation and, if the player is bound by a contract notified to the
country B Football Association that commits the player to respond to all
convocations of the club and to participate to all football matches”. Furthermore,
“the country B regulations stipulate that a professional player has to earn a salary
of 8.850 EUR per year (Royal Decree of 19.06.2011 in execution of the Law of 24
February 1978). In this context, the Respondent repeated that the player did not
have the obligation to participate in official matches of the club, that he did not
organize his footballing activity by himself and that he did not earn the minimum
salary of a professional player.
29.
Besides, the Respondent stressed that according to the regulations of the country B
Football Association, the status as a “contractual player” was not dependent on the
existence of a written contract between the club and the player, but only of the
status of the player, i.e. amateur or professional. Therefore the player could sign an
amateur contract with the Respondent without being a “contractual player”,
meaning a professional player. Hence, the player had to be considered an amateur
until his 23rd birthday when he signed his first professional contract.
30.
As for the definition of a professional player according to the Regulations, the
Respondent insisted that the player did not receive a salary but a reimbursement of
his expenses, which mostly covered for the expenses for meals (EUR 10 per day),
transport before and after training (EUR 1.6 per day) as well as for equipment and
maintenance of equipment (EUR 1.6 per day).
31.
In addition to the foregoing, the Respondent stated that the country B Football
Association has qualified the player as an amateur as from 4 July 2011 until 1 July
2012, which, according to the jurisprudence of the DRC of 28 July 2005 (cf. point
14), has to be respected as “the nature of a contract between a player and a club is
determined by the relevant association who has the full autonomy to determine the
status of the player”. Therefore, the amateur status of the player cannot be
disputed.
32.
Finally, the Respondent reiterated its position that the amount of training
compensation claimed was disproportionate as its effective training costs were
allegedly much lower than the amounts stipulated in Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
33.
After being asked by FIFA to provide its comments regarding art. 6 par 3. of Annexe
4 of the Regulations, the Claimant stated that it was not the last club where the
player was registered before being registered with the Respondent.
Training compensation in connection with the player R
(Club L, from country P / Club C, from country B)
6/15
34.
Furthermore, the Claimant indicated that it was a purely amateur club during the
seasons the player was registered with it and provided a written confirmation of the
country P Football Federation in this regard. Therefore, the Claimant did not have
and still does not have the financial resources to propose a professional contract to
the player.
II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
In a first instance, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as
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 November
2011. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, edition 2008 (hereinafter:
Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the
Procedural Rules).
2.
Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with the
Respondent on 11 July 2011, the Chamber analysed which regulations 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 present claim was lodged
on 8 November 2011, the 2010 edition of the said regulations (hereinafter:
Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
3.
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, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide
on the present litigation concerning training compensation between clubs belonging
to different associations.
4.
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 started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as
well as the documentation on file.
5.
First of all, the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 5 January 1989 and was
registered with the Claimant as from 1 September 2008 until 13 August 2009 as an
amateur player. Equally, the Chamber took note that the player was registered with
the Club A, from country P as from 8 October 2003 until 27 September 2004, with
Club P as from 13 August 2009 until 30 August 2010 and with Club E as from 31
August 2010 until 24 July 2011, each time as an amateur player.
Training compensation in connection with the player R
(Club L, from country P / Club C, from country B)
7/15
6.
In continuation, the Chamber observed that the Claimant asserted that it was
entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR
35,000, as the player was transferred to a club belonging to a different association
before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday and registered with the
relevant club as a professional.
7.
Equally, the Chamber took note that the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim
for the payment of training compensation, stating that the player was registered
with it as an amateur as he was only signed on a “scholarship contract”, whereas he
signed his first contract as a professional only after the end of the season of his 23rd
birthday. Moreover, the Chamber noted that the aforementioned “scholarship
contract” which ran from 1 August 2011 until 30 June 2012, indicated that the player
was an amateur player and provided for a monthly salary of EUR 400, thereof the
amount of EUR 300 earmarked for “nutrition”, EUR 50 for “transport” and EUR 50
for “sports equipment and the maintenance of such sport equipment”, i.e. a yearly
salary of EUR 4,800.
8.
In addition to that, the Chamber took note of the written confirmation of the
country B Football Association, in which it attested that the Respondent, on 14 June
2012, signed a professional contract with the player, valid as of 1 July 2012.
Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that said contract, inter alia, provided for a
monthly gross salary of EUR 2,000 and the payment of variable match bonuses.
Moreover, the professional contract stipulated the payment of a “sign-on-fee” in
favor of the player in the amount of EUR 45,000 for the season 2012/2013 and in the
amount of EUR 60,000 for the season 2013/14.
9.
In this respect, the Chamber firstly deemed it important to establish whether the
player held the amateur status or the professional status at the time he was
registered with the Respondent or at least prior to the end of the 2011/2012 season.
