Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 March 2016,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Philippe Piat (France), member
John Bramhall (England), member
Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member
Zola Majavu (South Africa), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Club A, country B
as Claimant
against the club,
Club C, country D
as Respondent
regarding a training compensation dispute
related to the transfer of the Player E
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of country
B, the player, Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 22 October 1993, was
registered with its affiliated club, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 1
August 2012 until 15 June 2013 as a professional on loan from the club from
country F, Club G.
2.
The football season in country B lasts from 1 July until 30 June of the following
year.
3.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System
(TMS), the Claimant belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR
30,000 per year within UEFA) during the season when the player was
registered with the club. Furthermore, according to the information contained
in the TMS, the player was transferred directly from the Claimant to the
Respondent.
4.
Equally, according to the information contained in the TMS, the player was
registered with the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent)
on 21 August 2013 as a professional and said club 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.
5.
On 27 July 2015, the Claimant contacted FIFA requesting training
compensation for the subsequent transfer of the player “from Club G to the
Respondent”. In particular, the Claimant is requesting the payment of the
amount of EUR 39,452.05 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 21 September 2013.
6.
In spite of having been invited by FIFA to provide its position regarding the
claim, the Respondent did not respond to the substance of the claim but only
stressed, after the expiry of the deadline given to provide its response, that the
claim was not forwarded to it by the Football Federation of country D.
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 July 2015. Consequently, the 2015 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 of the 2015 edition of the Procedural Rules).
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
2
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of
the Procedural Rules, and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in
connection with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2015), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide
on the present matter 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 2012, 2014
and 2015), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent
on 21 August 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. In doing
so, the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the
case as well as the documents contained in the file. However, the DRC
emphasized 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.
In this regard, the members of the Chamber recalled that the player, born on
22 October 1993, was registered with the Claimant as a professional on a loan
basis from Club G for the period between 1 August 2012 and 15 June 2013.
6.
In continuation, the DRC took note that the Claimant asserted that it was
entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount
of EUR 39,452.05, indicating that the player was transferred as a professional
“from Club G to the Respondent” before the end of the season of his 23rd
birthday and that the period that the player was registered with Club G, as
well as with the Claimant itself on loan, should be considered as one entire
timeframe.
7.
Equally, the DRC noted that the Respondent failed to present its response to
the claim of the Claimant on time, merely stating that the claim was not
forwarded to it by the Football Federation of country D, without providing any
evidence, despite having been explicitly requested to provide a confirmation
of the Football Federation of country D in this regard. Therefore, the DRC
deemed that, the Respondent renounced its right to defence and, thus,
accepted the allegations of the Claimant.
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
3
8.
As a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC established
that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules it shall take a
decision upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words upon
the statements and documents presented by the Claimant.
9.
In consideration of the above-mentioned issue, the DRC referred to the rules
applicable to training compensation and stated that, as established in art. 20
of the Regulations as well as in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with
art. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is payable, as a
general rule, for training incurred between the ages of 12 and 21 when a
player is registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the
season of the player’s 23rd birthday 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.
10.
Furthermore, the DRC referred to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations, which
stipulates that 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 article 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.
11.
With due consideration to the above, the DRC 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 DRC’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.
12.
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.
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
4
13.
In this respect and for the sake of good order, the DRC 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 a player is loaned to a club and thus is not being definitively
transferred to the latter 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 DRC was eager to point out that it could not
have been the intention of the legislator of the relevant regulatory provision
(i.e. 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 deprive the loan of its essential flexibility and, in
connection with the training and education of players, its purpose of providing
young players with 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.
14.
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.
15.
What is more, and while recalling that art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations 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”, the DRC pointed out that,
within the framework of loans and for the purposes of the rules governing
training compensation, the period of time that the player was registered with
the Claimant on loan and the period of time that the player was registered
with Club G, 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. In this respect, the DRC
recalled that, according to the information contained in the TMS and contrary
to the normal order of events, the player, after his period on loan with the
Claimant, was transferred directly to the Respondent. Consequently, the
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
5
Chamber was eager to emphasize that, considering the specific circumstances
of the matter at hand, the Claimant was in fact the former club of the player.
16.
On account of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided
that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in
accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
17.
Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the DRC
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.
18.
Having established the aforementioned, 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. Since the player was
transferred from a club from country B to a club from country D, the DRC
decided that the special provisions for transfers within the EU/EEA are
applicable to the matter at hand, as country B was already a member of the EU
at the time when the player was registered with the Respondent.
19.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber recalled that the player was
born on 22 October 1993 and was registered with the Claimant as from 1
August 2012 until 15 June 2013.
20.
Equally, the DRC recalled that according to the information contained in the
TMS, the player was registered with the Respondent on 21 August 2013.
21.
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 DRC concluded that the effective period of time to be considered in
the matter at stake corresponds to 10 months of the 2012/2013 season.
22.
Consequently, in light of the above-mentioned considerations and considering
the amount claimed by the Claimant, the DRC decided to partially accept the
Claimant’s claim and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of
EUR 37,500 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the
registration of the player with the Respondent.
23.
Moreover, taking into consideration 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
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
6
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 21 September
2013, until the date of effective payment.
24.
Lastly, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules,
according to which, in proceedings before the DRC relating to disputes
regarding training compensation and the solidarity mechanism, 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, 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.
25.
In respect of the above, the DRC held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 39,452.05 related to the claim
of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum
amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000 (cf. table in
Annexe A of the Procedural Rules).
26.
As a result, taking into account the particularities of the present matter as well
as that the fact that the Respondent replied to the claim late, the DRC
determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 5,000,
which shall be borne by the Respondent.
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
7
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club A, 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 37,500 plus 5%
interest p.a. on said amount as of 21 September 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 CHF 5,000 are to be paid
by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of notification of the
present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case
nr. XXXX:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH 27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
6.
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 for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
8
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:
__________________________________
Marco Villiger
Deputy Secretary General
Enclosed: CAS directives
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
9