Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 August 2012,
by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge,
on the claim presented by the club,
Club A, from country B
as Claimant
against the club,
Club B, from country C
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in connection with the player D
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the player passport issued by the Football Association of country
B the player D (hereinafter: the player), was registered with the Club A, from
country B (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 17 August 2005 until 23 March
2007 as an amateur. Furthermore, the player passport indicated that:
- from 24 March 2007 until 10 February 2008 there was “no record found”;
- from 11 February 2008 until 31 December 2009 the player was registered as
an amateur with the Club C, from country B
- from 1 January 2010 until 17 February 2010 there was “no record found”;
- on 18 February 2010, the player was transferred to country D.
2.
The sporting season in country B runs from 1 January until 31 December.
3.
According to an official confirmation of the country D Football Federation the
player was registered with its affiliated Club D, from country D (hereinafter:
the Respondent), on 26 February 2010 as a professional.
4.
The country D Football Federation further confirmed that the Respondent
belonged to the club category II at the time the player was registered with the
Respondent.
5.
On 31 January 2012, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of
training compensation from the Respondent on the basis that the player
signed his first professional contract with the Respondent on 18 February 2010.
In particular, the Claimant is claiming training compensation in the amount of
EUR 77,408 plus interest as from 30 days of the player’s registration with the
Respondent.
6.
In its reply to the claim, the Respondent stated that the player was registered
with it on 26 February 2010, but that the player “was registered by our country
D Football Academy affiliate and has never played for nor was engaged by our
first division team, [the Respondent]. The country D Football Academy is a
training center for young people but the country D registration system does
not distinguish between first division teams and young people residing and
getting education at the academy, thus the player received a very small
stipend for the period of his education which lasted from 2.26.2010 to
6.15.2011”.
7.
Furthermore, the Respondent asserted that the Football Association of country
B had confirmed to it that the player had “no registration in country B”.
However, since the player himself had indicated that he had played with the
Training compensation in connection with the player D (Club A, from country B / Club B, from country
C)
Club C, the Respondent had requested a waiver from said club regarding the
payment of training compensation. The Respondent therefore expressed it was
“concerned” about the behaviour of the Football Association of country B, as
it had not provided them with an accurate player passport.
8.
Finally, the Respondent indicated that the Claimant had never offered the
player a contract in accordance with the FIFA Regulations on the Status of
Transfer of Players and that the player was only registered with the Claimant
for 1,5 years.
9.
In view of the foregoing, the Respondent requested that the claim of the
Claimant be rejected.
II.
Considerations of the DRC judge
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) 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 31 January 2012.
Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, edition 2008 (hereinafter:
Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and 2
of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules
and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 lit. ii. in
combination with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players (edition 2010), the DRC judge is competent to deal with the matter
at stake relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to
different associations.
3.
Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations 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 2009 and 2010), and considering that the present
claim was lodged on 31 January 2012 as well as that the player was registered
with the Respondent on 26 February 2010, the 2009 edition of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: Regulations) is
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
Training compensation in connection with the player D (Club A, from country B / Club B, from country
C)
4.
The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having
been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter.
The DRC judge started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well as the
documentation on file.
5.
First of all, the DRC judge recalled that the player was born in 1990 and was
registered with the Claimant as from 17 August 2005 until 23 March 2007 as
an amateur.
6.
In continuation, the DRC judge took note that the Claimant argued that it is
entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the
amount of EUR 77,408, on the basis that the player was registered for the
first time as a professional with the Respondent.
7.
Furthermore, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of
the Claimant, arguing that:
- the player was only given a very small stipend and was never
registered with the Respondent as a professional player of the
Respondent’s first team, but with their “football academy affiliate”,
- the Football Association of country B had confirmed to the
Respondent that the player was not a registered player in country B,
and
- the player was never offered a contract before he was transferred
from the Claimant to Club C, which was supported by a written
statement of the player.
8.
In this respect, the DRC judge first 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 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 player is
registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of
the player’s 23rd birthday.
9.
In connection with the above, the DRC judge duly noted the argument raised
by the Respondent that, in fact, the player was never registered with it, but
with its “football academy affiliate”. In this respect, the DRC judge stressed
that the national association to which the Respondent is affiliated, i.e. the
country D Football Association, had unequivocally confirmed that the player
was registered with the Respondent as a professional on 26 February 2010
and that, later on, the player and the Respondent had mutually agreed to
Training compensation in connection with the player D (Club A, from country B / Club B, from country
C)
terminate “their contract”. Taking into account the foregoing information as
well as considering that the Respondent had not produced any evidence to
the contrary, the DRC judge deemed that it could be established that the
player was indeed registered as a professional with the Respondent.