10. In this regard, the members of the Chamber recalled that the contract of 31 July 2011
contained a provision stipulating that the player would render his services to the
Respondent as an amateur player and that, according to said contract, the player was
entitled to receive a monthly salary of EUR 400 from the Respondent as indemnities
for the costs related to nutrition, transport and sports equipment.
11. In this context, the Chamber turned its attention to art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations,
which stipulates that “a professional is a player who 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”. On this basis, the Chamber
considered that an amount such as EUR 400 per month could not be considered, from
Training compensation in connection with the player R
(Club L, from country P / Club C, from country B)
8/15
the outset, as insufficient to cover the expenses incurred through a player’s
footballing activity in country B. In fact, assessing the player’s status solely on his
remuneration for the 2011/2012 season, in the Chambers view, would rather suggest
that EUR 400 per month would be possibly sufficient to cover all football related
expenses. Nevertheless, considering the extensive argumentation of the Respondent
and, in particular, the diverging information from the country B Football Association,
the members of the Chamber deemed it necessary to further analyse the
circumstances of the matter at stake as well as the documentation at hand.
12. The Chamber recalled the content of art. 528 of the regulations of the country B
Football Association, according to which a player is to be regarded as “non-amateur”
if he has a written contract according to the regulations of the country B Football
Association and if he receives a yearly salary of at least EUR 2,047.60. Furthermore,
the Chamber recalled the contents of the country B “Royal decree of 19 June 2011”
and the “Law of 24 February 1978”, according to which a player is to be regarded as
a professional if he receives a yearly salary of at least EUR 8,850.
13. With this established, the Chamber asserted that by earning a yearly salary of EUR
4,800, i.e. a salary higher than EUR 2,047.60 and less than EUR 8,850, the player had
the status of “non-amateur”, according to the regulations of the country B Football
Association and the statutory laws of country B. Consequently, notwithstanding the
fact that the definition contained in the Regulations regarding the status of the
player would prevail as opposed to any national regulations, the Chamber observed
that the country B statutory laws and the country B Football Association regulations
did not facilitate the appreciation as to whether the player is to be considered an
amateur or a professional as per art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations.
14. Given the “non-amateur” status of the player, and bearing in mind that the
Regulations in art. 2 par. 2 only distinguish between amateur and professional
contracts whereas the status of “non-amateur” is not recognized as a category of its
own, the Chamber deemed that concrete circumstances of the individual case, i.e.
factors outside of the wording and the content of the “scholarship contract” would
also be of interest for the assessment of the status of the player during the season
2011/2012, i.e. the status of the player before the end of the season of his 23rd
birthday.
15. In this context, the Chamber recalled the Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
of 28 July 2005, where it is stipulated that “(…) the nature of a contract between a
player and a club is determined by the relevant association (…)” and that “the
autonomy of the Association must be respected by the Dispute Resolution Chamber,
and therefore, the status of the registration of such player at the Association shall be
taken into consideration in order to determine whether the conditions stipulating
Training compensation in connection with the player R
(Club L, from country P / Club C, from country B)
9/15
the payment of training compensation have been fulfilled.” In this context, the
Chamber made reference to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations which
establishes that “within the scope of the proceedings pertaining to the application of
these regulations, FIFA may use any documentation or evidence generated by or
contained in TMS or obtained by FIFA TMS GmbH on the basis of their investigation
powers (cf. Annexe 3, article 7 paragraph 4) in order to properly assess the issue at
stake.” On this basis, the members of the Chamber pointed to the player passport
which was uploaded by the country B Football Association in connection with the
subsequent transfer of the player from the Respondent to the Club D, from country S.
In said player passport, the country B Football Association stated that the player was
already registered as a professional during the season 2011/2012.
16. At this stage, the Chamber formed the belief that already based on the
aforementioned circumstances, it could be established that the player was already a
professional during the duration of the “scholarship contract” with the Respondent.
However, given the extensive argumentation of the parties in the present matter, the
Chamber also based its decision on the following circumstances.
17. Turning its attention to the additional argumentation of the Claimant in this regard,
the Chamber observed that the player and the Respondent signed the “scholarship
contract” on 31 July 2011, i.e. only five months before the player turned 23.
Moreover, the Chamber pointed to the undisputed fact that the player had already
participated in 34 out of the 41 official matches for the first team of the Respondent
during the seasons 2011/2012. Hence, the Chamber observed that the player had
played a substantial number of matches with the Respondent as well as that he was
an important player for the Respondent during the season 2011/2012, a fact
recognized by the Respondent itself. In the Chamber’s view, these sporting elements
rather speak in favour of the argument of the Claimant that the player was in fact
considered as a professional by the Respondent as of the conclusion of the contract
dated 31 July 2011.
