Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 March 2014,
in the following composition:
Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman
Jon Newman (USA), member
Eirik Monsen (Norway), member
Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Club M, from country S
as Claimant
against the club,
Club L, from country C
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in connection with the player J
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the player passport issued by the country S Football Association,
the player J (hereinafter: the player), born in April 1992, was registered as a
professional with the following country S clubs:
- Club Z
- Club R (on loan)
- Club Z
- Club M (on loan)
2.
as from 1 September 2007 until 26
July 2011;
as from 27 July 2011 until 31 January
2012;
as from 1 February 2012 until 8
February 2012;
as from 9 February 2012 until 30 June
2012 and as from 16 July 2012 until 31
January 2013.
The football seasons in country S during the period of time the player was
registered with Club M (hereinafter: the Claimant), ran as follows:
- the season 2011/2012: as from 23 July until 27 May;
- the season 2012/2013: as from 21 July until 1 June 2013.
3.
The country S Football Association confirmed that 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.
4.
The Football Association of country C confirmed that the player was registered
with its affiliated club, Club L (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 13 February
2013.
5.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System
(TMS), the Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR
30,000 per year) during the season when the player was registered with it, i.e.
the 2012/2013 season.
6.
On 17 June 2013, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of
training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player,
on 1 February 2013, was transferred as a professional from Club Z to the
Respondent. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 30,000 plus 5% interest
as of 4 March 2013.
Training compensation in connection with the player J
(Club M, from country S / Club L, from country C)
2/11
7.
The Claimant referred to a DRC decision (3121474, 1 March 2012) stating that
in cases of a transfer on loan, it is not only the former club stricto sensu which
is entitled to training compensation, but also the “former club” that registered
the player on a loan basis.
8.
On 20 December 2013, the Respondent replied to the Claimant’s claim and
argued that, according to art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players, it is only the former club of the player, i.e. Club
Z, which is entitled to training compensation. Furthermore, the Respondent
referred to art. 6 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players and stated that the player had completed his training
before he joined the Claimant, since the player was playing in country S’s
under 19 national team, he had signed at least 3 professional contracts before
he joined the Claimant, the player was a regular player in the Claimant’s
starting line up and the Claimant agreed to take over the obligation to pay the
player’s “considerable remuneration” during his period on loan with the club.
Finally, in the event that the Claimant is indeed entitled to training
compensation, the Respondent argued that the correct amount shall be EUR
20,000, based on the average training costs of the parties.
9.
According to the information contained in TMS, the Respondent, on 1 February
2013, entered a transfer instruction into the TMS by means of which it
“engaged the player against payment” from Club Z, for the amount of EUR
83,117.
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 17 June 2013. Consequently, the 2012 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 2012 edition 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 J
(Club M, from country S / Club L, from country C)
3/11
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 (edition 2012), and
considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 13
February 2013, the 2012 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. However, the DRC 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.
5.
First of all, the DRC took note that the Claimant maintained that it is entitled
to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR
30,000, indicating that the player was transferred as a professional from Club Z
to the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.
6.
However, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rebutted the claim of the
Claimant, arguing that, according to art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations, it is only the former club of the player, i.e. Club Z, which is
entitled to training compensation.
7.
Equally, the DRC took due note of the Respondent’s statement that the player
had completed his training before he joined the Claimant, thereby referring to
art. 6 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
8.
After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, the Chamber referred
to the rules applicable to training compensation and stated that, as established
in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 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 23 rd
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.
Training compensation in connection with the player J
(Club M, from country S / Club L, from country C)
4/11
9.
Furthermore, according to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations, professionals may
be loaned to another club on the basis of a written agreement between the
professional and the clubs concerned. Moreover, the last sentence of said
provision stipulates that any such loan is subject to the same rules as apply to
the transfer of players, including the provisions on training compensation and
the solidarity mechanism.
10.
Following the above, the Chamber stressed that one of the aims of the last
sentence of art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations is to ensure that training clubs
which register a player on a loan basis also benefit from the solidarity
mechanism and training compensation, provided that the relevant
prerequisites in the pertinent provisions of the Regulations are fulfilled. This
approach is also in line with the Chamber’s well-established jurisprudence that
all clubs which have in actual fact contributed to the training and education of
a player as from the age of 12 are, in principle, entitled to training
compensation for the timeframe that the player was effectively trained by
them.
