Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Single Judge of the
sub-committee of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 31 March 2021,
regarding training compensation in relation with the registration of the player C with B
(Country B)
BY:
Geoff Thompson (England), Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC
CLAIMANT:
A, Country A
RESPONDENT:
B, Country B
Page 2 of 10
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
C
Date of birth:
XXX
Player passport:
issued by the Country A FA (Country A FA) on 15 July 2019
Season
13/14
14/15
Birthday
12th
13th
Club(s)
n/a
D
15/16
14th
D
02/09/2015 – 01/07/2016
16/17
15th
A
02/09/2016 – 31/08/2017
17/18
16th
A
01/09/2017 – 31/08/2018
18/19
17th
A
01/09/2018 – 01/07/2019
Registration dates
n/a
2014
Status
n/a
Amateur
(Permanent)
Amateur
(Permanent)
Amateur
(Permanent)
Amateur
(Permanent)
Amateur
(Permanent)
Sporting season:
1 September to 31 August (Country A)
Date of transfer:
16 July 2019, from A (Country A) to B (Country B) as a professional (free agent)
Claimant club:
A (Country A)
Respondent club:
B (Country B)
UEFA, category II (EUR 60,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 10 October 2020, the Claimant requested EUR 120,000 as training compensation “plus 5%
p.a. interest as of the due date, until the date of effective payment”. The Claimant is basing its
claim on the first registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent.
2.
In its calculation, the Claimant took into consideration the amount set for category IV clubs in
UEFA, i.e. EUR 10,000 per year and for category II clubs in UEFA, i.e. EUR 60,000 per year.
3.
In this respect, the Claimant argued that the player was continuously registered with it for the
entirety of his 15th and 16th birthdays seasons (EUR 10,000 + EUR 60,000) and during 10 months
of his 17th birthday season (EUR 60,000 / 365 x 10 months).
Page 3 of 10
4.
On 3 November 2020, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant arguing that “the
statement of facts as brought forward by the Claimant can be acknowledged as far as the
registration history of the Player is concerned, adding that the Player, upon time of registration
for the Defendant, was, in fact, not under contract with the Claimant (“free agent”)”.
5.
In continuation, the Respondent referred to the “long-standing practice of both, League Country
A and the Country A FA to refrain from seeking either training compensation or solidarity
contribution pursuant to the FIFA RSTP as – from the point of view of League Country A and the
Country A FA – the implementation of these systems constitutes i.e. an unlawful restraint of
trade under Country A antitrust laws”.
6.
The Respondent added that “against this background, in May 2019, before signing the Player”
it had contacted the Country B FA and received a confirmation that so far clubs affiliated to the
Country A FA would not claim training compensation. In particular, the Claimant provided an
email correspondence by means of which the Country B FA submitted it an extract of a Country
A FA’s general statement in this regard:
“As we have advised FIFA in the past, by order of the Country A District Court for the District of
City M, Country A FA cannot ‘impose, implement or enforce, in any way, those rules, statutes
or regulations adopted by the Federation Internationale de Football Association relating to the
payment of transfer fees or training and development fees for professional soccer players who
are free of contractual obligations to other teams (“out of contract players”).
While Country A FA wants to work with FIFA to comply in every way possible with its regulations,
at this time, Country A FA cannot implement or enforce FIFA’s rules pertaining to training
compensation. Thus, we feel it would be most appropriate to set the training compensation
amounts for all Country A clubs at zero”
7.
As such, the Respondent argued the inapplicability of the training compensation system foreseen
in art. 20 and Annexe 4 RSTP to clubs affiliated to the Country A FA in view of Country A Law.
8.
The Respondent deemed that, when registering the player, it could validly rely on the “long
standing praxis” of the Country A League and on the confirmation of the Country B FA and
assume that no training compensation would be due/claimed for the player to/by his training
club(s) in Country A.
9.
The Respondent also indicated that although it seemed that Country A League clubs had recently
started to claim solidarity contribution and training compensation, this was not the case for any
other clubs affiliated to the Country A FA such as the Claimant.
10.
The Respondent concluded that the claim should be rejected because of the common practice
of said Country A FA affiliated clubs.
Page 4 of 10
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): June 2019 edition.
Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (Procedural Rules): January 2021 edition.
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested
Admissible:
Yes, uncontested
Decision:
1.
The claim of the Claimant is based on the first registration of the player as a professional with
the Respondent.
2.
The information included in the player passport provided by the Country A FA remained
uncontested and indicates that the player was registered with the Claimant between 2
September 2016 and 1 July 2019.
3.
The season of the player’s 15th, 16th and 17th birthday in Country A started on 1 September and
ended on 31 August.
4.
The player was registered with the Claimant as follows:
a. 364 days of the season of the player’s 15th birthday, i.e. from 2 September 2016 until
31 August 2017;
b. 365 days of the season of the player’s 16th birthday, i.e. as from 1 September 2017
until 31 August 2018; and
c. 304 days of the season of the player’s 17th birthday, i.e. as from 1 September 2018
until 1 July 2019.
5.
It is uncontested that the player was registered as a professional for the first time with the
Respondent on 16 July 2019, during the course of the season of his 17th birthday.
6.
In accordance with art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 RSTP, on registering a player as a professional for
the first time, the club with which the player is registered is responsible for paying training
compensation within 30 days of the registration to every club with which the player has
previously been registered (in accordance with the players’ career history as provided in the
player passport).
