Official Documents
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 April 2013,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member
Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member
Philippe Diallo (France), member
Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member
on the claim presented by the club
Club C, from country B
as Claimant
against the club
Club Z, from country S
as Respondent
regarding a dispute for training compensation in connection with
the transfer of the player B
I.
Facts of the case
1.
In accordance with the player’s passport remitted by country B Football Association,
the player B (hereinafter: the player), born in July 1986, was registered with the Club
C, from country B (hereinafter: the Claimant or Club C) as well as with other country B
clubs as follows:
Club
Club C
Club K
Club C
Club I
Club C
Club C
Club E
Club F
Club C
Club D
Club C
No record found
Club Z
From
20 July 2001
7 May 2002
1 May 2003
17 September 2003
11 February 2004
17 November 2004
1 April 2005
2 October 2007
3 January 2008
5 February 2008
16 May 2008
29 May 2008
23 January 2009
To
6 May 2002
30 April 2003
16 September 2003
10 February 2004
16 November 2004
31 March 2005
1 October 2007
2 January 2008
4 February 2008
15 May 2008
28 May 2008
22 January 2009
Status
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Professional
Professional
Professional
Professional
Professional
Professional
Basis
On loan
On loan
On loan
Professional
2.
Moreover, country B Football Confederation confirmed that the football season in
country B follows the calendar year, i.e. from January to December of each year.
3.
Additionally, country B Football Confederation provided a copy of the International
Transfer Certificate (ITC) request that it received from the Football Association of
country S as well as the ITC issued on 23 January 2009, in favour of the Football
Association of country S, which stated that the last club with which the player was
registered with was Club C.
4.
The Football Association of country S confirmed that, the concerned player was
registered with its affiliated club, Club Z (hereinafter: the Respondent or Club Z), on 6
February 2009. Furthermore, it confirmed that Club Z belonged to the category III
within UEFA (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) during the season when the
player was registered with it.
5.
On 21 January 2011, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training
compensation from the Respondent, alleging that the player was registered with the
the latter on 21 January 2009 as well as that the Respondent belonged to the category
II in Europe. Additionally, after amending its claim on 19 July 2011, the Claimant
requested 165 days of the player’s 15th birthday as well as 726 days between the
Training compensation for the player B
Club C, from country B / Club Z, from country S
2/12
player’s 16th to 19th birthday, equal to EUR 123,862.98 plus an interest of 5% per
annum as of 21 February 2009.
6.
On 17 August 2011, the Respondent submitted its position to the claim, rejecting the
claim of the Claimant. In this Context, the Respondent held that the Claimant was not
the player’s last club, but rather the Club E, from country B (hereinafter: Club E), as the
player himself confirmed signing the document addressed to the Football Association
of country S, which subject was “Request for certificate issuance”. Said document
stated the following: “Would you kindly issue a certificate for player B, who was born
in 1986, and who was a member of “Club E” from country B. I, player B, agree on
request for the certificate on my behalf”. Moreover, the Respondent alleged that the
aforementioned declaration is also supported by the player’s passport enclosed by the
Claimant which is incomplete as of 29 May 2008. Additionally, the Respondent
affirmed that the registration periods of the player with the Claimant are “utterly
vague” and not in compliance with the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players of FIFA.
7.
Furthermore, the Respondent stated that considering the contents of the player’s
passport enclosed by the Claimant it is obvious that the player has been registered as a
professional player on 17 November 2004, i.e. on his 18th birthday. In this respect,
according to the Respondent, the player concluded his training period before the age
of 21.
8.
In continuation, upon request, country B Football Confederation confirmed that the
player’s last club, before being transferred to the Respondent, was Club C as stated in
the ITC issued in favour of the Football Association of country S dated 23 January
2009. Moreover, country B Football Confederation informed that the concerned player
signed an employment contract with its affiliated club, Club C, for the period from
17 November 2004 until 16 November 2009 and, that during said period, he was on
loan to Club E as well as Club D as detailed in the provided player’s passport.
Additionally, country B Football Confederation confirmed that on 28 May 2008 the
player and Club C prematurely terminated their contract as well as that as of 29 May
2008 until 22 January 2009 the player was not registered with any other country B
club.
9.
On account of the above, the Respondent provided further comments. In particular,
the Respondent held that the Claimant should provide the employment contract that
the latter concluded with the player for the period between 17 November 2004 and
16 November 2009, as well as the agreement for the termination of the
aforementioned contract, considering that according to art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players “training compensation is not due if: i) the
former club terminates the player’s contract without just cause”.