11.
In other words, the Chamber emphasised that the nature of the player’s
registration with a club claiming training compensation, i.e. on a definite or on
a temporary basis, is in fact irrelevant with respect to the question as to
whether such club would be entitled to receive training compensation for the
period of time that the player was effectively trained by that club.
12.
In this respect and for the sake of good order, the Chamber deemed it
essential to emphasise that, as to the liability to pay training compensation,
the analogy established in art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations could not be
extended to the case in which players were loaned to other clubs and thus are
not being definitively transferred to a new club. In other words, the transfer of
a player from the club of origin to the club that accepts the player on loan as
well as the return of the player from the club that accepted him on loan to the
club of origin do not constitute a subsequent transfer in the sense of art. 3 par.
1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. The Chamber was eager to point out
that it could not have been the intention of the legislator of the relevant
regulatory provision (art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations) to trigger the
consequences of art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the occasion
of a transfer on a loan basis and, thus, potentially depriving the loan of its
essential flexibility and function of providing young players the opportunity to
gain practical experience in another club in order to develop in a positive way,
personally and, eventually, also for the benefit of the player’s new club.
Training compensation in connection with the player J
(Club M, from country S / Club L, from country C)
5/11
13.
Following the above, the Chamber pointed out that the obligation to pay
training compensation thus arises in case a player is definitively transferred
from one club to another club belonging to a different association, but not
when he is temporarily transferred to another club while still being
contractually bound to his club of origin (yet, with the effects of the relevant
contract being temporarily suspended), such as a loan. Hence, the relevant
entitlement can only be claimed towards a new club that acquires the services
of a player on a definitive and permanent basis subject to the fulfilment of the
prerequisites established in art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
14.
As to the argument of the Respondent that the Claimant is not the former club
in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the
Chamber wished to recall that art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 stipulates that
“In the case of subsequent transfers of the professional, training compensation
will only be owed to his former club for the time he was effectively trained by
that club”. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant was
not the player’s former club stricto sensu, however, the Chamber pointed out
that, within the framework of loans, the period of time that the player was
registered with Club Z and the period of time that the player was registered
with the Claimant on loan, should be considered as one entire timeframe. Any
other interpretation would lead to the situation in which clubs accepting a
player on loan would never be entitled to receive training compensation, even
if they contribute to the training and education of players.
15.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber deemed that the Respondent’s
interpretation of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations would
clearly contravene the intention of the legislator of the Regulations according
to which all training clubs shall, in principle, be rewarded for their efforts
invested in training young players, including those clubs that have accepted a
player on a temporary basis.
16.
Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the
Chamber concurred that it had to reject the Respondent’s argument in this
regard.
17.
In continuation, the DRC 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 country S to the country C, i.e. from one
association to another association inside the territory of the EU, said article is
applicable.
Training compensation in connection with the player J
(Club M, from country S / Club L, from country C)
6/11
18.
Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber referred to art. 6 par. 2
of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which stipulates that, inside the EU/EEA, the
final season of training may occur before the season of the player’s 21 st
birthday if it is established that the player completed his training before that
time. In this respect, the DRC emphasised that cases involving a possible early
completion of a player’s training period have to be analysed on a case-by-case
basis, taking into consideration all the specific circumstances and all the
evidence produced. Thus, several factors and indications have to be considered
in order to establish whether a particular player’s training has indeed been
completed before the age of 21, as the Respondent stated. For the sake of
completeness, the members of the Chamber stressed that both the DRC and
the CAS have adopted a strict approach in establishing the early completion of
the player’s training before the age of 21, so as to not jeopardize the right of
training clubs to, in principle, receive training compensation.
19.
In this regard, the Chamber noted, once more, all the specific circumstances of
the present matter as well as all the evidence produced by the parties.
According to the Respondent, the player completed his training period before
he joined the Claimant, since the player was playing in country S’s under 19
national team, he had signed at least 3 professional contracts before he joined
the Claimant, the player was a regular player in the Claimant’s starting line up
and the Claimant agreed to take over the obligation to pay the player’s
“considerable remuneration” during his period on loan with the club.
20.
In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that the player had indeed played
some matches with country S’s under 19 national team. However, the members
of the Chamber outlined that this may be an indication of the player’s talent,
skills and level of training, but that such fact is in itself not conclusive to
establish the player had completed his training before his 21 st birthday.
