Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 24 April 2015,
by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge,
on the claim presented by the club,
Club A, country B
as Claimant
against
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 (hereinafter: Football Federation of country B), the player, Player E
(hereinafter: the player), born on 4 March 1991, was registered as a
professional with its affiliated clubs as follows:
- Club F
- Club A (on loan)
- Club F
as from 30 January 2007 until 31 March 2008;
as from 1 April 2008 until 2 April 2009;
as from 3 April 2009 until 1 July 2013.
2.
The football season in country B during the period of time the player was
registered with Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), lasted from 15 November
until 14 November of the following year.
3.
According to the aforementioned player passport, the Claimant belonged to
the category IV (indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year within UEFA) during
the season when the player was registered with it.
4.
According to the information provided by the Football Association of country
D (hereinafter: Football Association of country D), the player was registered
with its affiliated club, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 2 July 2013 as
a professional.
5.
The Football Association of country D confirmed that the Respondent
belonged to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year within
UEFA) during the time when the player was registered with it.
6.
On 19 December 2014, the Claimant contacted FIFA requesting training
compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player, on 18 June
2013, was transferred as a professional from Club F (hereinafter: Club F) to the
Respondent. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 35,000.
7.
In support of its claim, the Claimant argued that it tried to contact the
Respondent several times. However, the Respondent referred the Claimant
further to Club F, as well as to both the Football Association of country D and
the Football Federation of country B. Despite all these efforts, neither the
Respondent nor Club F paid the requested amount.
8.
In its reply, the Respondent argued that it signed a transfer agreement with
Club F, in which the clubs agreed upon a transfer compensation of EUR
225,000, as well as that “the fee paid is including all solidarity payment and
training compensation according to national and international rules.”
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
2
9.
Moreover, upon advice of the Football Association of country D, no further
payment was made by the Respondent. Additionally, the Respondent argued
that the Football Federation of country B had stated that only Club F was
entitled to receive training compensation and the Claimant would be only
entitled to solidarity contribution.
10.
Finally, the Respondent referred to art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players, which clearly states that only the player’s
former club is entitled to training compensation. In the present case, the
former club is Club F and not the Claimant.
II.
Considerations of the DRC judge
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge (hereinafter also
referred to as DRC judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with
the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was
submitted to FIFA on 19 December 2014. Consequently, the 2014 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 2014 and 2015 editions of the Procedural
Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural
Rules, which states that the DRC judge shall examine its jurisdiction in light of
art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition
2015). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 lit. ii. in connection with art.
22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC
judge is competent to decide on the present matter relating to training
compensation between clubs belonging to different associations.
3.
Furthermore, the DRC judge 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, he 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 2 July 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 judge and the applicable regulations having been
established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In doing
so, the DRC judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
3
case as well as the documents contained in the file. However, the DRC judge
emphasized that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts,
arguments and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the
assessment of the matter at hand.
5.
In this regard, the DRC judge recalled that the player, born on 4 March 1991,
was registered on a loan basis with the Claimant for the period between 1
April 2008 and 2 April 2009. Equally, the DRC judge observed that after the
loan with the Claimant had expired, the player returned to his club of origin,
Club F, i.e. the club with which the player was still contractually bound.
Thereafter, on 2 July 2013, the player was internationally transferred from
Club F to the Respondent on a definitive basis, for a transfer compensation
amounting to EUR 225,000.
6.
In continuation, the DRC judge took note that the Claimant asserted that it
was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the
amount of EUR 35,000 indicating that the player was transferred as a
professional from Club F to the Respondent before the end of the season of his
23rd birthday.
7.
Equally, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of the
Claimant, arguing that the Claimant is not the player’s former club in the sense
of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. Also, the Respondent
stated that it signed a transfer agreement with Club F, in which the clubs
agreed that the transfer fee included all solidarity payments and training
compensation according to national and international rules and, thus, was not
anymore liable to pay training compensation to any club.
8.
In this context, the DRC judge highlighted that the main issue in the present
matter is whether or not a club that accepted a professional on loan is entitled
to receive training compensation when, after the expiry of the loan, the
professional returns to his club of origin, and, thereafter, is transferred from
the club of origin to a club belonging to another association before the end of
the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
9.
In consideration of the above-mentioned issue, the DRC judge, and hereby
referring to the rules applicable to training compensation, started by stating
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 23 rd birthday or when
a professional is transferred between clubs of two different associations before
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
4
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, 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.
11.
Following the above, the DRC judge 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 well-established jurisprudence of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber 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 DRC judge 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.
13.
In this respect and for the sake of good order, the DRC judge 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 DRC judge 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
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
5
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 DRC judge 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.
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 DRC
judge 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 DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant was
not the player’s former club stricto sensu, however, the DRC judge pointed out
that, within the framework of loans, the period of time that the player was
registered with Club F 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.
16.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, the DRC judge 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.
17.
As to the argument of the Respondent that the transfer fee included all
solidarity payments and training compensation, the DRC judge wished to recall
that a transfer fee is paid by the new club to compensate the former club for
the early termination of the employment relationship with its player. Training
compensation can be included in the transfer fee if the two clubs expressly
agree upon it. In this context, the DRC judge acknowledged that the
Respondent agreed upon a transfer fee with Club F which included training
compensation. However, as the Claimant was not a party to this transfer
agreement, the consequences out of this agreement do not affect the
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
6
Claimant and, therefore, the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
have to be applied.
18.
On account of the above considerations, the DRC judge concurred that he had
to reject the Respondent’s arguments and decided that the Respondent is
liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant.
19.
Turning his attention to the calculation of training compensation, the DRC
judge 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.
20.
Having established the aforementioned, the DRC judge 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 DRC judge indicated that, since the player moved from country B to
country D, i.e. from one association to another association inside the territory
of the EU, said article is applicable.
21.
Having established the above, the DRC judge 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.
22.
In continuation, the DRC judge recalled that the player was born on 4 March
1991 and was registered with the Claimant as from 1 April 2008 until 2 April
2009.
23.
Equally, the DRC judge recalled that the Football Association of country D
confirmed that the player was registered with the Respondent on 2 July 2013
as a professional.
24.
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 judge concluded that the effective period of time to be
considered in the matter at stake corresponds to 7 months of the 2007/2008
season and 5 months of the 2008/2009 season.
25.
Moreover, the DRC judge recalled that, according to the player passport issued
by the Football Federation of country B, the Claimant belonged to the
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
7
category IV (indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year). Equally, the DRC judge
recalled that, according to the information contained in TMS, the Respondent
belonged to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year).
26.
In view of all of the above, the DRC judge decided to accept the claim of the
Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR
35,000 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration
of the player with the Respondent.
27.
Lastly, the DRC judge 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 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 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.
28.
In respect of the above, the DRC judge 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 DRC judge concluded that the maximum
amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000 (cf. table in
Annexe A of the Procedural Rules).
29.
As a result, and taking into account the particularities of the present matter as
well as the degree of success, the DRC judge determined the costs of the
current proceedings to the amount of CHF 4,000, which shall be borne by the
Respondent.
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
8
III.
Decision of the DRC judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is 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 35,000.
3.
In the event that the aforementioned sum is not paid within the stated time
limit, interest at a rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of the date of expiry of the
stipulated time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request,
to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
4.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 4,000 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. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
5.
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 DRC judge of every payment received.
*****
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
9
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 63 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 DRC judge:
__________________________________
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Enclosed: CAS directives
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
10