Training compensation for the player B
Club C, from country B / Club Z, from country S
3/12
10.
Furthermore, the Respondent continued sustaining that the player’s former club was
Club E (cf. point 6). In its support, the club enclosed internet extracts which stated that
the player was playing for Club E between the period from 2005 and 2008, being on
loan with Club C.
11.
The Respondent also reiterated the fact that the player concluded his training period
before the age of 21, having been registered as a professional on his 18th birthday as
well as receiving a significant financial compensation, which could be proved on the
base of the employment contract which the Claimant should provide.
12.
The Claimant submitted its comments insisting on its claim as well as affirming that
the Respondent actually belonged to category II within UEFA, considering the fact that
the Respondent was participating in the 1st Football League of country S and country
M.
13.
At the submission of its final comments, the Respondent maintained all the statements
made before in the present proceeding.
14.
Moreover, the Respondent, referring to the loans of the player as described in the
player’s passport, declared that the Claimant is not entitled to training compensation
for the periods when the player was on loan with other clubs.
15.
Upon request for clarification, the Football Association of country S confirmed that its
affiliated club, Club Z, “in the season 2008/2009 belonged to the II (second) category
of clubs, in the season 2009/2010 III (third category) and in 2010/2011III (third)
category.”
16.
Finally, upon request, the Claimant stated that the employment contract concluded
with the player was amicably terminated on 28 May 2008. In its support, the Claimant
provided a copy of the termination agreement signed by the player and itself.
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 21 January
2011. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the
Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the
Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and 2 of the
Procedural Rules).
Training compensation for the player B
Club C, from country B / Club Z, from country S
4/12
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22
lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012) the
Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake relating to
training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations.
3.
Furthermore, the DRC 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 (edition 2012,
2010, 2009 and 2008), and considering that the player was registered with the
Respondent on 6 February 2009 as well as that the present claim was lodged on
21 January 2011, the 2008 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 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.
In this regard, the members of the DRC recalled that the player, born in July 1986, was
registered with the Claimant as an amateur as follows:
-
6.
Equally, the DRC took note that the player was registered with the Claimant as a
professional for the period between 17 November 2004 and 28 May 2008 as well as
that he was on loan as follows:
-
7.
from 20 July 2001 until 6 May 2002;
from 1 May 2003 until 16 September 2003;
from 11 February 2004 until 16 November 2004.
from 1 April 2005 until 1 October 2007, on loan with the Club E, from country
B;
from 2 October 2007 until 2 January 2008, on loan with the Club F, from
country B;
from 5 February 2008 until 15 May 2008, on loan with the Club D, from
country B
On account of the above, the Chamber equally remarked that country B Football
Confederation confirmed that the concerned player had an employment contract with
the Claimant from 17 November 2004 until 16 November 2009 and was registered with
it until 28 May 2008 as well as that during that period he was on loan with the abovementioned country B clubs, as stated in the players’ passport.
Training compensation for the player B
Club C, from country B / Club Z, from country S
5/12
8.
Moreover, the members of the DRC observed that, according to country B Football
Confederation, the player and the Claimant prematurely terminated the contract on
28
May
2008
and
that
as
of
29 May 2008 until 22 January 2009 the player was not registered with any further
country B club. Consequently, the DRC acknowledged that country B Football
Confederation confirmed that the player’s last club was Club C as stated in the ITC
issued on favour of Football Association of country S on 23 January 2009.
9.
In continuation, the Chamber took note that the Claimant claimed that it was entitled
to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of
EUR 123,862.98.
10.
In this respect, the members of the DRC remarked that the Respondent rejected the
claim of the Claimant, mainly arguing that the latter was not the player’s last club but
rather Club E, basing its allegations on a document signed by the player which stated
“Would you kindly issue a certificate for player B, who was born in 1986, and who was
a member of “Club E” from country B. I, player B, agree on request for the certificate
on my behalf”. The Chamber noticed that the Respondent declared that the aforesaid
is also supported by the fact that the player’s passport is incomplete as of 29 May
2008.
11.
Equally, the DRC noted that the Respondent held that the player had already
terminated his training period before joining the Respondent, considering that he was
registered with the Claimant as a professional on 17 November 2004, i.e. on his
18th birthday.
12.
Finally, the members of the Chamber noticed that the Respondent affirmed that the
Claimant is not entitled to training compensation for the periods when the player was
on loan with other clubs.
