Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 June 2013,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Jon Newman (USA), member
Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member
Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member
Essah M. Saleh Al-Housani (United Arab Emirates), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Club P, from country C
as Claimant
against the club,
Club G, from country I
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in connection with the player Z
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the player passport issued by the Football Association of the
country C the player Z (hereinafter: the player), born in January 1994, was
registered as an amateur with the country C clubs:
-
Club H
-
Club P
as from 18 August 2004 until 17 August
2009;
as from 18 August 2009 until 2 September
2011 (on loan).
2.
The CMFS explained that the player did not return to Club H because the loan
period was intended to expire on 30 June 2013. Club P (hereinafter: the
Claimant) stated that the loan was made pursuant to art. 8 of the country C
“Regulations of Transfer for unprofessional player” and that there was no loan
agreement concluded.
3.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS),
Club G (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 22 August 2011, entered a transfer
instruction into the TMS by means of which it “engaged the player out of
contract, free of payment” from the Claimant.
4.
The football seasons in the country C during the period of time the player was
registered with the Claimant started and ended as follows:
- 2009/2010 from 25 July 2009 until 30 May 2010;
- 2010/2011 from 17 July 2010 until 11 June 2011;
- 2011/2012 from 30 July 2011.
5.
According to the aforementioned player passport, the Claimant belonged to the
category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) during the period of time
the player was registered with it.
6.
The country I Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered with
the Respondent on 2 September 2011 as a professional.
7.
Equally, the country I Football Federation confirmed that the Respondent
belonged to the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year) at the
moment the player was registered with it.
8.
On 7 February 2012, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of
training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player, on
Training compensation in connection with the player Z
(Club P, country C / Club G, country I)
2/7
2 September 2011, had signed his first professional contract with the
Respondent. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 120,000.
9.
In reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent stated that the Claimant had
not offered a contract to the player in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and that, therefore, it
is not entitled to receive training compensation.
10. In light of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the aforementioned Regulations, the
Claimant stated that “his former club H declared the activity to sign his first
professional contract with him [the player]”.
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 7
February 2012. Consequently, the 2008 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 par. 2 and 3 of the 2008 and 2012 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 2012), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal
with the matter at stake relating to training compensation between clubs
belonging to different associations.
3.
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 2010 and
2012), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 2
September 2011, 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 and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The
Training compensation in connection with the player Z
(Club P, country C / Club G, country I)
3/7
members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well
as the documentation on file.
5.
First of all, the DRC took note that the Claimant maintained that it is entitled to
receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR
120,000, 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 Chamber noted that the Respondent rebutted the claim of the
Claimant, alleging that the Respondent had not offered a contract to the player
in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
7.
Equally, the DRC took due note that, according to the Claimant, the player’s
previous club, Club H, stated that it would offer the player a contract in
accordance with the aforementioned provision.
8.
After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, taking into consideration
all the aforementioned arguments, the Chamber observed that the parties, in
particular, disputed whether the Claimant should have offered the player a
contract in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
9.
In this respect, and hereby referring to the rules applicable to training
compensation, the Chamber 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. Therefore, the
Chamber concurred that indeed, in principle, training compensation is due
whenever a player is registered for the first time as a professional before the
end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
10.
In continuation, the DRC 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 Chamber indicated that, since the player
moved from the country C to country I, i.e. from one association to another
association inside the territory of the EU, said article is applicable. Hence, the
DRC concluded that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies in the
case at hand as lex specialis.
Training compensation in connection with the player Z
(Club P, country C / Club G, country I)
4/7
11.
In continuation, the DRC pointed out that the obligation to offer the player a
contract in compliance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations would
in principle lie with the former club of the player. Consequently, and given the
particularities of the present matter, the DRC held that it had to establish which
club is to be considered the player’s former club.
12.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber recalled that the player was
registered with Club H as an amateur as from 18 August 2004 until 17 August
2009 and, thereafter, according to the Football Association of country C, on loan
with the Claimant as from 18 August 2009 until 2 September 2011, also as an
amateur.
13.
Equally, the DRC recalled that the Football Association of country C had
explained that the player did not return to Club H because the loan period was
intended to expire on 30 June 2013, as well as that the Claimant explained that
there was no loan agreement concluded with Club H.
14.
Likewise, the DRC recalled that, according to the information contained in the
Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Respondent, on 22 August 2011, entered
a transfer instruction into the TMS by means of which it “engaged the player
out of contract, free of payment” from the Claimant.
15.
Finally, the DRC noted that the ITC of the player, uploaded in TMS and issued by
the Football Association of country C, also stipulated that the player was
“formerly a member of [the Claimant].”
16.
Taking into consideration all the aforementioned circumstances, the DRC
concluded that the player was transferred directly from the Claimant to the
Respondent and that, as a consequence, the Claimant is to be considered the
former club of the player. Indeed, the Chamber emphasised that the
information contained in TMS together with the absence of a loan agreement
as well as the fact that the player was at all times registered as an amateur can
lead to no other conclusion than that the Claimant was the former club of the
player. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant should be
considered the player’s former club in the sense of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of
the Regulations.
17.
Turning its attention to the question whether the Claimant had complied with
the obligation to offer the player a contract, the DRC recalled that the Claimant
merely stated that “[the player’s] former club H declared the activity to sign his
first professional contract with him [the player]”.
Training compensation in connection with the player Z
(Club P, country C / Club G, country I)
5/7
18.
Consequently, and in absence of any evidence to the contrary, the DRC
concluded that the Claimant did not offer the player a contract. In other words,
the Claimant failed to comply with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
19.
In light of all the foregoing, the Chamber rejected the Claimant’s claim.
20.
Lastly, the Chamber 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 currency of country H 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 120,000 related to the claim of
the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount
of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 15,000 (cf. table
in Annexe A).
22.
As a result, and taking into account the particularities of the present matter, the
complexity of the case as well as that the claim of the Claimant has been
rejected, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the
amount of currency of country H 12,000, which shall be borne by the Claimant.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club P, is rejected.
2.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 12,000
are to be paid by the Claimant within 30 days as from the date of notification
of the present decision, to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the
amount of currency of country H 3,000 as advance of costs at the beginning of
the present proceedings, the amount of currency of country H 9,000 is to be paid
to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.:
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
Training compensation in connection with the player Z
(Club P, country C / Club G, country I)
6/7
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 Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Markus Kattner
Deputy Secretary General
Enclosed: CAS directives
Training compensation in connection with the player Z
(Club P, country C / Club G, country I)
7/7