10.
In this context and considering the career history of the player, which
indicated that at all time prior to the player’s registration with the
Respondent, the player way registered as an amateur, the DRC judge
determined that the player was registered for the first time as a professional
with the Respondent before the end of the season of the player’s 23 rd
birthday.
11.
In continuation and turning to the Respondent’s argument that the Football
Association of country B had not properly informed the Respondent about
the player’s relevant registration details, the DRC judge referred to art. 12
par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which stipulates that any party claiming a right
on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. In this respect,
the DRC judge observed that the Respondent had not submitted any
documents which demonstrated that i) the Respondent had requested the
Football Association of country B to inform it about the player’s career
history, and ii) that the Football Association of country B had indeed
confirmed to the Respondent that, prior to registering the player, the player
had not been registered with any country B club. Therefore, the DRC judge
decided that the argument raised by the Respondent in this regard should be
rejected.
12.
As to the final argument raised by the Respondent, i.e. the argument that the
Claimant had not offered the player a contract in accordance with the
Regulations, the DRC judge understood that the Respondent referred to art.
6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. In this respect, the DRC judge
outlined that art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations 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
other words, the applicability of art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations is
limited to a well-defined geographic scope. Since country B is neither a
member of the EU, nor of the EEA, the DRC judge concluded that art. 6 of
Annexe 4 of the Regulations does not apply in the present matter and, thus,
that the Claimant did not have the obligation to offer a contract to the
player in order to preserve its entitlement to training compensation.
Training compensation in connection with the player D (Club A, from country B / Club B, from country
C)
13.
On account of all the above considerations, the DRC 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.
14.
Turning his attention to the calculation of the training compensation payable
by the Respondent to the Claimant, the DRC judge referred to the FIFA
circular no. 1223 dated 29 April 2010 which provides details for the
calculation of training compensation as well as to art. 5 par. 1 and par. 2 of
Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates 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. Furthermore, the DRC judge referred to art. 5
par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that to ensure that
training compensation for very young players is not set at unreasonably high
levels, the training costs for players for the seasons between their 12 th and
15th birthday shall be based on the training and education costs for category
4 clubs, i.e. on the basis of EUR 10,000 per year in the case at hand.
15.
In continuation, the DRC judge took into account that the Respondent
belonged to the category II within UEFA, which corresponds to the amount of
EUR 60,000 per year, and that the player, born in March 1990, was registered
with the Claimant as from 17 August 2005 until 23 March 2007, i.e. during 4
months of the season of the player’s 15th birthday, during the complete
season of the player’s 16th birthday as well as during 3 months of the season
of the player’s 17th birthday. In view of the foregoing, and considering art. 5
par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations as well as the amount claimed by the
Claimant, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent has to pay the amount
of EUR 77,408 to the Claimant as training compensation.
16.
Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par.
2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the DRC judge 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 31 st
day of the registration of the player with the Respondent, i.e. as from 29
March 2010, until the date of effective payment.
17.
Lastly, the DRC 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 costs in the maximum amount of currency
of country E 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
Training compensation in connection with the player D (Club A, from country B / Club B, from country
C)
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 DRC judge held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 77,408 related to the claim of
the Claimant. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the maximum
amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country E
10,000 (cf. table in Annexe A).
19.
As a result, taking into account the particularities of the present matter, the
number of issues that had to be addressed as well as that the Respondent
was the unsuccessful party in the present proceedings, the DRC judge
determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of
country E 6,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent.
III.
Decision of the DRC judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club B, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from
the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 77,408 plus
default interest of 5% p.a. on said amount as from 29 March 2010 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 currency of
country E 6,000 are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from
the date of notification of the present decision as follows:
4.1. The amount of currency of country E 4,000 has to be paid to FIFA to
the following bank account with reference to case no. XX-XXXXX:
4.2.
5.
The amount of currency of country E 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.
Training compensation in connection with the player D (Club A, from country B / Club B, from country
C)
above are to be made and to notify the DRC judge 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 DRC judge:
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Encl. CAS directives
Training compensation in connection with the player D (Club A, from country B / Club B, from country
C)