Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 August 2014,
in the following composition:
Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman
Taku Nomiya (Japan), member
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Club B, from country I
as Claimant
against the club,
Club R, from country E
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in
connection with the player S
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the player passport issued by the Football Association of country I, the
player S, born in September 1994, was registered with its affiliated club B
(hereinafter: the Claimant) as amateur as follows:
- from 1 August 2006 until “30 June” 2007;
- from 1 August 2007 until “30 June” 2008;
- from 1 August 2008 until “30 June” 2009;
- from 1 August 2009 until “30 June” 2010; and
- from 1 August 2010 until “30 June” 2011.
2.
The football season in country I lasts from 1 August to “30 June” of the following
year.
3.
Furthermore, the player was registered with the Irish club, Club W (hereinafter: the
involved club), as follows:
Status
Registration dates
Amateur
from 1 August 2011 until 30 June 2012
Professional
from 1 July 2012 until 4 July 2012
4.
The Football Association of country I confirmed that the Claimant belonged to the
category IV (indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year).
5.
The Football Association (The FA) confirmed that the player “signed a professional
contract on 4th July 2012 and was registered as a professional on 3rd August 2012”
with Club R (hereinafter: the Respondent).
6.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the
Respondent belonged to the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year)
during the season at the time the player was registered with said club.
7.
On 2 September 2013, the Claimant contacted FIFA requesting the payment of
training compensation from the Respondent, indicating that the Respondent tried to
circumvent the rules governing training compensation. In particular, the Claimant
requested EUR 90,000.
8.
In this respect, the Claimant stated that the player was registered with the
Respondent on 5 or 6 July 2012 as a professional, after having been registered as a
professional with the involved club, a club belonging to the category IV, for four days
Training compensation in connection with the player S
(Club B, from country I / Club R, from country E)
2
only. Moreover, the Claimant held that the player never played for the involved club.
In particular, the Claimant is of the opinion that the player was registered as a
professional in country I as an attempt to circumvent FIFA Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Player and that “if successful could be widely used by many of the
Senior Clubs in this Country”.
9.
On 22 January 2014, the claim was remitted to the Respondent via The FA, inviting it
to provide with its position regarding the Claimant’s claim. In particular, the
Respondent was informed that, in absence of a reply, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber would take a decision on the basis of the information and evidence at
disposal.
10.
In spite of having been invited by FIFA to provide with its position regarding the
claim, the Respondent did neither respond to the claim nor 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 analysed whether it was competent to
deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 21 of the
Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules; edition 2013). The present matter
was submitted to FIFA on 2 September 2013, thus before the aforementioned Rules
entered into force on 1 August 2014. Therefore, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
concluded that the 2012 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at
hand.
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules, which states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its
jurisdiction in the light of art. 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players (edition 2014). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in connection with art. 22
lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber is competent to decide on the present litigation 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 Chamber referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010, 2012 and 2014) and,
on the other hand, to the fact that the player was registered for the Respondent on
3 August 2012. In view of the aforementioned, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
concluded that the 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Training compensation in connection with the player S
(Club B, from country I / Club R, from country E)
3
Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
4.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect,
the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the
arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Chamber
emphasized that in the following consideration it will refer only to the facts,
arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the
assessment of the matter at hand.
5.
Firstly, the DRC underlined that the Claimant requested the payment of training
compensation in an amount of EUR 90,000 from the Respondent, maintaining that
the transfer of the player to the involved club only pursued to circumvent the
provisions of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players on training
compensation. The Chamber noted that the Claimant stated that, as a matter of fact,
the player signed the professional employment contract with the Respondent only
four days after the player was registered with the involved club as a professional.
6.
Subsequently, the DRC took also note that the Respondent, for its part, failed to
present its response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to
do so. In this way, the Chamber considered that the Respondent renounced its right
of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant.
7.
Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the Chamber
concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules it shall take a
decision upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the
statements and documents presented by the Claimant.
8.
In continuation, the Chamber deemed it necessary to examine the very specific
circumstances of the case at hand and had to establish whether the Claimant was
entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent. In other words, the
DRC, considering the claim of the Claimant and the specificities of the present
matter, had to establish whether or not the Respondent tried to circumvent the
application of the provisions on training compensation.
9.
In this context, the Chamber first of all 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
Training compensation in connection with the player S
(Club B, from country I / Club R, from country E)
4
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.
Equally, the Chamber went on to recall that, in accordance with art. 2 par. 2 lit. ii) of
Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is not due when a player is
transferred to a category IV club.
11.
The aforementioned having been established, the Chamber then referred to art. 6 of
Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which 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 this regard, the Chamber
indicated that, since the player moved from one association to another association
inside the territory of the EU, said article is applicable. Hence, the Chamber
concluded that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies in the case at
hand as lex specialis.
12.
However, in this regard, the Chamber pointed out that, in casu, a possible obligation
to offer the player a contract in compliance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations would in principle lie with the former club of the player and not with
the Claimant. As stated in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, said provision
is without prejudice to the right of training compensation of the player’s previous
club(s).
