Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
S ingle Judge of the s ub-com m ittee of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber (DRC)
passed on 22 July 2019,
by Geoff Thom ps on (England),
Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC,
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 Federation of Country
B(Federation of Country B), the player, Player E (hereinafter: the player), born
on 12 May 1994, was registered with its affiliated club, Club A (hereinafter: the
Claimant) as from 29 September 2011 until 30 November 2011 as an amateur,
as from 1 December 2011 until 11 January 2016 as a professional and 22 July
2016 as a professional. From 12 January 2016 until 21 July 2016, the player was
registered on loan with the club of Country B, Club F.
2.
The football season in Country B follows the calendar year.
3.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System
(TMS), on 11 August 2016, the club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the
Respondent), registered the player as a professional player following a transfer
“out of contract free of payment” from the Claimant.
4.
Also according to TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category 2 (indicative
amount of EUR 60,000 per year within UEFA) at the time the player was
registered with it.
5.
On 11 July 2018, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent before
FIFA asking to be awarded training compensation for the subsequent
professional registration of the player with the Respondent. In particular, the
Claimant requested EUR 255,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 12 September
2016 until the date of effective payment.
6.
In its reply, the Respondent only provided a power of attorney but failed to
reply as to the substance of the claim.
II.
Cons iderations of the S ingle Judge of the s ub-com m ittee of the DRC
1.
First of all, the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC (hereinafter: the
Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at
hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to
FIFA on 11 July 2018. Consequently, the 2018 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 Single Judge 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 2019). In accordance with art. 3 of Annexe 6 in conjunction with art.
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
2
24 par. 3 and art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players, the Single Judge is competent to decide on the present dispute
relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different
associations handled through TMS.
3.
Furthermore, the Single Judge 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, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2016,
2018 and 2019) and considering that the player was permanently registered
with the Respondent on 11 August 2016, the 2016 edition of said regulations
(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
4.
The competence of the Single Judge and the applicable regulations having
been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single
Judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the
documentation contained in the file. However, the Single Judge emphasised
that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments
and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the assessment
of the matter at hand.
5.
In this regard, the Single Judge recalled that the player, born on 12 May 1994,
was registered with the Claimant as from 29 September 2011 until 30
November 2011 as an amateur, as from 1 December 2011 until 11 January 2016
as a professional and 22 July 2016 as a professional. From 12 January 2016 until
21 July 2016, the player was registered on loan with the club of Country B,
Club F.
6.
Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that according to the information
contained in the TMS, on 11 August 2016, the Respondent registered the
player as a professional player following a transfer “out of contract free of
payment” from the Claimant.
7.
In continuation, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant asserted that it
was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the
amount of EUR 255,000, indicating that the player was transferred as a
professional to the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd
birthday.
8.
Subsequently, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent had only
submitted a power of attorney, but failed to present its answer as to the
substance of the claim, despite having had ample opportunity to do so.
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
3
9.
Having established the above, the Single Judge 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.
10.
Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations,
which stipulates that 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 article 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.
11.
With due consideration to the above, the Single Judge 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.
12.
In other words, the Single Judge 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.
13.
In this respect and for the sake of good order, the Single Judge 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 a player is loaned to a club and thus is not being
definitively transferred to the latter club. In other words, the transfer of a
player from the club of origin to the club that accepts the player on loan, as
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
4
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 Single Judge was eager to
point out that it could not have been the intention of the legislator of the
relevant regulatory provision (i.e. 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 deprive the loan of
its essential flexibility and, in connection with the training and education of
players, its purpose of providing young players with 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.
14.
Following the above, the Single Judge 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 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.
15.
What is more, and while recalling that art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations 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”, the Single Judge pointed out
that, within the framework of loans and for the purposes of the rules
governing training compensation, the period of time that the player was
registered on loan and the period of time that the player was registered with
the club of origin, should be considered as one entire timeframe.
16.
On account of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge
decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the
Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
17.
Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Single
Judge referred to art. 5 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates
that, as a general rule, it is necessary to take the costs that would have been
incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself.
18.
In continuation, the Single Judge recalled that the player was born on 12 May
1994 and was registered with the Claimant during the relevant period as from
29 September 2011 until 11 January 2016.
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
5
19.
Equally, the Single Judge recalled that according to the information contained
in the TMS, the player was definitively registered with the Respondent on 11
August 2016.
20.
Furthermore, 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 Single Judge concluded that the effective period of time to be
considered in the matter at stake corresponds to 3 months of the 2011 season
as well as the entire seasons from 2012 until 2015.
21.
Consequently, in light of the above-mentioned considerations and considering
the amount claimed by the Claimant, the Single Judge decided to accept the
Claimant’s claim and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of
EUR 255,000 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the
registration of the player with the Respondent.
22.
Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2
of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent
has to pay interest at 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training
compensation as of 11 September 2016 until the date of effective payment.
23.
Lastly, the Single Judge referred to 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, 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.
24.
In respect of the above, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken
into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 255,000 related to the
claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the
maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000 (cf.
table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules).
25.
As a result and taking into account that the Claimant is the successful party in
the proceeding, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current
proceedings to the amount of CHF 22,000, which shall be borne by the
Respondent.
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
6
III.
Decis ion of the S ingle Judge 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 day s as from the
date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 255,000 plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 11 September 2016 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. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 22,000 are to
be paid by the Respondent w ithin 30 day s as from the date of notification of
the present decision as follows:
4.1.
The amount of CHF 17,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following
bank account with reference to case no. XXX XXXX/XXX:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
4.2.
The amount of CHF 5,000 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 Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC of
every payment received.
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
7
*****
Note relating to the m otiv ated decis ion (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 Single Judge of the
Sub-committee of the DRC:
__________________________________
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Enclosed: CAS directives
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
8