Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 24 April 2015,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member
Todd Durbin (USA), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Club A, country B
as Claimant
against the club,
Club C, country D
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in connection with the player
Player E
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the player passport issued by the Football Association of country
B (hereinafter: Football Association of country B), the player, Player E
(hereinafter: the player), born on 9 March 1993, was temporarily registered as
a professional with its affiliated club, Club A, as from 17 July 2013 until 1
December 2013 and from 20 February 2014 until 31 May 2014.
2.
The football season in country B during the period of time the player was
registered with Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), lasted from 13 July until 31
May 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) 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 28 August
2014 as a professional.
5.
The Football Association of country D confirmed that the Respondent
belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year within
UEFA) during the time when the player was registered with it.
6.
On 12 February 2015, the Claimant contacted FIFA requesting training
compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player, on 28
August 2014, was transferred as a professional from the club from country G,
Club F, to the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 21,250
plus 5% interest p.a. as of 28 September 2014 and procedural costs.
7.
In support of its claim, the Claimant argued that pursuant to well established
jurisprudence of the DRC and CAS and their interpretation of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Respondent is obliged to pay
training compensation not only to the former club, but also to clubs that have
registered the player on loan.
8.
In its reply, the Respondent argued that the player signed his first professional
contract with Club F. As a consequence, the transfer from Club F to the
Respondent was a subsequent transfer and therefore training compensation is
only due to the former club, which in this case is Club F, and no training
compensation is due to the Claimant.
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
2
9.
Finally, the Respondent stated that, according to the transfer contract signed
with Club F, the club from country G waived its right to training compensation,
and no further training compensation is payable to any other club.
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 12 February 2014. 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 of the 2012, 2014 and 2015 editions 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 2015), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to
decide on the present matter relating to training compensation between clubs
belonging to different associations.
3.
In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that contrary to the
information contained in FIFA’s letter dated 17 April 2015 by means of which
the parties were informed of the composition of the Chamber, the Member H
and the Member I refrained from participating in the deliberations in the case
at hand, due to the fact that the Member H has the same nationality as the
Respondent and that, in order to comply with the prerequisite of equal
representation of club and player representatives, also the Member I refrained
from participating and thus the Dispute Resolution Chamber adjudicated the
case in presence of three members in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 of the
Regulations.
4.
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 2014 and
2015), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on
28 August 2014, the 2014 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.
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
3
5.
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 above-mentioned
facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the 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.
6.
In this regard, the DRC recalled that the player, born on 9 March 1993, was
registered on a loan basis with the Claimant for the period between 17 July
2013 and 1 December 2013 and for the period between 20 February 2014 and
31 May 2014. Equally, the DRC 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 28 August 2014,
the player was internationally transferred from Club F to the Respondent on a
definitive basis.
7.
In continuation, the members of the DRC took note that the Claimant asserted
that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in
the amount of EUR 21,250 indicating that the player was transferred as a
professional from Club F to the Respondent before the end of te season of his
23rd birthday.
8.
Equally, the DRC 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 latter
waived its right for training compensation and, thus, the Respondent was not
anymore liable to pay training compensation to any other club.
9.
In this context, the Chamber 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.
10.
In consideration of the above-mentioned issue, the DRC, 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
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
4
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.
11.
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.
12.
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 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.
13.
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.
14.
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
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
5
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.
15.
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.
16.
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 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.
17.
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.
18.
As to the argument of the Respondent that Club F signed a transfer agreement
wherein it waived its right for training compensation, the Chamber wished to
recall that a transfer agreement is signed by the new club and the former club
in order to establish the conditions for the transfer of the player. In principle,
the former club can waive its right for training compensation if the two clubs
expressly agree upon it. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that the
Respondent and Club F concluded a transfer agreement in which Club F
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
6
waived its right for training compensation. However, as the Claimant was not
a party to this transfer agreement, the consequences out of this contract do
not affect the Claimant and therefore, the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players have to be applied.
19.
Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the
Chamber concurred that it had to reject the Respondent’s arguments and
decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the
Claimant.
20.
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 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.
21.
In continuation, the Chamber recalled that both the Claimant and the
Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per
year), as well as that the player was born on 9 March 1993 and was registered
with the Claimant as from 17 July 2013 until 1 December 2013 and from 20
February 2014 until 31 May 2014.
22.
Equally, the DRC recalled that the Football Association of country D confirmed
that the player was registered with the Respondent on 28 August 2014.
23.
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 7 months of the 2013/2014
season.
24.
Consequently, and in light of the above-mentioned considerations, the DRC
decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and held that the Respondent
is liable to pay the amount of EUR 17,500 to the Claimant as training
compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the
Respondent.
25.
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
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
7
registration of the player with the Respondent on a definitive basis, i.e. as of
28 September 2014, until the date of effective payment.
26.
Lastly, the DRC 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.
27.
In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 21,250 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).
28.
As a result, and taking into account the particularities of the present matter as
well as the degree of success, the Chamber determined the costs of the current
proceedings to the amount of CHF 4,000, of which CHF 1,000 shall be borne by
the Claimant and CHF 3,000 by the Respondent.
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 17,500 plus 5%
interest p.a. on said amount as of 28 September 2014 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.
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
8
5.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 4,000 are to be paid,
within 30 days of notification of the present decision, as follows:
5.1. The amount of CHF 1,000 has to be paid by the Claimant.
5.2. The amount of CHF 3,000 has to be paid by the Respondent.
5.3. The abovementioned amounts have to be paid 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
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
9
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.
*****
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 Dispute Resolution Chamber:
__________________________________
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Enclosed: CAS directives
Training Compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
10