Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the s ub-com m ittee of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber (DRC)
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 19 April 2018,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thom ps on (England), Chairman
Takuy a Yam azaki (Japan), member
Tom is lav Kas alo (Croatia), member
Daan de Jong (The Netherlands ), member
Abu Nay eem S hohag (Banglades h), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Club A, from country C
as Claimant
against the club,
Club B, from country C
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in connection with
the player X
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
According to the player passports issued by the Football Federation of country
D and the Football Federation of country C the player, Player X (hereinafter:
the player), born on 21 December 1992, was registered as a professional with
the following clubs:
- Club D from country D (hereinafter: Club D) as of 1 July 2013 until 3
September 2013 on a permanent basis;
- Club A, from country C (hereinafter: the Claimant) as of 4 September 2013
until 30 June 2014 on loan from Club D;
- Club E, from country D (hereinafter: Club E) as of 23 July 2014 until 30 June
2015 on loan from Club D;
- Club D as of 14 July 2015 until 19 July 2015 on a permanent basis.
2.
According to the to the information contained in the Transfer Matching
System (TMS), on 20 July 2015 the player was transferred from Club D to the
Club B, from country C (hereinafter: the Respondent) on a definitive basis and
the latter club belonged to category I (UEFA indicative amount of EUR 90,000
per year) at the moment the player was registered with it. Equally, Club A
(hereinafter: the Claimant) belonged to category I during the time the player
was registered with it.
3.
The sporting season in country C runs from 1 July until 30 June of the
following year.
4.
In this framework, on 25 July 2017, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming its
proportion of training compensation on the ground of the subsequent
transfer of the player as a professional from Club D to the Respondent before
the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. In particular, the Claimant
requested the amount of EUR 75,000 plus interest.
5.
In its claim, the Claimant first pointed out that the transfer at the basis of the
dispute occurred between clubs of different associations rule and argued that
FIFA was competent due to the analogical application of art. 22 lit. e) of the
Regulations.
6.
Furthermore, the Claimant maintained that not only the last club with which
the player has been registered on a definitive basis, but also the club(s) that
have registered the player on loan are entitled to the training compensation.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Training compensation for the player X
(Club A, from country C / Club B, from country C)
2
Consequently, the Claimant maintained that it was entitled to training
compensation corresponding to a period of ten months, during which the
player was registered with it on loan from Club D.
7.
The Respondent replied arguing that the player had already completed his
training before joining the Claimant, based on the number of matches he
allegedly played with Club D during the season of his 19th birthday (3,
according to the Respondent) and with Club F, from country D during the
season of his 20th birthday (17, according to the Respondent).
II.
Cons iderations of the s ub-comm ittee of the Dis pute Res olution
Cham ber
1.
First of all, the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter
also referred to as: the sub-committee) 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 24 July 2017. Consequently, the 2017 edition of the
Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to
the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the sub-committee referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of the
Procedural Rules and affirmed that, in accordance with art. 3 of Annexe 6 in
conjunction with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 and art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016), it would not be competent,
in principle, to deal with the dispute at stake, relating to training
compensation between clubs belonging to the same association.
3.
Nevertheless, the members of the sub-committee wished to point out that,
pursuant to art. 20 and art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016), the purpose of the training
compensation is to reward the player’s training clubs when the player is
registered for the first time as a professional or when the professional player is
transferred between clubs of different associations before the end of the
season of his 23rd birthday.
4.
Moreover, the sub-committee was eager to emphasise that, as a result of the
above, a club belonging to the same association of the Respondent club would
be, in principle, prevented from receiving training compensation even in the
case of an international transfer of the player, namely whenever the transfer
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Training compensation for the player X
(Club A, from country C / Club B, from country C)
3
at the basis of the dispute occurs between clubs belonging to different
associations.
5.
In this context, the sub-committee wished also to refer to the content of art.
22 lit. e) Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016),
according to which FIFA is competent to hear disputes regarding the solidarity
mechanism (art. 21) between clubs belonging to the same association provided
that the transfer at the basis of the dispute occurs between clubs belonging to
different associations.
6.
On account of the aforementioned considerations, the members of the
Chamber came to the conclusion that it would not have been the intention of
the lawmaker to operate such a distinction between solidarity mechanism and
training compensation in the case of an international transfer of the player as
a professional and a dispute involving clubs belonging to the same association,
given that both the mechanisms aim to reward the clubs which were involved
in the player’s training.
7.
