Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the s ub-com m ittee of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber (DRC)
passed on 15 June 2017,
in the following composition:
Thom as Grim m (Sw itzerland), Deputy Chairman
Guillerm o S . Guale (Ecuador), member
Johan v an Gaalen (S outh Africa), 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 cas e
1.
According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of Country B
(Football Federation F) the player, Player E, born on 26 September 1992, was registered
as a professional with its affiliated clubs as follows:
Club
Club G
Club G
Club H
Registration dates
as from 22 August 2007 until 30 June
2010
as from 1 July 2010 until 30 August
2011
as from 31 August 2011 until 30 June
2012
Category
Registration
basis
Status
1
Definitive
Amateur
1
Definitive
Professional
3
On loan from
Club G
Professional
Club G
as from 1 July 2012 until 5 July 2012
1
Definitive
Professional
Club J
as from 6 July 2012 until 30 June 2013
2
On loan from
Club G
Professional
Club G
as from 1 July 2013 until 11 July 2013
1
Definitive
Professional
1
On loan from
Club G
Professional
1
Definitive
Professional
Club A
Club G
as from 12 July 2013 until 30 June
2014
as from 1 July 2014 until 28 August
2014
2.
The football season in Country B runs from 1 July to 30 June of the following year.
3.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the
player was loaned from Club G to the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the
Respondent), as from 29 August 2014 until 30 June 2015 against the payment of a
conditional transfer fee of up to EUR 100,000. Equally, according to the TMS, on 1 July
2015, Club G and the Respondent concluded an agreement for the definitive transfer of
the player from Club G to the Respondent against the payment of EUR 500,000.
Subsequently, the player was definitively registered with the Respondent.
4.
Also according to the TMS, the Respondent belonged to the club category 1 at the time
the player was registered with it on a definitive basis.
5.
On 4 November 2016, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant) lodged a claim before FIFA
against the Respondent asking to be awarded training compensation in connection with
the subsequent professional registration of the player with the Respondent. In
particular, the Claimant requested EUR 90,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 1 August 2015.
6.
In this context, the Claimant referred to the last sentence of art. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations),
according to which, in case of a subsequent transfer of a professional player, training
compensation will only be owed to his former club for the time he was effectively
trained by that club, and alleged that the wording has been overcome by the
jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and the Court of Arbitration for
Sport (CAS) in relation to loans, in accordance with which, the player’s new club has the
Training compensation Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
2
obligation to pay training compensation not only to his former club but also to the clubs
that have registered the player on temporary basis.
7.
In this respect, the Claimant assessed that the interpretation of the aforementioned
provision shall be in line with art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations as well as to the ratio
behind the provision, which, in the Claimant’s opinion, is to provide for a training
compensation system that rewards clubs for their efforts invested in effectively training
young players, irrespective of the nature of their registration or transfer, i.e. on a
temporary or on a definitive basis, once.
8.
Equally, the Claimant submitted that, according to art. 3 of the Commentary in respect
of art. 10 of the Regulations, a club receiving a player on loan is entitled to claim
training compensation if the player is transferred to a third club, and that any other
interpretation would contravene the intention of FIFA and would result in a club that
registered a player on loan be deprived of any reward for its efforts in training and
educating young players, which would ultimately lead to the reluctance of clubs to
register players on loan.
9.
Furthermore, the Claimant argued that loans do not trigger the consequences of art. 3
par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, this
is, they do not constitute a subsequent transfer of a player. As a result, the period of
time in which the player is registered with his club of origin as well as the time the
player is on loan and his return to his club of origin should be considered as one entire
time frame. Consequently, and taking into account the ratio behind the training
compensation system, the Claimant held that there is no reason to reject the
entitlement to training compensation of clubs that accept players on loan.
10.
In its reply, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim by stating that art. 3 of
Annexe 4 of the Regulations stipulates that when a professional player is transferred,
only the last club is entitled to training compensation. In this context, the Respondent
held that the player was a professional for three seasons before joining the Claimant
and that he returned to Club G at the end of his loan. Consequently, the Respondent
assessed that the Claimant is not entitled to training compensation as it was not the
player’s last club.
11.
Moreover, the Respondent submitted a copy of the transfer agreement it entered into
with Club G regarding the transfer of the player against the payment of a compensation
of EUR 500,000. In this context, the Respondent submitted that, according to the
jurisprudence of the DRC, whenever the parties to a transfer agreed upon a transfer
compensation, training compensation is included in the transfer fee, unless otherwise
explicitly stated, which was not the case in the relevant transfer agreement.