13.
In this context, and considering the opposite positions of the parties, the Chamber
highlighted that two main issues need to be analysed in the present matter:
1) Which club was the player’s last club before being transferred to the
Respondent?; and
2) Was the player’s training already completed at the time he joined the
Respondent?
14.
When addressing the first issue, the Chamber 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
Training compensation for the player B
Club C, from country B / Club Z, from country S
6/12
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.
15.
Furthermore, the Chamber 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.
16.
Additionally, recalling that art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations
stipulates that “In the case of subsequent transfer of the professional, training
compensation will only be owed to his former club for the time he was effectively
trained by that club” as well as taking into account the information contained in the
player’s passport issued by country B Football Confederation, the members of 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 other country B clubs on loan and the period of time that the player was
registered with the Claimant, should be considered as one entire timeframe.
17.
Hence, the Chamber came to the firm conclusion that for the purposes of the
provisions of the Regulations governing training compensation, the loan of a player
from his club of origin to other clubs does not interrupt the ongoing training period
of the player and the obligation to pay training compensation arises only in case a
player is transferred on a definitive basis, with the effect that at that moment, the
club which transferred the player on a loan basis to another club is entitled to training
compensation for the entire period of time during which it effectively trained the
player, however, excluding the period of time of the loans
18.
Turning its attention to the argument raised by the Respondent in this context, the
Chamber understood that the Respondent was of the opinion that the Claimant is not
the player’s last club, considering that according to the document presented by the
Respondent, the player himself confirmed that his last club was Club E and also
because the player’s passport allegedly is incomplete as of 29 May 2008.
19.
At this moment, the DRC made reference to the legal principle of the burden of proof
and highlighted that any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall
carry the burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules).
Training compensation for the player B
Club C, from country B / Club Z, from country S
7/12
20.
With due consideration to all the above, the Chamber considered that the document
presented by the Respondent, in particular the sentence contained therein, “who was
member of Club E”, does not specify that the player agreed that Club E was his last
club. In the contrary, the DRC emphasized that the ITC issued by country B Football
Confederation on 23 January 2009, did specifically mention that the player was lastly
registered with Club C. Furthermore, the DRC highlighted that country B Football
Confederation also provided an official confirmation that Club C was the last country
B club with which the player was registered.
21.
In this regard, recalling art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which
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” and taking into account the above-mentioned considerations,
the members of the Chamber concurred that it had to rely in the official confirmation
of country B Football Confederation and reject the Respondent’s argumentation in
relation to the fact that the Claimant was not the player’s last club.
22.
In continuation regarding the second issue, the Chamber went on to examine whether
or not the player’s training period had already been completed before the season of
the player’s 21st birthday.
23.
In this context, the Chamber emphasized that cases involving a possible early
completion of a player’s training period have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis,
whereby all the specific circumstances and all the evidence produced has to be taken
into consideration. Hence, several factors and indications have to be considered in
order to assess and establish whether a particular player’s training has indeed been
completed before the season of his 21st birthday. For the sake of completeness, the
Chamber pointed out that, so far, both the Chamber as well as the CAS have adopted
a strict approach in establishing that a player’s training had indeed been completed
before the season of a player’s 21st birthday, so as to not jeopardize the right of
training clubs to, in principle, receive training compensation.
24.
In this respect, the Chamber took, once more, note of all the specific circumstances of
the present matter and in particular of the fact that the Respondent held that the
player’s training period concluded before his age of 21, because he was registered as a
professional with the Claimant already on his 18th birthday as stated in the player’s
passport issued by country B Football Confederation.
25.
In light of the above, after a thorough examination of the argumentation provided by
the Respondent as well as taking into account that the Respondent did not provide
any evidence in order to support its argument in this regard, in accordance with art. 12
par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the members of the DRC deemed that the mere fact
that the player was registered as a professional with the Claimant already on his
Training compensation for the player B
Club C, from country B / Club Z, from country S
8/12
18th birthday, as confirmed by the player’s passport issued by country B Football
Confederation, did not lead to the conclusion that the player’s training was already
completed before his age of 21.
26.
The members of the DRC further observed that the Claimant provided a copy of the
termination agreement signed by the player and the Claimant, by means of which the
aforementioned parties agreed by mutual consent to terminate the contract valid
from 17 November 2004 until 16 November 2009, 28 May 2008. Therefore, the DRC
highlighted that the Claimant, pursuant to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules,
proved that the employment relationship with the player was mutually terminated
and thus it did not terminate the contract without just cause.