Consequently, the sub-committee considered that the application of art. 22 lit.
e) Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016) should be
extended, by way of analogy, also to the cases of disputes for training
compensation between clubs belonging to the same association, provided that
the transfer at the basis of the dispute occurs between clubs belonging to
different associations.
8.
Therefore, bearing in mind the aforementioned considerations, the subcommittee concluded that it is competent to deal with the dispute at stake
relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to the same
association, as the transfer at the basis of the dispute occurred between clubs
belonging to different associations.
9.
Furthermore, the sub-committee 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 2016), and considering that the player was
registered with the Respondent on a definitive basis on 20 July 2015, the 2015
edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter:
Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
10. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the
sub-committee entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the
sub-committee started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Training compensation for the player X
(Club A, from country C / Club B, from country C)
4
well as the arguments and documentation submitted by the parties. However,
it emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the
facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for
the assessment of the matter at hand.
11. In this respect, the sub-committee took note of the fact that the player, born
on 21 December 1992, was registered as a professional, on loan, with the
following clubs:
the Claimant, as of 4 September 2013 until 30 June 2014; and
Club E, from country C as of 23 July 2014 until 30 June 2015.
12. Equally, the sub-committee took note that the player was transferred as a
professional from Club D to the Respondent, on a permanent basis, on 20 July
2015.
13. Furthermore, the sub-committee duly noted that the Claimant requested the
payment of the training compensation from the Respondent on the ground of
the definitive transfer of the player as a professional to the Respondent before
the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. In particular, the sub-committee
took note that the Claimant requested EUR 75,000 plus interest.
14. The sub-committee also duly noted that the Respondent replied that the claim
should be rejected, since the player had allegedly terminated his training
period before the season of his 21st birthday, prior to his transfer to the
Respondent. In particular, the Respondent alleged that the player had played
3 matches with Club D, from country D during the season of his 19th birthday
and 17 with the Club F, from country D during the season of his 20th birthday.
15. With the aforementioned considerations in mind, the sub-committee stated
first that, as established 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 the player
concerned is registered for the first time as a professional, or when a
professional is transferred between two clubs of two different Associations,
before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
16. Furthermore, the sub-committee wished to recall that, 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.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Training compensation for the player X
(Club A, from country C / Club B, from country C)
5
17. Notwithstanding the above, the sub-committee 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber’s well-established
jurisprudence that all clubs which have in 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.
18. In other words, the sub-committee emphasised that the nature of the player’s
registration with a club claiming training compensation, i.e. on a definitive 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.
19. Along those lines, the sub-committee 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 sub-committee 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 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.
20. Following the above, the sub-committee 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
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Training compensation for the player X
(Club A, from country C / Club B, from country C)
6
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. The
aforementioned approach is in line with the longstanding and wellestablished jurisprudence of this Chamber, which has been confirmed by the
Court of Arbitration for Sport on numerous occasions.
21. Furthermore, the sub-committee emphasised that, according to the player
passport issued by the Football Federation of country D, and to the
information contained in the TMS, the player, before his permanent transfer
to the Respondent, was registered with Club D.
22. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the
sub-committee concluded that it can be established that the player was
registered as a professional on a definitive basis with the Respondent before
the end of the season of his 23rd birthday and, thus, the Claimant would be, in
principle, entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent.
23. In continuation, the sub-committee focused its attention on the Respondent’s
argument according to which the player had completed his training period
before the season of his 21st birthday, i.e. before being registered with the
Claimant.
24. In this respect, the sub-committee 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). More specifically, the subcommittee referred to art. 6 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which
stipulates that, inside the EU/EEA, the final season of training may occur
before the season of the player’s 21st birthday if it is established that the
player completed his training before that time.
25. In view of the above, the sub-committee stated that it first had to verify
whether art. 6 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies to the present
case as lex specialis.
26. In this regard, the sub-committee indicated that, since the player moved from
one association to another association inside the territory of the EU, which is
from country D to country C, said article is applicable. Therefore, the subcommittee concluded that art. 6 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies
in the case at hand as lex specialis.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Training compensation for the player X
(Club A, from country C / Club B, from country C)
7
27. In this context, the sub-committee emphasized that cases involving a possible
early completion of a player’s training period have to be assessed on a case-bycase 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 sub-committee pointed out
that, so far, both the Dispute Resolution 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.