12.
Furthermore, the Respondent referred to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations
and held that the Claimant did not meet the prerequisites of said provision in order to
be entitled to training compensation.
Training compensation Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
3
13.
In addition, the Respondent asserted that said article was implemented to harmonize
the regulations with the principles of the European Union and, in particular, the free
movement of workers. Consequently, in the Respondent’s opinion, the interpretation of
the Regulations should be in line with said principle. As a result, the Respondent argued
that if training compensation is payable to the Claimant, in spite of the fact that a
transfer compensation, which included the training compensation, was paid, this would
result in accepting that the transfer of a player within the European Union has an extra
cost, allegedly resulting in limiting the free movement of workers.
14.
Alternatively, the Respondent referred to art. 1 par. 1 and to art. 6 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of
the Regulations, and argued that the player had terminated his training and education
period before joining the Claimant.
15.
In particular, the Respondent provided a copy of a mass media report, according to
which the player had been called to play for his U19, U20 and U21 national team, he
played 11 minutes in one match for Club G in the League K, 32 matches in “League L”
for Club H, 30 matches in the League M for Club J and 20 matches in the League K for
the Claimant. Equally, the Respondent stated that the player had been registered as a
professional for three seasons before joining the Claimant. As a result, the Respondent
was of the opinion that the player was fully trained and that the Claimant did not incur
any expenses to train him but that, on the contrary, it benefited from him in the 20
matches he played for the Claimant in the League K.
16.
Lastly, the Respondent referred to the CAS who allegedly decided that a 17-year old
player, who played 5 matches with the first team during his first season with a club and
15 during the second season, was considered to have terminated his training period
before turning 19, as well as that a 17-year old player had terminated his training
period as he was the most skilled player in all the national teams.
17.
In its replica, the Claimant rejected the Respondent’s argumentation by reiterating that
it is not the last club stricto sensu and pointing out that the Respondent has not
provided any evidence supporting a deviation from the DRC’s well-established
jurisprudence.
18.
As to the definitive transfer of the player against payment, the Claimant stated that it is
irrelevant as it was not a party to the transfer agreement. In this respect, the Claimant
alleged that, according to the jurisprudence of the DRC, the conclusion of a transfer
agreement between the player’s club of origin and the new club does not affect the
entitlement of the club that accepted the player on loan, and stressed that it is the
responsibility of the new club to correctly identify and pay the clubs entitled to training
compensation.
19.
As to the alleged early termination of the player’s training and education period, the
Claimant submitted that it has to be established on a case-by-case basis, considering all
Training compensation Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
4
the evidence and circumstances of the case. Equally, the Claimant stressed that the
burden of proof lies with the Respondent and that the latter failed to provide sufficient
and unequivocal evidence in this respect.
20.
In this respect, the Claimant alleged that according to the jurisprudence of the DRC, this
exception is reserved for “young players, who, at the age of 17 or 18 are globally known
for their exceptional talents, who are regulars on both the club and national level and
who are frequently focus of the transfer arrangements to the world’s top clubs” and
stated that the Respondent failed to demonstrate that the player was globally known,
that he was a frequent player with Club G and the National Team of Country B and that
he was frequently the focus of transfer arrangements by top clubs.
21.
In this context, and as to the transfer compensation paid by the Respondent for the
transfer of the player, the Claimant assessed that, although the player’s salary or the fee
paid for his transfer may be an indication of the player’s value at a club, it is common
that clubs pay significant amounts as transfer fees for promising talents and that this
transfer fee was paid after the player was registered for the Claimant and after the end
of the season of his 21st birthday. Consequently, the Claimant asserted that the transfer
fee itself is not an indication of the early termination of the player’s training period.
22.
Equally, the Claimant held that the Respondent failed to prove that Club G was
significantly compensated for the loss of the player’s services while he was loaned to
third clubs, which could have been an indication that the reason why he was loaned was
to obtain an economic benefit rather than to provide him with opportunities to gain
experience and continue his training and education in other clubs with which he would
be able to play more minutes.
23.
