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
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member
Taku Nomiya (Japan), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Club A, from country F
as Claimant
against the club,
Club C, from country I
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in connection with the player B
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the player passport issued by the country F the player, Player B
(hereinafter: the player), born in July 1994, was registered as a professional
with the Club A, from country F (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 1 July 2012
until 30 June 2013.
2.
The football seasons in country F during the period of time the player was
registered with the Claimant started on 1 July and ended on 30 June of the
following year.
3.
According to the aforementioned player passport, the Claimant belonged to
the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year) during the period of
time the player was registered with it.
4.
The country I Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered
with its affiliated club, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 31 July 2013.
5.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System
(TMS), the Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR
30,000 per year) during the season when the player was registered with it, i.e.
the 2013/2014 season.
6.
On 21 February 2014, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of
training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player,
on 31 July 2013, was transferred as a professional from the Claimant to the
Respondent. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 30,000.
8.
On 13 March 2014, the Respondent replied to the Claimant’s claim and argued
that training compensation is only due in case of a first registration as a
professional of a player. Since the player had already signed a professional
contract with the Claimant, the Respondent argued that the Claimant is not
entitled to training compensation. In addition, the Respondent stated that the
Claimant had not offered the player a new contract upon expiry of his previous
contract.
9.
As to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Claimant stated that it
was not in a position to offer the player a new contract since, on 14 March
2013, it had been sanctioned for its financial situation by the Direction
Nationale du Contrôle de Gestion with demotion, as from the start of the
2013/2014 season, to the 5th division, in which clubs cannot conclude
professional contracts with players.
Training compensation in connection with the player B
(Club A, from country F / Club C, from country I)
2/7
10. The country F Football Federation confirmed that, at the end of the 2012/2013
season, the Claimant had lost professional status and, as a consequence, did
not have the possibility to offer the player a professional contract.
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 21 February 2014. Consequently, the 2012 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 2012 and 2014 editions 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 2014), 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, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), and
considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 31 July
2013, the 2012 and 2014 editions of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
4.
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The
members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case as
well as the documentation on file. However, the DRC emphasised that in the
following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and
documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the
matter at hand.
5.
First of all, the DRC took note that the Claimant maintained that it is entitled
to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR
30,000, indicating that the player was transferred as a professional from the
Claimant to the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.
Training compensation in connection with the player B
(Club A, from country F / Club C, from country I)
3/7
6.
However, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rebutted the claim of the
Claimant, arguing that training compensation is only due in case of a first
registration as a professional of a player.
7.
Equally, the DRC took due note of the Respondent’s statement that the
Claimant had not offered the player a new contract upon expiry of his
previous contract.
8.
After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, the Chamber referred
to the rules applicable to training compensation and stated that, as established
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 23 rd
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. Based on the documentation
provided by the country F Football Federation and the information contained
in TMS, the Chamber concluded that it could indeed be established that the
player had been transferred as a professional from the Claimant to the
Respondent.
9.
Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the
Chamber concurred that training compensation is, in principle, due.
10.
The aforementioned having been established, with reference to the
Respondent’s argument that the Claimant did not offer the player a contract,
the DRC 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 country F to country I, i.e. 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.
11.
In this regard, the Chamber clarified that, if the former club does not offer a
professional player an employment contract, this club loses its entitlement to
training compensation unless it can justify that it is entitled to such
compensation. In this respect, the Chamber outlined that if a club descends to
a lower division in which it is not entitled to register players as professionals,
this club will not be in a position to offer an employment contract to young
Training compensation in connection with the player B
(Club A, from country F / Club C, from country I)
4/7
players. However, it will not forfeit its entitlement to claim for training
compensation from the player’s new club.
12.
In this respect, the Chamber recalled the Claimant’s statement that, on 14
March 2013, it had been sanctioned for its financial situation by the Direction
Nationale du Contrôle de Gestion (DNCG) with demotion, as from the start of
the 2013/2014 season, to the 5th division, in which clubs cannot conclude
professional contracts with players. Equally, the Chamber recalled that the
country F Football Federation had confirmed that, at the end of the 2012/2013
season, the Claimant had lost professional status and, as a consequence, did
not have the possibility to offer the player a professional contract.
13.
Consequently, taking into account all the above-mentioned elements, the
Chamber concluded that the Claimant was not able to meet the prerequisite of
offering a contract to the player, and could therefore justify that it is entitled
to training compensation.
14.
On account of the above considerations, the Chamber decided that the
Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant.
15.
Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber
referred 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, it is
necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club if it
had trained the player itself.
16.
Having established the above, the DRC referred to art. 6 par. 1 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.
17.
In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 9 July 1994
and was registered with the Claimant as from 1 July 2012 until 30 June 2013.
18.
On account of the above, the Chamber considered that the Claimant is, thus,
entitled to receive training compensation for the period as from 1 July 2012
until 30 June 2013.
19.
Equally, the DRC recalled that the country I Football Federation confirmed that
the player was registered with the Respondent on 31 July 2013.
20.
Furthermore, DRC recalled that, according to the player passport issued by the
country F Football Federation, the Claimant belonged to the category I
(indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year). Equally, the DRC recalled that,
Training compensation in connection with the player B
(Club A, from country F / Club C, from country I)
5/7
according to the information contained in TMS, the Respondent belonged to
the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year).
21.
In view of all of the above, the DRC decided to accept the claim of the
Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR
30,000 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration
of the player with the Respondent.
22.
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 currency of country H 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.
23.
In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 30,000 related to the claim of
the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum
amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 5,000
(cf. table in Annexe A).
24.
As a result, and taking into account the particularities of the present matter,
the complexity of the case as well as the degree of success, the Chamber
determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of
country H 4,000 which shall be borne by the Respondent.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is 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 30,000.
3.
In the event that the aforementioned sum is not paid within the stated time
limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of the date of expiry of the
stipulated time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request,
to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
4.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 4,000
are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of the
Training compensation in connection with the player B
(Club A, from country F / Club C, from country I)
6/7
notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account
with reference to case nr. :
5.
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. 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 B
(Club A, from country F / Club C, from country I)
7/7