Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 July 2014,
in the following composition:
Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman
Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member
Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Club V, from country N
as Claimant
against the club,
Club M, from country T
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in connection with the player O
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of country
N, the player, O (hereinafter: the player), born on 11 February 1994, was registered
as an amateur with the following country N clubs:
- Club V
- Club X
- Club V
as from 10 November 2003 until 18 June 2009;
as from 19 June 2009 until 6 September 2010;
as from 7 September 2010 until 19 August 2012.
2.
The football seasons in country N during the period of time the player was
registered with Club V (hereinafter: the Claimant) started on 1 July and ended on
30 June of the following year.
3.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System
(TMS), the player was registered with Club M from country T (hereinafter: the
Respondent) on 20 August 2012.
4.
Equally, according to the information contained in the TMS, the Respondent
belonged to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) during
the season when the player was registered with it, i.e. the 2012/2013 season.
5.
On 14 March 2014, 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 on 20 August
2012. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 160,000.
6.
In spite of having been invited by FIFA to provide its position regarding the
claim, the Respondent did not respond to the claim or make any statements at
all during the course of the investigation.
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 14 March 2014. Consequently, the 2012 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 2012 edition 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 and 2 in
Training compensation in connection with the player O
(Club V, from country N / Club M, from country T)
2/6
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. However, the DRC 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 took note that the Claimant maintained that it is entitled
to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR
160,000, indicating that the player had signed his first professional contract
with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.
6.
Furthermore, the DRC duly noted that the Respondent never took position in
the present matter, although having been invited to do so by FIFA. Therefore,
the DRC deemed that, in this way, the Respondent renounced its right of
defence and accepted the allegations of the Claimant.
7.
As a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC established
that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, it shall take a
decision upon the basis of the documents on file.
8.
Having established the above, the Chamber 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 professional is registered for the first
time as a professional before the end of the season of the player’s 23 rd
birthday. In case the player is registered for the first time as a professional, art.
3 par. 1 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that the club with
Training compensation in connection with the player O
(Club V, from country N / Club M, from country T)
3/6
which the player is registered is responsible for paying training compensation
within 30 days of registration to every club with which the player has
previously been registered and that has contributed to his training starting
from the season of his 12th birthday. Based on the documentation provided by
the Football Federation of country N and the information contained in TMS,
the Chamber concluded that it could indeed be established that the player had
been registered for the first time as a professional with the Respondent.
9.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber recalled again that the
Respondent had not replied to the claim of the Claimant and therefore ruled
that the Respondent did not provide any argument which would justify the
non-payment of training compensation to the Claimant.
10.
Subsequently, the DRC considered that it had to determine which should be
the relevant amount of training compensation to be paid by the Respondent
to the Claimant. In this regard, the DRC went on to establish the proper
calculation of the relevant training compensation due to the Claimant.
11.
To that end, the Chamber 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.
12.
In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 11 February
1994 and was registered with the Claimant as from 10 November 2003 until 18
June 2009 and as from 7 September 2010 until 19 August 2012.
13.
On account of the above, the DRC considered that the Claimant is, thus,
entitled to receive training compensation for the period as from 1 July 2005
until 18 June 2009 and for the period as from 7 September 2010 until 19
August 2012.
14.
Equally, the DRC recalled that, according to the information contained in the
TMS, the player was registered with the Respondent on 20 August 2012.
15.
Furthermore, the members of the Chamber recalled that, according to the
information contained in TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category II
(indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) during the season when the player
was registered with it, i.e. the 2012/2013 season.
16.
In view of all of the above and taking into account the amount claimed by the
Claimant, the DRC decided to accept the claim of the Claimant and held that
the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 160,000 to the Claimant as
Training compensation in connection with the player O
(Club V, from country N / Club M, from country T)
4/6
17.
training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the
Respondent.
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 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.
18.
In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 160,000 related to the claim of
the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum
amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 20,000 (cf. table in
Annexe A).
19.
As a result, considering the degree of success as well as that the Respondent
never replied to the claim, the DRC determined the final costs of the current
proceedings to the amount of CHF 20,000 which shall be borne by the
Respondent.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club V, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club M, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from
the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 160,000.
3.
In the event that the aforementioned sum is not paid within the stated time
limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of the date 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.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 20,000 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 16,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following
bank account with reference to case no.:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Training compensation in connection with the player O
(Club V, from country N / Club M, from country T)
5/6
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
4.2. The amount of CHF 4,000 has to be paid 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Markus Kattner
Deputy Secretary General
Training compensation in connection with the player O
(Club V, from country N / Club M, from country T)
6/6
Enclosed: CAS directives
Training compensation in connection with the player O
(Club V, from country N / Club M, from country T)
7/6