Lastly, the Claimant argued that the Respondent failed to demonstrate that the player
was publicly known at national and international level. On the contrary, the Claimant
submitted that the player was loaned to clubs playing in lower divisions or to clubs that
cannot be considered as top clubs and that he was never called for his A national team,
playing only in friendly matches for his U19 and U20 national teams. In particular, the
Claimant provided mass media reports, according to which the player:
-
was in the starting eleven of Club G’s U19 team 22 times in the League N,
was fielded 31 times out of 34 possible games with Club H in League L, 1 of which
as a substitute,
was fielded 30 times out of the 42 possible games with Club J in League M, 3 of
which as a substitute,
was fielded 20 times out of the 38 possible league games of the Claimant in
League K, 13 of which as a substitute, and
the player was fielded during his loan with the Respondent in 12 games out of 41
in League O, and that in 4 of these matches he was a substitute.
Training compensation Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
5
In this context, the Claimant concluded that, although both the latter and Club G were
playing in the League K, Club G did not consider him ready to be included in its squad,
resulting in the player being loaned to other clubs to give him the opportunity to play.
24.
In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated its previous arguments and held that, should
training compensation be payable to the Claimant, it would be Club G’s responsibility to
pay it as it received the transfer compensation.
25.
As to the early termination of the player’s training and education period, the
Respondent submitted that it would be unreasonable that a player has to be
internationally recognized in order to consider that his training and education period
has terminated before the end of the season of his 21st birthday, as the level of a player
depends on his quality and potential rather than on his age. In particular, the
Respondent argued that would the DRC follow the Claimant’s arguments, only
“exceptional” players would terminate their training period before the end of the
season of their 21st birthday and this, logically, is not the case.
26.
Lastly, the Respondent also pointed out that the player neither before nor after the end
of the season of his 21st birthday reached a level that allowed him to be an established
player with Club G. Consequently, the Respondent was of the opinion that this is not a
matter of maturity of the player but rather of technical criteria.
II.
Cons iderations of the s ub-com m ittee of the DRC
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 4 November 2016. Consequently, the 2015 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 of the Dispute Resolution Chamber referred to art. 3
of the Procedural Rules, which states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall
examine its jurisdiction in light of arts 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (edition 2016). In accordance with art. 3 of Annexe 6 in conjunction
with art. 24 par. 3 and art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players, the sub-committee is competent to decide on the present matter relating to
training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations handled
through TMS.
3.
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
Training compensation Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
6
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016), and
considering that the player was definitely registered with the Respondent on or about 1
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.
4.
The competence of the sub-committee and the applicable regulations having been
established, the sub-committee entered into the substance of the matter. The subcommittee started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as
the documentation on file. However, the sub-committee emphasized 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.
In this regard, the sub-committee recalled that the player, born on 26 September 1992,
was registered on a loan basis with the Claimant for the period between 12 July 2013
and 30 June 2014. Equally, the sub-committee observed that after expiry of this loan
period, the player returned to his club of origin, Club G, i.e. the club with which the
player was still contractually bound. Subsequently, after having previously been
registered with the Respondent on a loan basis during 1 season, on 1 July 2015, the
player was registered with the Respondent on a definitive basis following the
conclusion of a transfer agreement between Club G and the Respondent involving a
transfer compensation amounting to EUR 500,000.
6.
In continuation, the sub-committee took note that the Claimant asserted that it was
entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR
90,000.
7.
Equally, the sub-committee 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 and that, if any amount of training
compensation would be due, it should be Club G’s responsibility to pay it as it received
the transfer compensation. Also, the Respondent stated that the Claimant did not offer
the player a contract in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations
and that, therefore, it is not entitled to training compensation. Alternatively, the
Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim alleging that the player’s training and
education period had terminated before joining the Claimant.
Having said this, the sub-committee referred to the rules applicable to training
compensation and 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
professional before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd 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 the player was effectively trained by that club.
8.
Training compensation Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
7
9.
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.
10.
Following 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 DRC’s well-established
jurisprudence 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.
11.
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 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.
12.
In this respect and for the sake of good order, 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.
13.
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
Training compensation Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
8
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.
14.
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 sub-committee 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 subcommittee acknowledged that the Claimant was not the player’s former club stricto
sensu, however, the sub-committee pointed out that, within the framework of loans,
the period of time that the player was registered with his club of origin, i.e. Club G, and
the period of time that the player was registered with the club that accepted him on
loan, i.e. the Claimant, 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.
15.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, the sub-committee 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.
16.
For these reasons, the sub-committee rejected the Respondent’s respective argument.
17.
The sub-committee equally decided to reject the Respondent’s argument that training
compensation for the player is included in the EUR 500,000 transfer compensation it
contractually agreed upon with Club G, since the Claimant was no party to the
pertinent transfer agreement.
18.
In continuation, the sub-committee went on to examine whether or not the player’s
training period had already been completed before the season of the player’s 21st
birthday, as alleged by the Respondent.