28. In this respect, the sub-committee referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural
Rules, in accordance with which, any party claiming a right on the basis of an
alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. In continuation, the subcommittee noted that the Respondent argued that player had completed his
training period before the season of his 21st birthday as he had allegedly
played 3 matches during the season of his 19th birthday with Club D and 17
matches with Club F during the season of his 20th birthday. Nevertheless, the
Respondent did not support such allegations with any evidence. In any case,
the fact that the player played a number of matches with his previous clubs is
insufficient, per se, to conclude that the player had already finished his
training period before joining the Respondent.
29. Consequently, pursuant to the aforementioned principle of the burden of the
proof, the sub-committee concluded that, in the specific matter at hand, it
could not be established whether the player had completed his training before
the season of his 21st birthday and, thus, rejected the Respondent’s argument
in this regard.
30. In continuation, the sub-committee acknowledged that it also had to verify
whether the Claimant had complied with the prerequisites of art. 6 par. 3 of
Annexe 4 of the Regulations in order to be entitled to receive training
compensation from the Respondent.
31. In this context, the sub-committee recalled that, in casu, the player was
transferred on loan from Club D to the Claimant from 4 September 2013 until
30 June 2014 and still had a valid employment contract with Club D.
32. In view of the foregoing, the sub-committee held that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe
4 of the Regulations, i.e. the obligation to offer a professional contract to the
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Training compensation for the player X
(Club A, from country C / Club B, from country C)
8
player, does not apply to clubs with which the player is registered on loan,
since said clubs are per se not in a position to do so considering that the player
is still contractually bound to the club of origin.
33. In view of all the aforementioned considerations, the sub-committee therefore
concluded that the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation from
the Respondent.
34. Turning its attention to the calculation of the training compensation, the subcommittee referred to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations,
which stipulates that, as a general rule, it is necessary to take the costs that
would have been incurred by the new club as if it had trained the player itself
and, thus, it is calculated based on the training costs of the new club
multiplied by the number of years of training with the former club.
35. Furthermore, the sub-committee referred to art. 6 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations which, as mentioned, contains special provisions in case a player
moves from a higher to a lower category club or from a higher to a lower
category club within the territory of the EU/EEA. In this respect, the subcommittee observed that, according to the documentation on file as well as
the foregoing considerations, both the Claimant and the Respondent
belonged to the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year) and
that the player was registered with the Claimant as from 4 September 2013
until 30 June 2014, i.e. during 10 months of the season 2013/2014 (the season
of the player’s 21st birthday).
36. Consequently, and taking into account all the above-mentioned elements, the
sub-committee decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive training
compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 75,000, as
requested by the Claimant.
37. As to the Claimant’s request for interest on the aforementioned amount, the
sub-committee wished to highlight once again that its competence to
adjudicate the present matter arises out of the specific circumstances of the
case among which, in particular, the application by way of analogy of art. 22
lit. e) of the Regulations to a dispute regarding training compensation
between two clubs belonging to the same association (cf. par. from II.2 to II.9
above). In view of the above, and considering the peculiarity of the matter at
hand, the sub-committee decided to reject the request of the Claimant for
interests.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Training compensation for the player X
(Club A, from country C / Club B, from country C)
9
38. Lastly, the sub-committee 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, 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.
39. In respect of the above, the sub-committee held that the amount to be taken
into consideration in the present proceeding is EUR 75,000, related to the
claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the sub-committee concluded that the
maximum amount of costs of the proceeding corresponds to CHF 10,000 (cf.
table in Annexe A).
40. As a result, and taking into account the particularities of the present matter,
the sub-committee determined the costs of the current proceedings to the
amount of CHF 8,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent in its entirety.
III.
Decis ion of the s ub-com m ittee of the DRC
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club B, has to pay to the Claimant, w ithin 30 day s as from
the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 75,000.
3.
In the event that the aforementioned amount is not paid by the Respondent
within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of
expiry of the aforementioned 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 amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 10,000 is to
be paid by the Respondent w ithin 30 day s as from the date of notification of
the present decision as follows:
4.1
The amount of CHF 8,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank
account with reference to case no:
UBS Zurich
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Training compensation for the player X
(Club A, from country C / Club B, from country C)
10
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
4.2
5.
The amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid to the Claimant.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of
the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 4.2 above
are to be made and to notify the sub-committee of the DRC of every payment
received.
*****
Note relating to the m otiv ated decis ion (legal remedy):
According to article 58 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 sub-committee of the DRC:
Omar Ongaro
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Training compensation for the player X
(Club A, from country C / Club B, from country C)
11
Football Regulatory Director
Encl.: CAS Directives
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Training compensation for the player X
(Club A, from country C / Club B, from country C)
12