Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 August 2013,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Jon Newman (USA), member
Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Club O, from country B
as Claimant
against the club,
Club A, from country I
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in connection with
the player C
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the player passport issued by the country B Football
Confederation on 24 May 2012, the player C (hereinafter: the player), born in
August 1992, was registered with the Club O, from country B (hereinafter: the
Claimant), as from 1 January 2004 until 31 December 2007 as an amateur.
2.
The sporting season in country B runs from 1 January until 31 December.
3.
According to the player passport issued by the country I Football Federation,
the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club A (hereinafter also: “the
Respondent”), on 18 August 2010 as a “non-amateur”. Equally, the player was
registered with Club N, from country I as from 16 January 2009 until 4 August
2010 as an amateur.
4.
The country I Football Federation further confirmed that Club A belonged to
the club category I at the time the player was registered with Club A.
5.
On 17 August 2012, Club O lodged a claim in front of FIFA against Club A
claiming the payment of training compensation in the amount of EUR 298,750
plus interest from the latter. Club O explained that, on 10 May 2011, it
requested Club A to pay training compensation in the amount of EUR 61,250
based on a different player passport issued by the country B Football
Confederation on 4 May 2011, which confirmed that the player was registered
with Club O as from 26 April 2007 until 31 December 2007. Club O indicated
that Club A paid said amount, albeit 9 months late.
6.
In continuation, Club O explained that, on 24 May 2012, the country B Football
Confederation corrected the player passport and, as a result, Club O requested
an additional payment of EUR 298,750 from Club A, however, such request was
denied by the latter.
7.
To its claim, Club O enclosed a statement of the player who confirmed that he
had played for Club O between 2004 and 2007 as well as a statement of the
City P Football Federation confirming such information. The latter statement
reads, inter alia, as follows: “To date, the legal representative of the club
provided the City P Football Federation with documents regarding the athlete
[the player], which was done in order to confirm that the player was linked to
the junior categories of [the club], during the season 2004 to 2007”.
8.
In its reply to the claim, Club A explained that it entered into an employment
contract with the player on 18 August 2010 and that, prior to entering into
said employment contract, the player had informed Club A that he had been
Training compensation in connection with the player C (Club O, country B / Club A, country I)
2/10
registered in country B as an amateur as from 2007 only. On 10 May 2011, the
representative of Club O contacted Club A, provided the player passport dated
4 May 2011 and, as a result, Club A paid the amount of EUR 61,000 to Club O
on 31 May 2011.
9.
Club A indicated that it was only on 28 May 2012 that the representative of
Club O reverted to Club A requesting an additional payment of training
compensation on the basis of a new player passport, which, according to Club
A, had been amended on the basis of a declaration of the player who had
apparently suddenly realised that his registration with Club O had started on 1
January 2004.
10.
Club A rejects that it has to pay any additional amount of training
compensation and stressed that the invoice provided by Club O on 12 May
2011 reads as follows: “In accordance with your letter as of 11 May 2011
concerning the training compensation of player (…) 61.000 Euros (…) to be
paid to (…)”. In Club A’s view, this means that the amount it paid represented,
according to Club O, the entire amount of training compensation.
11.
Furthermore, Club A holds that the relationship between the player and the
agent of the player must be considered in the framework of the newly issued
player passport. In this respect, Club A provides the following timeline:
-
16 May 2012: the agent collected the player’s signature for the
termination of the contract with Club A;
16 May 2012: the agent and the player entered into an “agency
agreement”;
24 May 2012: the second player passport is issued by the country B
Football Confederation;
25 May 2012: the second mandate is issued by Club O to the agent;
28 May 2012: the agent requests the additional payment of training
compensation from Club A.
12.
Club A asserted that the second player passport was only released after the
agent of the player had contacted the City P Football Federation providing
them with the declaration of the player. As a result, the country B Football
Confederation issued the second player passport. Club A deems that the
second version of the player passport was unlawfully released and was created
on the basis of an invalid source of proof, i.e. on the declaration of the player,
who at that time, had already returned to country B. Therefore, Club A is of
the firm opinion that the second player passport must be declared invalid.
13.
In continuation, Club A stressed the importance of the player passport; a
player passport has the purpose to officially certify the career of a player, it
Training compensation in connection with the player C (Club O, country B / Club A, country I)
3/10
must be constructed on the basis of the effective records, i.e. on a
documentary basis, and the debtor has the right to know the amount to be
paid to the creditor and vice versa. As a consequence, by sending the claim and
the first player passport in May 2011, Club O approved and confirmed the
truthfulness of the data related to the presence of the player in Club O.
Equally, Club O accepted the payment by Club A and released a full quittance
as Club O perfectly knew that the player passport was issued in conformity
with its records.
14.