21.
Moreover, the members of the Chamber emphasised that, according to the
player passport issued by the country S Football Association, the player was
transferred on loan from Club Z to Club R, a club playing in the second division
of country S, and, after returning to Club Z for 8 days, the player was again
transferred on loan to the Claimant, which was also playing in the second
division of country S at the time the player was registered with it.
Furthermore, according to the loan agreement concluded between the
Claimant and Club Z, the player was transferred on loan free of charge. The
DRC held that the fact that Club Z decided to transfer the player again on loan
to a club in a lower division, as well as that such loan transfer was free of
Training compensation in connection with the player J
(Club M, from country S / Club L, from country C)
7/11
charge, are clear indications that the player’s training was not yet completed
at that time.
22.
Furthermore, the DRC took note that, according to the loan agreement
concluded between the Claimant and Club Z, the Claimant agreed with Club Z
to take over the obligation to pay the player’s salary during his period on loan
with the club. However, the DRC stressed that the Respondent had not
submitted any evidence in support of its allegation that the player was to
receive a “considerable remuneration”.
23.
In light of the above and taking into account all the above-mentioned
elements and circumstances, as well as the strict approach adopted by the DRC
and the CAS in similar cases, the Chamber concurred that it could not be
established that it was evident that the player had indeed completed his
training period before his loan transfer to the Claimant. Consistently with all
the above, the Chamber concluded that training compensation is, in principle,
due.
24.
In continuation, the DRC pointed out that the 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. In this respect, the DRC
recalled that, according to the information contained in TMS, the Respondent,
on 1 February 2013, entered a transfer instruction into the TMS by means of
which it “engaged the player against payment” from Club Z.
25.
Finally, the DRC noted that the ITC of the player, uploaded in TMS and issued
by the country S Football Association, also stipulated that the player was
“formerly a member of Club Z.”
26.
In this regard, the Chamber concurred that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations is not applicable to the Claimant, since the player was on loan
with the Claimant and thereafter returned to Club Z.
27.
On account of the above considerations, the Chamber decided that the
Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant.
28.
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.
Training compensation in connection with the player J
(Club M, from country S / Club L, from country C)
8/11
29.
Having established the above, the DRC referred to art. 6 par. 1 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.
30.
In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 28 April
1992 and was registered with the Claimant as from 9 February 2012 until 30
June 2012 and as from 16 July 2012 until 31 January 2013.
31.
Equally, the DRC recalled that the Football Association country C confirmed
that the player was registered with the Respondent on 13 February 2013.
32.
Furthermore, and considering art. 3 par. 1 sent. 2 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations, which stipulates that the amount payable is calculated on a pro
rata basis according to the period of training that the player spent with each
club, the Chamber concluded that the effective period of time to be
considered in the matter at stake corresponds to 5 months of the 2011/2012
season and 7 months of the 2012/2013 season.
33.
In view of all of the above, the DRC decided to partially accept the claim of the
Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR
20,000 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration
of the player with the Respondent.
34.
Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2
of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided 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 of the 31st day of the
registration of the player with the Respondent on a definitive basis, i.e. as of
16 March 2013, until the date of effective payment.
35.
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.
36.
In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 30,000 related to the claim of
Training compensation in connection with the player J
(Club M, from country S / Club L, from country C)
9/11
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).
37.
As a result, and taking into account the particularities of the present matter,
the complexity of the case as well as the degree of success, the Chamber
determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of
country H 4,000, of which currency of country H 1,000 shall be borne by the
Claimant and currency of country H 3,000 by the Respondent.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club M, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club L, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from
the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 20,000 plus 5%
interest p.a. on said amount as of 16 March 2013 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 costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H
4,000 are to be paid within 30 days as from the date of notification of the
present decision, as follows:
5.1. The amount of currency of country H 3,000 has to be paid by the
Respondent.
5.2. The amount of currency of country H 1,000 has to be paid by the
Claimant.
5.3.
6.
The above-mentioned amounts have to be paid to FIFA to the
following bank account with reference to case nr.:
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
Training compensation in connection with the player J
(Club M, from country S / Club L, from country C)
10/11
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 J
(Club M, from country S / Club L, from country C)
11/11