Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 31 July 2013,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member
Ivan Gazidis (England), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Club D, from country S
as Claimant
against the club,
Club P, from country I
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in connection with the player B
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the player passport issued by the country S Football Association the
player B (hereinafter: the player), born in September 1991, was registered with
Club D, from country S (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 6 August 2007 until
19 August 2012 as a professional.
2.
The football seasons in country S during the period of time the player was
registered with the Claimant started on 1 July and ended on 30 June of the
following year.
3.
According to a confirmation of the country S Football Association, the Claimant
belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) during
the seasons 2007/2008 until 2010/2011, and to the category IV (indicative amount
of EUR 10,000) during the season 2011/2012.
4.
The country I Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered with
its affiliated club, Club P (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 20 August 2012.
5.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS),
the Respondent belonged to the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000
per year) at the time the player was registered with it.
6.
On 26 September 2012, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of
training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player, on
20 August 2012, was transferred as a professional from the Claimant to the
Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. In particular, the
Claimant is claiming EUR 300,000.
7.
The Claimant stated that the player’s employment contract would expire on 30
June 2012 and, therefore, it had offered the player a new employment contract
by mail on 13 March 2012, starting on 1 July 2012 and ending on 30 June 2014.
In this respect, the Claimant enclosed a “confirmation from country S Post dated
on 13 March 2012”, which, in the Claimant’s view, confirmed that the offer was
sent to the player.
8.
In its reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent stated that the player had
already completed his training period before he was transferred to the
Respondent since, according to the Respondent, the player was a regular player
in the Claimant’s first team and had already played several matches for the
under-19 and under-21 country S national teams. Furthermore, the Respondent
stated that the Claimant has not sufficiently proven on which date the
Training compensation in connection with the player B
(Club D, from country S / Club P, from country I)
2/7
contractual offer was sent to the player and if such offer has actually been
received by the player. In particular, the “postal documentation” submitted does
not bear the date of registration of the mailed letter and there is no evidence
that the document sent to the player is the contract offer.
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 26
September 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
20 August 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 and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The
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
300,000, indicating that the player was transferred as a professional from the
Claimant to the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.
Training compensation in connection with the player B
(Club D, from country S / Club P, from country I)
3/7
6.
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. ii. 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 professional is transferred between clubs of two
different associations before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.
Therefore, the Chamber concurred that indeed, in principle, training
compensation is due whenever a professional is transferred internationally
before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.
7.
In continuation, the Chamber took note that the Claimant stated that the
player’s employment contract would expire on 30 June 2012 and that it had
offered the player a new employment contract by mail on 13 March 2012,
starting on 1 July 2012 and ending on 30 June 2014. In this respect, the Chamber
noted that the Claimant provided a “confirmation from country S Post dated on
13 March 2012”, which, in the Claimant’s view, confirmed that the offer was
sent to the player.
8.
However, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rebutted the claim of the
Claimant, alleging that the Claimant had not sufficiently proven on which date
the contract offer was sent to the player and if the player had actually received
such offer. The Chamber particularly noted that the Respondent argued that the
“postal documentation” submitted by the Claimant does not bear the date of
registration of the mailed letter and that no evidence was submitted by the
Claimant that the document sent to the player was the contract offer.
9.
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 had complied with art. 6 par. 3 of
Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
10.
In this regard, 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 country S 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.
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, i.e. the Claimant. Furthermore,
11.
Training compensation in connection with the player B
(Club D, from country S / Club P, from country I)
4/7
in relation to the subsequent transfer of a professional, art. 6 par. 3 sent. 2 and
sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations stipulate that the former club must offer
the player a contract in writing via registered post at least 60 days before the
expiry of his current contract as well as that the offer shall be at least of an
equivalent value to the player’s current contract.
12.
Subsequently, and as a general remark, the DRC emphasised that the
requirement that a contract offer shall be made “in writing via registered post”,
as stipulated in the second sentence of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations, was established with the aim of facilitating the burden of proof of
a club to demonstrate that it had, indeed, made a contract offer to a player and
that it was, therefore, entitled to training compensation. E contrario, the DRC
concluded that a club, which does not meet said prerequisite, is not
automatically prevented from receiving training compensation, insofar as it can
demonstrate beyond doubt that an offer was indeed made to the player.
13.
As a result, the DRC had to determine if the Claimant had complied with said
provision in order to be entitled to receive training compensation from the
Respondent.
14.
In this respect, the DRC recalled that the Claimant had only provided a
“confirmation from country S Post dated on 13 March 2012” in support of its
statement that it had offered the player a new employment contract in writing
on that date.
15.
After having carefully analysed the aforementioned document, the DRC held
that such document does not prove that the player had actually acknowledged
and received the contract offer from the Claimant.
16.
Consequently, the DRC concluded that the Claimant failed to prove that it had
complied with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
17.
In light of all the foregoing, the Chamber rejected the Claimant’s claim.
18.
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.
Training compensation in connection with the player B
(Club D, from country S / Club P, from country I)
5/7
19.
In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 300,000 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 25,000 (cf. table
in Annex A).
20.
As a result, considering that the case at hand did not pose any particular factual
difficulties 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 15,000, which shall be borne by the Claimant.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club D, is rejected.
2.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 15,000
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 5,000 as advance of costs at the beginning of
the present proceedings, the amount of currency of country H 10,000 is to be
paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
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:
Training compensation in connection with the player B
(Club D, from country S / Club P, from country I)
6/7
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:
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Enclosed: CAS directives
Training compensation in connection with the player B
(Club D, from country S / Club P, from country I)
7/7