Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 July 2016,
in the following composition:
Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member
Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member
Mohamed Al Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), 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 E
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the player passport issued by the Football Association of country
B, the player, Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 29 May 1992, was
registered with the club from country B, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant) as a
professional as of 8 January 2013 until 31 May 2013. Furthermore, the
aforementioned player passport indicated “no record found” for the period as
of 1 June 2013 until 1 September 2013.
2.
The relevant sporting season in country B ran from January until December.
3.
Furthermore, 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) on 12 September 2013.
4.
Moreover, according to TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category III
(indicative amount of EUR 30,000 of UEFA) at the time the player was registered
with it.
5.
On 30 September 2015, the Claimant contacted FIFA requesting training
compensation, on the ground of the subsequent registration of the player as a
professional before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. In particular, the
Claimant requested the amount of EUR 11,753.42 plus 5% interest p.a. as from
2 October 2013.
6.
In its response to the claim, the Respondent declared that the player and the
Respondent itself mutually “decided not to register the player with the Football
Association of country D” and that the player “has never played” for the
Respondent. For this purpose, the Respondent attached a list of its official
matches with the players that participated for the relevant season.
7.
In this regard, the Respondent sustained that nor the Claimant, nor the player
passport provided in the claim, could prove that the player was registered with
the Respondent.
8.
Additionally, the Respondent highlighted that “the mere fact that the player has
been issued with an ITC does not constitute a registration” and, in this regard,
provided a communication signed by the Player Registration and TMS officer of
the Football Association of country D on 29 January 2016 “confirming that the
player was never registered” with the Respondent.
9.
The Respondent further asserted that in order to be registered with a club from
country D within the Football Association of country D, there are specific forms
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
2/8
that need to be presented in front of the latter and that those were not
presented in this specific registration.
10. Based on the above-mentioned, the Respondent rejected the claim of the
Claimant.
11. In its replica, the Claimant refuted the Respondent’s arguments. In particular,
the Claimant remarked that the player’s ITC was requested by the Respondent
and issued by the Football Association of country B “at the request of the
Football Association of country D”. Moreover, the Claimant affirmed that “the
issuance of a player’s ITC automatically leads to his immediate registration with
the club requesting his registration”.
12. Despite being invited by FIFA to do so, the Respondent did not submit its final
comments regarding the claim.
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, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted
to FIFA on 30 September 2015. Consequently, the 2015 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 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
combination with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2016), 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, the DRC confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016)
and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 12
September 2013, the 2012 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the
Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
3/8
4.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the members of the
DRC started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the
documentation contained in the file. However, the DRC emphasised that in the
following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and
documentary evidence which the Chamber considered pertinent for the
assessment of the matter at hand. Equally, the Chamber recalled that in
accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use,
within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the
Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in the
TMS.
5.
First of all, the members of the Chamber took note that the Claimant
maintained that it is entitled to receive training compensation from the
Respondent in the amount of EUR 11,753.42, indicating that the player was
transferred as a professional from the Claimant to the Respondent, i.e. between
clubs of two different associations, before the end of the season of his 23rd
birthday.
6.
Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rebutted the claim of the
Claimant, arguing that the claim should be rejected since the player was never
registered with the Football Association of country D nor ever played for the
Respondent. Consequently, the Respondent was of the opinion that no training
compensation is payable to the Claimant.
7.
In continuation, after having carefully examined the parties’ positions, the
Chamber observed that, according to the information contained in the TMS, the
player was indeed registered with the Respondent on 12 September 2013.
8.
In this respect, the Chamber recalled the basic principle of the burden of proof,
as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party
claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden
of proof.
9.
Consequently, the Chamber highlighted that, according to the documentation
on file and submitted by the Respondent, the Respondent had not presented
any conclusive documentary evidence which could corroborate the absence of
the player’s registration with the Football Association of country D and
therefore could not conclude that the Claimant is not entitled to the training
compensation arising from the player’s registration with the Respondent.
10.
Furthermore, the members of the Chamber referred to the argument of the
Respondent whereby the latter stated that the player did not play any game
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
4/8
with it and recalled that, according to the well-established jurisprudence of the
DRC, it is not of importance, for the entitlement to training compensation, in
how many games a player actively takes part as long as such player is registered
with the relevant club.
11.
Having established the above, the DRC referred to the rules applicable to
training compensation and stated 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 he was effectively trained by that club.
12.
Reverting to the facts of the matter at hand, and based on the documentation
provided by the Football Association of country B and the information
contained in TMS, the members of the Chamber concluded that it could indeed
be established that the player had been registered with the Claimant as from 8
January 2013 until 31 May 2013 as a professional.
13.
In view of the previous considerations, the DRC concluded that the Claimant is
entitled to training compensation in view of the player’s transfer between clubs
of two different associations and that the Respondent shall pay training
compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the
Regulations.
14.
Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber
referred to art. 5 par. 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.
15.
In continuation, the DRC concurred that the player, born 29 May 1992, was
registered with the Claimant as from 8 January 2013 until 31 May 2013 as a
professional.
16.
On account of the above, the members of the Chamber considered that the
Claimant is, thus, entitled to receive training compensation for the period as
from 8 January 2013 until 31 May 2013, i.e. for 5 months of the season of the
player’s 21st birthday.
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
5/8
17.
Moreover, the members of the Chamber observed that according to the
information contained in the TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category III
(UEFA indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) at the time the player was
registered with the Respondent, i.e. on 12 September 2013.
18.
Consequently and taking into account all the above-mentioned considerations
as well as the amount claimed by the Claimant, the DRC decided to partially
accept the claim of the Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay
the amount of EUR 11,753.42 to the Claimant as training compensation in
relation to the registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent.
19.
Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2
of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the DRC decided that the Respondent has to
pay, in conformity with its longstanding practice, interest at 5% p.a. over the
amount payable as training compensation as of the 31st day of the registration
of the player with the Respondent, i.e. as of 13 October 2013, until the date of
effective payment.
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 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.
21.
In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 11,753.42 related to the claim
of the Claimant. Consequently, the members of the Chamber concluded that the
maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000 (cf.
table in Annexe A).
22.
As a result, considering the degree of success, the DRC determined the final costs
of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 4,000 which shall be borne by
the Respondent.
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
6/8
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
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 from the
date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 11,753.42 plus 5%
interest p.a. on said amount as of 13 October 2013 until the date of effective
payment.
3.
In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid 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.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
5.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 4,000 are to be paid by
the Respondent within 30 days of notification of the present decision, to FIFA to
the following bank account with reference to case no. XXXX:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
7/8
6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of
the account number to which the remittance under point 2. above is 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. 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber:
__________________________________
Marco Villiger
Deputy Secretary General
Encl. CAS directives
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
8/8