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 (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.
The Football Federation of country B confirmed that the player, Player E, born on 24
October 1991, was registered as an amateur with its affiliated clubs as follows:
-
Club F: from 27 November 2002 until 31 August 2009;
Club G: from 2 September 2009 until 27 January 2010;
Club H: from 23 February 2011 until 3 February 2012;
Club I: from 8 February 2012 until 1 August 2012; and
Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant): from 8 August 2012 until 23 July 2013.
2.
Furthermore, the Football Federation of country J confirmed that the player was
registered as an amateur with the club from country J, Club K, from 22 May 2010
until 30 December 2010.
3.
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), as a professional on 12 August 2013.
4.
According to the information contained in the TMS, the Respondent belonged to the
category 2 (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year within UEFA) at the time the
player was registered with said club.
5.
On 12 March 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim at FIFA claiming training
compensation in connection with the first registration of the player as a professional
with the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant requested the amount of EUR 60,000
without claiming interest.
6.
In its reply, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant stating that the
manager involved in the transfer of the player assured that the player was “free to
sign” and that it would not have to pay any “tuition nor transfer fees”. In this
respect, the Respondent further held that a player from the third division has “zero
market price” in the league of country D.
II.
Considerations of the DRC judge
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge (hereinafter: 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 12 March 2014.
Consequently, the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’
Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural
Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural
Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural
Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 and art. 22 lit. d)
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012, 2014 and
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
2
2015) he is competent to deal with the matter at stake relating to training
compensation between clubs belonging to different associations.
3.
Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with his
new club on 12 August 2013, the DRC judge 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 (editions 2012, 2014 and 2015), the 2012 version of the said Regulations is
applicable to the present matter 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
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 respect, the DRC judge took note of the fact that the player, born on 24
October 1991, was registered with the Claimant as from 8 August 2012 until 23 July
2013.
6.
Furthermore, the DRC judge duly noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant is
requesting training compensation for the training and education of the player
concerned from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 60,000, on the basis that the
player was registered for the first time as a professional with the Respondent.
7.
Moreover, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of the
Claimant, arguing that the manager involved in the transfer of the player assured
that the player was “free to sign” and that it would not have to pay any “tuition nor
transfer fees”. In this respect, the DRC judge further noted that the Respondent
further held that a player from the third division has “zero market price” in the
league of country D.
8.
In this context, the DRC firstly underscored that it is undisputed that, on 12 August
2013, the player was registered for the first time as a professional with the
Respondent.
9.
In continuation, the DRC judge stated 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.
10.
Furthermore, the DRC judge also referred to art. 3 par. 1 and par. 2 of Annexe 4
of the Regulations, in accordance with which, as a general principle, the club for
which the player was registered for the first time as a professional is responsible
for paying training compensation to every club with which the player has
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
3
previously been registered and that has contributed to his training, the
aforementioned in accordance with the player’s career history as provided in the
player passport.
11.
Moreover, the Chamber noted that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to
receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 60,000
since it trained the player as from 8 August 2012 until 23 July 2013, whereas the
Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim and asserted that the manager involved
assured that the player was “free to sign” and that no “tuition nor transfer fees”
would be payable.
12.
In this regard, the DRC judge referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which
essentially stipulates that any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact
shall carry the burden of proof and, in this respect, he concluded that the Respondent
shall proof that the Claimant had waived its right to claim training compensation.
However, the DRC judge underscored that the Respondent, at no point, provided any
proof for its aforementioned assumption that it could register the player without the
obligation to pay training compensation to any third club.
13.
Moreover, the DRC judge stressed that, in any case, the Respondent could not rely on
such statement by the player’s manager, given that a waiver regarding training
compensation could only possibly be made by the club which is entitled to training
compensation. However, the DRC judge emphasized that the Respondent has not
provided any proof in this regard. As to the Respondent’s argument that the player
had “zero market price”, the DRC judge held that this argument has no influence on
the Respondent’s obligation to pay training compensation.
14.
In light of the foregoing, the DRC judge concluded that based on the documents at
disposal it can be established that the player in question, born on 24 October 1991,
was registered with the Claimant as from 8 August 2012 until 23 July 2013 as an
amateur and thereafter signed his first professional contract with the Respondent on
12 August 2013, i.e. before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday and thus,
entitling the Claimant to receive training compensation from the Respondent.
15.
As a result, considering art. 3 par. 1 of the 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 at the matter at stake corresponds to
eleven months of the season of the player’s 21st birthday, season 2012/2013 from
August to June.
16.
Turning his attention to the calculation of training compensation, the DRC judge
referred to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of the Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulate
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.
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
4
17.
In continuation, the DRC judge observed that according to the documentation on
file, the Respondent belonged to the category II and that the player was registered
with the Claimant as from 8 August 2012 until 23 July 2013.
18.
In view of all of the above, the DRC judge decided to partially accept the claim of the
Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 55,000 to
the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player
with the Respondent.
19.
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 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.
20.
In respect of the above, the DRC judge held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 60,000 related to the claim of the
Claimant. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs
of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000 (cf. table in Annexe A).
21.
As a result, considering that the case at hand allowed to be dealt with following a
reasonable procedure as well as considering the degree of success, the DRC judge
determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 8,000, which
shall be borne by the Respondent.
III.
Decision of the DRC judge
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 of the date
of notification of the present decision, the amount of EUR 55,000.
3.
If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the stated time limit, interest of 5%
p.a. will fall due as 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.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
5.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 8,000 are to be paid by the
Respondent, within 30 days of notification of the present decision as follows:
5.1
The amount of CHF 6,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank
account with reference to case nr. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
5
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
5.2
6.
The amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the
account number to which the remittances 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 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
Deputy Secretary General
Enclosed: CAS directives
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
6