Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 12 May 2015,
by Theo van Seggelen (the Netherlands), DRC judge,
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 E
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the player passport issued by the Football Association of country B, the
player, Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 1 February 1990, was registered
with its affiliated club, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 15 March 2005 until
8 March 2009 as an amateur.
2.
Furthermore, according to the aforementioned player passport, the player was
registered as an amateur with the clubs from country B, Club F and Club G, from 9
March 2009 until 15 January 2011 and 16 January 2011 until 7 March 2012
respectively.
3.
The sporting season in country B runs as follows: a) for amateurs (under 20 years of
age) from January until December of the relevant year and b) for amateurs (more
than 20 years of age) and professionals from 1 July until 30 June of the following
year.
4.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the
player was registered with the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the
Respondent), on 8 March 2012.
5.
Despite being requested to do so various times, the Football Federation of country D
never responded to FIFA regarding the status that the player obtained upon his
registration with the Respondent.
6.
According to the information contained in TMS, the Respondent belonged to
category III (i.e. indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per season within UEFA).
7.
On 9 January 2013, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of training
compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player had signed his
first professional contract with the Respondent in January 2012. In particular, the
Claimant requested the amount of EUR 97,500 plus unspecified interest.
8.
In its reply to the claim, the Respondent stated that the player never acquired the
status of a professional player with it. Furthermore, the Respondent explained that it
carried out the transfer of the player in a status of professional player in order to
accelerate the issuance of the International Transfer Certificate (ITC). According to
the Respondent, in spite of having been registered as a professional, the player has
played as an amateur for the Respondent.
9.
Moreover, the Respondent explained that it did not conclude a written contract with
the player nor does it pay any salary in connection with his football activities.
Therefore, the Respondent cannot be considered as the club with which the player
was registered as a professional for the first time and it is not responsible for the
payment of training compensation.
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
2/7
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 matter at hand.
In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 9
January 2013. Consequently, the 2012 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 2012, 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
and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with art.
22 lit. (d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), the
DRC judge is competent to adjudicate on the present matter, since it concerns a
dispute relating to the payment of training compensation between a club from
country B and a club from country D.
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, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2015), and
considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on
8 March 2012, the 2010 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. The DRC judge
started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well as the documentation on file.
However, the DRC judge 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.
5.
First of all, the DRC judge took note that the Claimant maintained that it is entitled
to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 97,500,
plus interest, indicating that the player had signed his first professional contract with
the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.
6.
However, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of the
Claimant, stating, first of all, that the player never acquired the status of a
professional with it, despite having been registered as a professional. In addition, the
DRC judge noted that the Respondent explained that it carried out the transfer of
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
3/7
the player in a status of professional player in order to accelerate the issuance of the
International Certificate (ITC).
7.
The DRC judge further noted that the Respondent explained that it did not conclude
a written contract with the player nor did it pay any salary in connection with his
football activities.
8.
After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, taking into consideration all
the aforementioned arguments, the DRC judge observed that the parties disagreed
on the actual status that the player obtained upon his registration with the
Respondent.
9.
In this respect, the DRC judge was eager to point out that the Respondent had
acknowledged that it had carried out the transfer of the player via the Transfer
Matching System (TMS) and that it registered the player as a professional.
10.
Taking into account the foregoing, the DRC judge referred to art. 1 par. 6 of Annexe
3 of the Regulations, which stipulates that an international transfer needs to be
entered in TMS whenever a player is to be registered as a professional by the new
association.
11.
At this point, the DRC judge wished to emphasize that there was no need for the
Respondent to enter the transfer of the player in TMS if the player was not to be
registered a professional. However, the Respondent entered the transfer of the player
in TMS and, in addition, acknowledged that the player was actually registered as a
professional. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that it could indeed be
established that the player obtained the professional status upon his registration with
the Respondent.
12.
In this respect, the DRC judge referred to the rules applicable to training
compensation and stated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in
combination with art. 2 par. 1 lit. i. 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 23rd birthday.
13.
Consequently, taking into account all the foregoing, the DRC judge concurred that
training compensation is, in principle, due.
14.
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. Furthermore, the DRC judge referred to the exception contained in the first
sentence of art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which stipulates that to
ensure that training compensation for very young players is not set at unreasonably
high levels, the training costs for players for the seasons between their 12 th and 15th
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
4/7
birthdays (i.e. four seasons) shall be based on the training and education costs of
category 4 clubs.
15.
Having established the above, the DRC judge recalled that the player was born on 1
February 1990 and that the player was registered with the Claimant as from 15 March
2005 until 8 March 2009 as an amateur.
16.
Equally, the DRC judge recalled that, according to the information contained in TMS,
the player was registered with the Respondent on 8 March 2012 as well as that the
Respondent belonged to the category III.
17.
On account of the above and in accordance with art. 20 in combination with Annexe
4 of the Regulations, the DRC judge considered that the Claimant is, thus, entitled to
receive training compensation for the period as from 15 march 2005 until 8 March
2009, i.e. 10 months of the season 2005 (seasons of the player’s 15th birthday), the
entire seasons 2006, 2007, 2008 (seasons of the player’s 16th to 18th birthday), and 2
months of the 2009 season (season of the player’s 19th birthday).
18.
In view of all of the above, taking into account the amount claimed by the Claimant,
the DRC judge held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 97,500 to
the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player
with the Respondent.
19.
Moreover, taking into account the Claimant’s claim, the DRC judge decided that the
Respondent has to pay interest of 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training
compensation as from 9 January 2013 until the date of effective payment.
20.
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, as well as the DRC judge, 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.
21.
In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 97,500 related to the claim of the
Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs
of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 15,000 (cf. table in Annexe A).
22.
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 15,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent.
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
5/7
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 97,500 plus 5% interest p.a. on
said amount as of 9 January 2013 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.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 15,000 are to be paid by the
Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of the notification of the present
decision as follows:
4.1. The amount of CHF 12,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with reference
to case nr. XXXX:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
4.2. The amount of CHF 3,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant.
5.
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 DRC judge 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
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
6/7
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:
Markus Kattner
Acting Secretary General
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
7/7