Thus, Club A held that “the final and releasing quittance given by Club O to
Club A after the payment of EUR 61,000 impedes a new demand for the same
title. Actually, a full release of a debt does represent a mutual agreement
between parties and does contain a final renunciation to claim other demands
with the same title.” Club O accepted without any reservation the content of
the first player passport, did not contact the player or the country B Football
Confederation at that time and such a mistake is exclusively attributable to
Club O. Club A relied on the information of the country B Football
Confederation, Club O and the player, the latter having confirmed his
registration details to Mr G of Club A.
15.
Additionally, Club A argued that the claim lodged by Club O is time-barred
since no complete claim was filed on 17 August 2012.
16.
In its replica, Club O denied that the termination of the player’s contract with
Club A as well as the representation agreement signed between the player and
the agent have anything to do with the payment of training compensation.
17.
Equally, Club O questioned the accuracy of Mr G’s witness statement and
rejected the allegations that it has “fabricated” the second player passport;
the country B Football Confederation and the City P Football Federation issued
the passport “based on facts and supported by the rules in force.”
18.
In its duplica, Club A reiterated its previous arguments and once more pointed
out the short period of time that elapsed between the occurrence of the
various contractual relationships between Club O, the player and the agent.
19.
Finally, Club A indicated that the player was registered with Club N in 2008
and that, when Club A registered the player, it was acknowledged that the
player had never been registered with a foreign association. This explains why
Club A never contacted Club O or the country B Football Confederation at that
time. In this respect, Club A provided a letter of the country I Football
Federation dated 16 January 2009 addressed to Club N stating that it i)
considered the request (for registration) made by Club N, ii) confirmed that the
Training compensation in connection with the player C (Club O, country B / Club A, country I)
4/10
player was “never registered to foreign associations” and iii) that “the
registration of the player (…) is effective from 16 January 2009”.
20.
Upon request of FIFA to clarify the discrepancies between the two player
passports, the country B Football Confederation answered that the player
passport of 4 May 2011 was issued on the basis of a statement of the City P
Football Federation of 8 February 2011. Thereafter, in March 2012, Club O
presented documentation to the City P Football Federation in order to prove
the link between the player and Club O between 2004 and 2007. Taking into
consideration the new documentation, the City P Football Federation issued a
new statement on 29 March 2012, reason for which the country B Football
Confederation amended the player passport.
21.
After the investigation-phase of the matter was closed, Club O reverted to FIFA
emphasising that the country B Football Confederation confirmed that the
new documentation was introduced on 29 March 2012 only, i.e. prior to the
point in time on which the agent became the agent of the player, that is, in
May 2012.
22.
In reply to Club O’s latest statement, Club A insisted that the second player
passport was released solely on the basis of documents provided by Club O.
However, such “documents” contained in fact only the declaration of the
player.
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 17 August 2012. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber, (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter
at hand (cf. art. 21 of the 2008 and 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 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
Training compensation in connection with the player C (Club O, country B / Club A, country I)
5/10
with the matter at stake relating to training compensation between clubs
belonging to different associations.
3.
At this point, the Chamber stated that prior to deliberating on the substance
of the matter, it had to verify whether or not it would be able to deal with the
present affair for formal reasons. In particular, the Chamber took note of the
formal objection of the Respondent, which considered that the claim of the
Claimant was time-barred. In view of the foregoing, the DRC concluded that it
first and foremost had to verify as to whether or not the claim of the Claimant
was brought to FIFA in a timely manner.
4.
In doing so, the DRC first turned to the content of art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of
the Regulations which stipulates that the deadline for the payment of training
compensation is 30 days following the registration of the professional with the
new association.
5.
Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations, which,
in completion to the general procedural terms outlined in the Procedural
Rules, clearly establishes that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear
any dispute if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to
the dispute arose and that the application of this time limit shall be examined
ex officio in each individual case.
6.
In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the player was registered as a
professional with the Respondent on 18 August 2010, whereas the claim of the
Claimant was lodged in front of FIFA on 17 August 2012, i.e. within the
relevant 2 year timeframe. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the claim
of the Claimant was not barred by the statute of limitations and is, thus,
admissible.
7.
In continuation, 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 2009,
2010 and 2012), and considering that the player was registered as a
professional with the Respondent on 18 August 2010, the 2009 edition of said
regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
8.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. First of all,
the Chamber recalled that the player, born in August 1992, was, according to
the first player passport issued by the country B Football Confederation,
registered with the Claimant as from 26 April 2007 until 31 December 2007 as
Training compensation in connection with the player C (Club O, country B / Club A, country I)
6/10
an amateur. Equally, the Chamber noted that, according to the second player
passport issued by the country B Football Confederation, the player was
registered with the Claimant as from 1 January 2004 until 31 December 2007 as
an amateur.
9.
In continuation, the Chamber took note that the Claimant asserted that it was
entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount
of EUR 298,750, since the player had signed his first professional contract with
the Respondent and the latter had, so far, only paid the amount of EUR 61,250
to the Claimant.
10.
Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Respondent contested the claim of
the Claimant indicating that it had already paid the amount of EUR 61,000 to
the Claimant on 31 May 2011 after the latter had sent an invoice to the former
which stated that: “In accordance with your letter as of 11 May 2011
concerning the training compensation of player (…) 61.000 Euros (…) to be
paid to (…)”. In the Respondent’s view, the Claimant, by means of this letter,
confirmed that the entire amount of training compensation amounted to EUR
61,000.
11.
Having established the foregoing, the members of the Chamber acknowledged
that the present dispute primarily circles around the question whether or not
the Respondent is obliged to pay an additional amount of training
compensation to the Claimant based on the second player passport issued by
the country B Football Confederation.
12.
Following the above, the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations, according to which the club for which the player is registered for
the first time as a professional, is responsible for paying training compensation
in accordance with the player’s career history as provided for in the player
passport.
13.
In continuation, the DRC referred to art. 5 par. 1 of the Regulations, which
stipulates that professionals, as well as amateur players, must be registered
with an association to play for a club. In particular, said article clearly points
out that it is the responsibility of an association to register the player.
14.
In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Claimant itself, after the
registration of the player with the Respondent, had contacted the Respondent
providing the latter with a copy of a player passport and a corresponding
invoice. The Chamber acknowledged that on the basis of said player passport
and invoice, the Respondent paid the amount of EUR 61,000 to the Claimant.
Consequently, the members of the Chamber came to the unanimous
conclusion that the Respondent was in good faith to believe that the relevant
Training compensation in connection with the player C (Club O, country B / Club A, country I)
7/10
data was accurate and that it had, therefore, fully complied with its
obligations deriving from the pertinent provisions contained in Annexe 4 of
the Regulations, when making the payment on 31 May 2011.
15.
Taking into account the foregoing, the Chamber unanimously concluded that
it had no alternative but to follow its previous decisions, determining that the
Respondent could rely on the first player passport issued by the country b
Football Confederation, which was provided to them by the Claimant itself.
16.
On a side note, the Chamber stressed that, even if the second player passport
was to be considered, the training of the player with the Claimant took place
between the years of 2004 and 2007, i.e. during the seasons of the player’s 12th
to 15th birthday.
17.
In this context, the Chamber wished to refer to FIFA Circular no. 1190 dated 20
May 2009 by means of which the members of FIFA were, inter alia, informed
about the amended art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4, which came into force on 1
October 2009. Said FIFA Circular indicated that art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 “now
stipulates that where the event giving rise to the right to training
compensation occurs before the end of the season of the player's 18th
birthday, the training costs for players for the seasons between their 12th and
15th birthdays (i.e. four seasons) shall no longer be based on the training and
education costs of category 4 clubs, but on the category of the new club.”
18.
Against this background, in particular since the aforementioned amendment
of the pertinent article of Annexe 4 of the Regulations only came into force on
1 October 2009, the Chamber found that it, in any case, cannot apply said
amendment to the years of training and education of the player prior to the
coming into force of the amended art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4, i.e. prior to 1
October 2009. In other words, the Chamber concurred that the said provision
could not be applied retro-actively and, consequently, decided that the second
sentence of art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations does not apply to the
seasons 2004 to 2007. Hence, even if the second player passport of the country
B Football Confederation was to be considered, the claim of the Claimant
would have been rejected.
19.
In view of all the above, the Chamber decided to reject the claim of the
Claimant.
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
the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Chamber relating to disputes
regarding training compensation and the solidarity mechanism costs in the
Training compensation in connection with the player C (Club O, country B / Club A, country I)
8/10
maximum amount of currency of country H 25,000 are levied. The costs are to
be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings.
21.
In this respect, the Chamber reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is
rejected. Therefore, the Claimant has to bear the costs of the current
proceedings in front of FIFA.
22.
According to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings
are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute.
23.
The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present
proceedings amounts to EUR 298,750 related to the claim of the Claimant.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the
proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000 (cf. table in Annexe A
of the Procedural Rules).
24.
Considering that the case at hand allowed to be dealt with following a
reasonable procedure, that the present case showed particular factual
difficulty as well as specific legal complexity, the Chamber determined the final
amount of costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of
country H 13,000.
25.
In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the amount of
currency of country H 13,000 has to be paid by the Claimant to cover the costs
of the present proceedings, currency of country H 5,000 of which have already
been paid as advance of costs.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club O, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is rejected.
3.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H
13,000 are to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA, currency of country H 5,000 of
which have already been paid as advance of costs at the start of the present
proceedings. Consequently, the additional amount of currency of country H
Training compensation in connection with the player C (Club O, country B / Club A, country I)
9/10
8,000 is to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA within 30 days of notification of
the present decision, to the following bank account with reference to case no.:
*****
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:
______________________
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Enclosed: CAS directives
Training compensation in connection with the player C (Club O, country B / Club A, country I)
10/10