18. Subsequently, the Chamber drew its attention to both the contents of the
“scholarship contract” and the professional contract signed between the player and
the Respondent on 14 June 2011, and, in this regard, particularly focused on the
monthly salary provided for in the “scholarship contract” as well as on the financial
details of the professional contract. In this context, the Chamber recalled that, during
the duration of the “scholarship contract”, the player received a monthly
remuneration of EUR 400. Subsequently, the Chamber noted that the professional
contract due to enter into force on the first day of the season of the player’s 24th
birthday provided for a gross salary of approximately EUR 24,000 per year as well as a
“sign-on-fee” in the amount of EUR 45,000 for the season 2012/2013. In this respect,
the Chamber found it worthwhile to underline that not only was the player’s
Training compensation in connection with the player R
(Club L, from country P / Club C, from country B)
10/15
monthly remuneration being multiplied by five as of 1 July 2012, but that a “sign-onfee” amounting to almost twice the amount of the yearly salary is rather unusual in
player contracts. Again, bearing in mind that the player only received a salary of EUR
400 before signing the contract for the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 seasons, the
Chamber formed the belief that by suddenly being awarded such a raise in salary and
a considerably high “sign-on-fee” upon signature of the second contract, it could not
be excluded that, the player was also compensated for accepting a lower salary in the
“scholarship contract” for the 2011/2012 season as an attempt to circumvent the
possible obligation of paying training compensation to the player’s former club(s).
Consequently, the Chamber concurred in the conclusion that the aforementioned
provided a further indication that the player was already a professional during the
season 2011/2012.
19. 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.
20. In conclusion, taking into consideration the remuneration received by the player as of
August 2011, that the country B Football Association in the player passport stated that
the player was registered as a “professional” (cf. point II.15), taking into account the
criteria set out in art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations as well as the circumstances in this
particular matter as illustrated above (cf. points II.17 and II.18), the members of the
Chamber unanimously concluded that the player was in fact already registered as a
professional during the season 2011/2012, i.e. during the duration of the “scholarship
contract” with the Respondent.
21. Having established 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 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.
22. 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
Training compensation in connection with the player R
(Club L, from country P / Club C, from country B)
11/15
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 a lex specialis.
23. However, in this regard, 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. 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).
24. On account of the above considerations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is
liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant.
25. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber
recalled that the player was born on 5 January 1989 and was registered with the
Claimant as from 1 September 2008 until 13 August 2009 as an amateur.
26. Equally, the Chamber recalled that the player was a professional while being
registered with the Respondent (cf. points I.7 and II.15).
27. On account of the above and in accordance with art. 20 in combination with Annexe
4 of the Regulations, the Chamber considered that the Claimant is, thus, entitled to
receive training compensation for the period as from 1 September 2008 until 13
August 2009.
28. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber referred
to the FIFA circular no. 1223 dated 29 April 2010 which provides details for the
calculation of training compensation as well as 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 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. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which contains special
provisions in case a player moves from a lower to a higher category club or from a higher
to a lower category club within the territory of the EU/EEA.
29. In continuation, the Chamber observed that according to the documentation on file,
the Claimant belonged to the category IV (indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year)
and the Respondent belonged to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000
per year) and that the player was registered with the Claimant as from 1 September
Training compensation in connection with the player R
(Club L, from country P / Club C, from country B)
12/15
2008 until 13 August 2009. Therefore, the player was effectively registered with and
trained by the Claimant for a period of 11 months.
30. Consequently, and in light of the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber
decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and decided that the Respondent is
liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 32,082.
31. Moreover, taking into account the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe
4 of the Regulations, the DRC decided that the Respondent has to pay interest at a
rate of 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of the 31st day
of the registration of the player with the Respondent, i.e. as from as of 1 August
2011 until the date of effective payment.
32. 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 Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs
of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute.
33. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 35,000 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 Annexe
A).
34. As a result, considering that the case at hand did not compose especially complex
factual or legal issues and taking into account the degree of success by the Claimant,
the Chamber determined that the amount of currency of country H 3,000 has to be
paid by the Respondent to cover the costs of the present proceedings.
*****
Training compensation in connection with the player R
(Club L, from country P / Club C, from country B)
13/15
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club L, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the
date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 32,082 plus interest at a rate
of 5% p.a. on said amount as of 1 August 2011 until the date of effective payment.
3.
In the event that the aforementioned amount 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 costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 3,000 are
to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days of notification of the present decision,
to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no.:
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
Training compensation in connection with the player R
(Club L, from country P / Club C, from country B)
14/15
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:
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Enclosed: CAS directives
Training compensation in connection with the player R
(Club L, from country P / Club C, from country B)
15/15