27.
On account of all the above-mentioned considerations, in particular after clarifying
the two main issues stated under point II.13, the members of the DRC decided that the
Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with
art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
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.
29.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber observed that although at first the
Football Association of country S indicated that the Respondent belonged to the
category III within UEFA (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year), upon request it
clarified that during the relevant season 2008/2009 the Respondent belonged to the
category II within UEFA (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) and during the
season 2009/2010 to the category III. In this regard, taking into account that the player
was
registered
with
the
Respondent
on
6 February 2009, as confirmed by Football Association of country S (cf. point I.4), the
members of the DRC determined that the category to take into consideration is
category II.
30.
Furthermore, the DRC acknowledged that according to the player’s passport issued by
country B Football Confederation the player was registered with the Claimant as
follows:
-
from 20 July 2001 until 6 May 2002, as amateur;
from 1 May 2003 until 16 September 2003, as amateur;
from 11 February 2004 until 16 November 2004, as amateur; and
from 17 November 2004 until 28 May 2008, as professional.
Training compensation for the player B
Club C, from country B / Club Z, from country S
9/12
At this point, the members of the DRC took into consideration that the player was
loaned to several country B clubs during the following periods:
-
from 1 April 2005 until 1 October 2007, as professional;
from 2 October 2007 until 2 January 2008, as professional; and
from 5 February 2008 until 15 May 2008, as professional.
31.
On account of the above-stated, the Chamber decided that the player was effectively
registered with- and trained by - the Claimant for a period of 28 months. However,
recalling that the player was born in July 1986, the members of the Chamber
considered that the period from 20 July 2001 until 31 December 2001 corresponded to
the player’s 15th birthday. Therefore, referring to art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations, the members of the DRC determined that the calculation for the
aforementioned period of the player’s 15th birthday would be based on the training
and education costs of category IV within UEFA (indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per
year).
32.
Consequently, and in light of the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber
decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and that the Respondent is liable to
pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 119,166.
33.
In addition, regarding the interest claimed by the Claimant, the members of the DRC
emphasized that according to art. 3 par. 2 of the Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the
deadline for payment of the training compensation is 30 days following the
registration of the professional with the new association.
34.
Equally, the members of the Chamber highlighted that, in accordance to the wellestablished jurisprudence concerning the payment of interest of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber, default interest at a rate of 5% per annum is applicable as from
the first day after the respective due date.
35.
Therefore, the DRC considered that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant
5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 119.166, as of 9 March 2009 until the date of
effective payment.
36.
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
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, 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.
Training compensation for the player B
Club C, from country B / Club Z, from country S
10/12
37.
In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 123,862.98 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 20,000 (cf. table in Annexe A
of the Procedural Rules).
38.
As a result, taking into account the particularities of the present matter, the number
of issues that had to be addressed as well as that the Respondent was the unsuccessful
party in the present proceedings, the Chamber determined the costs of the current
proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 15,000, which shall be borne by
the Respondent. Also, considering that the Claimant had already paid the amount of
currency of country H 5,000 as advance of costs, the DRC decided that the Respondent
must pay currency of country H 5,000 to the Claimant and currency of country H
10,000 to FIFA.
39.
Finally, the members of the DRC concluded its deliberations as to the substance of the
matter by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant.
*****
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club C, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club Z, has to pay to the Claimant, Club C, within 30 days as from
the
date
of
notification
of
this
decision,
the
amount
of
EUR 119,166 as well as 5% interest p.a. on said amount, as of 9 March 2009 until the
date of effective payment.
3.
If the amount plus interest due in accordance with point 2 are not paid within the
aforementioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to
FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
4.
Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Club C, are rejected.
5.
The final amount of costs of the proceeding in the amount of currency of country H
15,000 is to be paid by the Respondent, Club Z, within 30 days as from the date of
notification of the present decision, as follows:
5.1 The amount of currency of country H 10,000 to FIFA, to the following bank account
with reference to case no.:
Training compensation for the player B
Club C, from country B / Club Z, from country S
11/12
5.2 The amount of currency of country H 5,000 to the Claimant, Club C.
6.
The Claimant, Club C, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club Z, immediately and
directly of the account number to which the remittance of the amounts under the
points 2 and 5.2 are 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 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 for the player B
Club C, from country B / Club Z, from country S
12/12