19.
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 members of the sub-committee 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.
20.
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.
Training compensation Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
9
21.
In this regard, the sub-committee indicated that, since the player moved from one
association to another association inside the territory of the EU, said article is
applicable. Therefore, the sub-committee concluded that art. 6 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of
the Regulations applies in the case at hand as lex specialis.
22.
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-by-case basis,
whereby all the specific circumstances and all the evidence produced have 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 DRC 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.
23.
Taking into account all the specific circumstances of the present matter as well as all the
evidence produced by the parties to the dispute, the sub-committee highlighted that,
during the period of registration with Club G, the player had not played on a regular
basis with the A team of the latter and had, thus, undoubtedly not the same level of
training and football skills as his colleagues. In particular, the sub-committee underlined
that, according to the documentation on file, the player had only played for Club G’s
U19 team and for 11 minutes in League K, as well as with Club H and Club J in League L
and in League M respectively. Consequently, the sub-committee considered that it could
not be established that the player had been a permanent member of Club G’s first
team.
24.
In continuation, the sub-committee noted that the player was a regular for the youth
teams of his national team. The sub-committee outlined that this may indeed be an
indication of the player’s talent, skills and level of training, however, such fact is in itself
not conclusive in establishing that a particular player indeed already completed his
training period.
25.
The sub-committee further referred to the player’s career, according to which he was a
well-established player in League L with Club H and thereafter played regularly in
League M with Club J. In this context, the sub-committee pointed out that this may be
an indication of his evolution, but does not necessarily mean that he was no longer in
need of training.
26.
In view of the above, the sub-committee concurred that, in the specific matter at hand
and taking all the above-mentioned elements combined, it could not be established
that the player had indeed already completed his training before joining the
Respondent. Hence, the sub-committee deemed that the training period of the player
had not been completed before the season of his 21st birthday.
Training compensation Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
10
27.
Subsequently, the sub-committee turned its attention to the argument of the
Respondent relating to art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which
stipulates that if the former club does not offer the player a contract, no training
compensation is payable unless the former club can justify that it is entitled to such
compensation.
28.
However, in this regard, the sub-committee pointed out that, in casu, a possible
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 Club G, this is, the club with which the player
concluded a professional contract that was suspended during the loan, and not with the
Claimant. As stated in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, said provision is
without prejudice to the right of training compensation of the player’s previous club(s).
29.
Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the subcommittee concurred that it had to reject the Respondent’s arguments and decided that
the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant for the training
of the player in accordance with art. 20 of the Regulations and art. 2 par. 1 lit. ii. and
art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
30.
As a result, 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 sub-committee concluded
that the effective period of time to be considered in the matter at stake, i.e. 12 July
2013 until 30 June 2014, corresponds to the season of the season of the player’s 21st
birthday, i.e. the entire 2013/2014 season.
31.
Furthermore, the sub-committee referred to art. 5 paras 1 and 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. Equally, the subcommittee recalled the contents of art. 6 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which
stipulates that when a player moves from a lower to a higher category club within the
territory of the EU/EEA, the amount of training compensation payable shall be
calculated based on the average training costs of the two clubs.
32.
In this respect, the sub-committee noted that both the Claimant and the Respondent
belonged to club category 1, which corresponds to the indicative amount of EUR 90,000
per year within UEFA.
33.
In light of the foregoing, the sub-committee decided that the Respondent is liable to
pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 90,000.
34.
Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of
Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the sub-committee decided that the Respondent has to
pay, in conformity with its longstanding practice, interest at 5% p.a. over the amount
Training compensation Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
11
payable as training compensation as of the 31st day of the registration of the player
with the Respondent on a definitive basis, i.e. as of 1 August 2015, until the date of
effective payment.
35.
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 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.
36.
In respect of the above, the sub-committee held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 90,000 related to the claim of the
Claimant. Consequently, the sub-committee concluded that the maximum amount of
costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the
Procedural Rules).
37.
As a result, and taking into account the complexity of the case, the sub-committee
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 s ub-com m ittee of the DRC
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, w ithin 30 days as from the date
of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 90,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 1
August 2015 until the date of effective payment.
3.
In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid by the Respondent
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 8,000 are to be paid by the
Respondent, w ithin 30 day s of notification of the present decision as follows:
4.1
The amount of CHF 6,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with reference
to case no. XXX:
UBS Zurich
Training compensation Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
12
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH 27 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 decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 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
Football Regulatory Director
Enclosed: CAS directives
Training compensation Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
13