13.
Turning to the specific circumstances of the present matter, the members of the
Chamber were eager to emphasize that it was undisputed that the player was
registered and de-registered with the Claimant, the involved club and the
Respondent as follows:
- On 30 June 2011:
- On 1 August 2011:
- On 1 July 2012:
- On 4 July 2012:
- On 3 August 2012:
de-registered with the Claimant;
registered with the involved club as an amateur;
registered with the involved club as a professional
de-registered with the involved club; and
registered as a professional with the Respondent by The FA.
In this regard, the Chamber underlined that the player was registered as a
professional with the involved club for only 4 days, that the employment contract
between the involved club and the player had been terminated after 4 days and that
on the same day the player signed a professional contract with the Respondent.
14.
Hence, considering that the relevant facts and arguments of the Claimant remained
uncontested by the Respondent, and also considering the information and
Training compensation in connection with the player S
(Club B, from country I / Club R, from country E)
5
documentary evidence on file, the Chamber deemed that it was clear that in fact the
first registration as a professional of the player for the purpose of training
compensation shall be deemed to have occurred upon his transfer to the
Respondent.
15.
In view of the above, in particular taking into account that the player was registered
as a professional with the involved club for only 4 days as well as that the player and
the Respondent signed a professional contract 4 days after the player was registered
as a professional with the involved club, the Chamber came to the unanimous
conclusion that the Respondent tried to avoid the payment of training compensation
to the Claimant.
16.
Thus, in view of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber considered
that the Respondent tried to circumvent the application of the provisions regarding
the payment of training compensation.
17.
Therefore, the DRC deemed that the Respondent, which profited from the training
efforts invested by the Claimant, shall be liable for the payment of training
compensation to the Claimant.
18.
In conclusion, the DRC determined that the Respondent shall be liable for the
payment of training compensation to the Claimant.
19.
Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber
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 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.
Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which
contains special provisions in case a player moves from a lower to a higher category
club or from a higher to a lower category club within the territory of the EU/EEA.
20.
The members of the Chamber recalled that the player, born on 11 September 1994,
was registered for the Claimant as from 1 August 2006 until 30 June 2007, as from 1
August 2007 until 30 June 2008, as from 1 August 2008 until 30 June 2009, as from 1
August 2009 until 30 August 2010 and as from 1 August 2010 until 2011 as an
amateur and that the Claimant is requesting training compensation in the amount of
EUR 90,000 for the training and education of the player incurred during the seasons
2006/2007, 2007/2008, 2008/2009, 2009/2010 and 2010/2011. Equally, the Chamber
noted that the seasons in country I ran as from 1 August until 30 June of the
following year.
Training compensation in connection with the player S
(Club B, from country I / Club R, from country E)
6
21.
In continuation, the DRC took due note that according to the country I Football
Association, the Claimant belonged to category IV, as well as that The FA, the
Respondent was a category I club at the time the player was registered with it.
Consequently, the Chamber took into account that the indicative training costs for a
category IV club and member of a national association affiliated to the Union des
Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) amounts to EUR 10,000, whereas the
training costs for a club which belongs to the category I and member of a national
association affiliated to UEFA amounts to EUR 90,000.
22.
In this respect, the Chamber considered that the player was registered with the
Claimant for the complete seasons of the player’s 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th
birthday.
23.
Consequently, and taking into account all the above-mentioned elements, the
Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation from
the Respondent in the amount of EUR 82,500 and, hence, the claim of the Claimant is
partially accepted.
24.
The Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any further claim of the
Claimant.
25.
Finally, 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 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.
26.
In this respect, the Chamber reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is partially
accepted. Therefore, both the Claimant as well as the Respondent have to bear a
part of the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA.
27.
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.
28.
The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings
amounts to EUR 90,000 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 15,000
Training compensation in connection with the player S
(Club B, from country I / Club R, from country E)
7
29.
Considering that the case involved various particular factual difficulties and involved
a certain specific legal complexity, the Chamber determined the final amount of costs
of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 10,000.
*****
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club B, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club R, has to pay to the Claimant, Club B, within 30 days as of
the date of notification of the present decision, the amount of EUR 82,500.
3.
If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the stated time limit, an interest rate of
5% p.a. year will apply as of expiry of the fixed time limit and 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, Club B, is rejected.
5.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 10,000 are
to be paid within 30 days of notification of the present decision as follows:
5.1 The amount of currency of country H 7,000 has to be paid by the
Respondent, Club R, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to
case nr.:
5.2 The amount of currency of country H 1,000 has to be paid by the
Respondent, Club R, to the Claimant, Club B.
5.3 The amount of currency of country H 2,000 has to be paid by the Claimant,
Club B, to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of
currency of country H 3,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present
proceedings, the Claimant is exempted from paying the abovementioned
costs of the proceedings.
6.
The Claimant, Club B, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club R, immediately and
directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify
the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
*****
Training compensation in connection with the player S
(Club B, from country I / Club R, from country E)
8
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
Encl.
CAS directives
Training compensation in connection with the player S
(Club B, from country I / Club R, from country E)
9