7.
The Respondent argued the inapplicability of the training compensation system foreseen in art.
20 and Annexe 4 RSTP to clubs affiliated to the Country A FA in view of Country A Law adding
that, when registering the player, it could validly rely on the “long standing praxis” of the
Country A League as well as on the confirmation received by the Country B FA and assume that
Page 5 of 10
no training compensation would be due/claimed for the player to/by his training club(s) in
Country A.
8.
None of the parties submitted a copy of the above Country A law decree and no evidence was
provided indicating that such law would applies to the Respondent.
9.
In line with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the mentioned Country A law cannot be taken
into account while assessing the matter at hand.
10.
In addition, it has to be stressed that the Claimant and the Respondent are clubs affiliated to
member associations of FIFA and that, as such, they are bound by the Regulations of FIFA.
11.
The training reward system regulated in the June 2019 edition of the RSTP applies to transfer of
players with an international dimension between clubs affiliated to the member associations of
FIFA.
12.
The transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent is an international transfer
between clubs affiliated to member associations of FIFA that falls within the scope of the RSTP.
13.
As a result, the training rewards system of FIFA applies to the transfer of the player from the
Claimant to the Respondent.
14.
In accordance with the jurisprudence of the DRC, clubs have an overall obligation to act with
due diligence.
15.
When registering the player, the Respondent relied on a confirmation received by the Country
B FA leaning on a general statement of the Country A FA that no training compensation would
have been due.
16.
However, the Respondent failed to contact the Claimant directly to inquire whether it intended
to request the payment of training compensation for the player. By omitting to do so, the
Respondent did not act with the due diligence that it is expected of a club in such circumstances.
17.
Thus, the Respondent, when signing the player, could not rely in good faith on the assumption
that training compensation would have not been due to the Claimant or any of the player’s
training club(s).
18.
Therefore, training compensation is due to the Claimant.
19.
In accordance with art. 5 par. 2 of Annexe 4 RSTP, the first time a player registered as a
professional, the training compensation payable is calculated by taking the training costs of the
new club multiplied by the number of years with the training club.
Page 6 of 10
20.
In line with art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP the training costs for players for the seasons between
their 12th and 15th birthdays (i.e. four seasons) are based on the training and education costs of
category 4 clubs
21.
The training costs for players for the seasons between their 16th and 21st birthdays are based on
the training and education costs of the new club at the moment of the player’s registration with
it, in casu category II within UEFA.
22.
In this regard, the training costs for category II clubs within UEFA are set at EUR 60,000 per year
and for category IV clubs within UEFA at EUR 10,000 per year.
23.
Art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 RSTP stipulates that the amount payable of training compensation is
calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of training that the player spent with each
club.
24.
As established in point II. 4. above, the player was registered with the Claimant for:
a. 364 days of the season of the player’s 15th birthday;
b. 365 days of the season of the player’s 16th birthday; and
c. 304 days of the season of the player’s 17th birthday.
25.
Consequently, the Claimant is entitled to receive EUR 119,945.20, corresponding to:
a. EUR 9,972.60 for the training and education provided to the player during the course
of the season of his 15th birthday;
b. EUR 60,000 for the training and education provided to the player during the course of
the season of his 16th birthday; and
c. EUR 49,972.60 for the training and education provided to the player during the course
of the season of his 17th birthday.
26.
Furthermore, the Claimant requested to be awarded interest amounting to 5% per annum, “as
per the due date”.
27.
Taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 RSTP, the
Respondent has to pay, in conformity with the longstanding practice of the DRC, interest of 5%
p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of 31 days after the registration of
the player with it, i.e. one day after the amount was due, in casu as from 16 August 2019 until
the date of effective payment.
28.
In view of all the above, the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and the Claimant is
entitled to receive EUR 119,945.20 as training compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. on that
amount, as from 16 August 2019 until the date of effective payment.
29.
Any further claim of the Claimant is rejected.
Page 7 of 10
30.
No procedural costs are payable (cf. arts. 17 par. 1 and 18 par. 1 of the Rules Governing the
Procedure of the Players’ Status Committee and Dispute Resolution Chamber).
31.
The relevant provisions of art. 24bis RSTP are applicable to the present matter.
Page 8 of 10
III. DECISION
1.
The claim of the Claimant, A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, B, has to pay to the Claimant EUR 119,945.20 as training compensation, plus
5% interest p.a. on that amount, as from 16 August 2019 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claim of the Claimant is rejected.
4.
The Claimant shall immediately inform the Respondent of the bank account to which the
Respondent must pay the due amount (including all applicable interest).
5.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of full payment to [email protected]. If applicable,
the evidence shall be translated into an official FIFA language (English, French, German, Spanish).
6.
If the due amount (including all applicable interest) is not paid by the Respondent within 45 days
as from notification of the bank account details, the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three
entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The ban will be lifted immediately, and prior to its complete serving, following confirmation
that the due amount (including all applicable interest) has been received by the Claimant.
3. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end of
the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
7. No procedural costs are payable (cf. arts. 17 par. 1 and 18 par. 1 of the Rules Governing the
Procedure of the Players’ Status Committee and Dispute Resolution Chamber).
For the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 9 of 10
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
Pursuant to article 58 paragraph 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed before the Court
of Arbitration for Sport within 21 days of notification.
NOTE RELATED TO PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party
within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted
version (cf. article 20 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 10 of 10