Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
TMS
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 August 2021,
regarding training compensation for the player C
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA/France), Deputy Chairman
Roy Vermeer (Netherlands), member
Pavel Pivovarov (Russia), member
CLAIMANT:
Club A, Country A
RESPONDENT:
Club B, Country B
Page 2 of 13
TMS
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Player C
Date of birth:
Player passports:
Season
11/12
12/13
13/14
14/15
15/16
16/17
17/18
18/19
Birthday
12th
13th
14th
15th
16th
17th
18th
19th
(1) issued by the Football Association of Country A on 11 February 2019:
Club
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Club D
Unknown
Unknown
Club D
Club A
Registration dates
Status
23/03/15 – 31/08/15
Amateur (permanent)
26/02/18 – 30/06/18
16/11/18 – 18/01/19
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
(2) issued by the Football Association of Country A on 16 December 2020
Season
10/11
11/12
12/13
13/14
14/15
15/16
16/17
17/18
Birthday
12th
13th
14th
15th
16th
17th
18th
19th
Club(s)
Club D
Club D
Club D
Club D
Club D
Club D
Club D
Club A
Registration dates
01/01/2012 – 30/11/2012
01/01/2013 – 30/11/2013
01/01/2014 – 30/11/2014
23/03/2015 – 30/11/2015
30/12/2015 – 30/11/2016
30/12/2016 – 30/11/2017
26/02/2018 – 30/11/2018
30/12/2018 – 18/01/2019
Status
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
(3) issued by the Football Association of Country A on 15 January 2021
Season
10/11
11/12
12/13
13/14
14/15
15/16
16/17
17/18
Birthday
12th
13th
14th
15th
16th
17th
18th
19th
Sporting season:
Club(s)
Club D
Club D
Club D
Club D
Club D
Club D
Club D
Club A
Registration dates
01/01/2012 – 30/11/2012
01/01/2013 – 30/11/2013
01/01/2014 – 30/11/2014
23/03/2015 – 30/11/2015
30/12/2015 – 30/11/2016
30/12/2016 – 30/11/2017
26/02/2018 – 30/11/2018
30/12/2018 – 18/01/2019
Status
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
- from 1 November until 31 August of the following year for seasons 12/13 to
15/16;
Page 3 of 13
TMS
- from 19 November until 27 August for season 16/17; and
- from 28 August until 30 June for season 17/18.
Date of
registration:
18 January 2019, from Club A (Country A) to Club B (Country B) as a
professional (out of contract)
Claimant club:
Club A (Country A)
Respondent club:
Club B (Country B)
UEFA, category I (EUR 90,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 11 January 2021, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting training
compensation for the training provided to the player during the course of the season of the
player’s 19th birthday on the grounds of the first registration of the player as a professional with
the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.
2.
On 15 January 2021, the Football Association of Country A confirmed to FIFA that the second
player passport contained the accurate history of the player, and went on to issue a third player
passport which contains the exact same data than the second player passport.
3.
On 3 February 2021, the FIFA administration closed case TMS ref. since it was lodged against
the wrong TMS account.
4.
On 3 February 2021, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA
requesting training compensation for the training provided to the player during the course of
the season of the player’s 19th birthday on the grounds of the first registration of the player as
a professional with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.
5.
In particular, the Respondent requested EUR 10,000 plus interest of 5 % p.a. as of the due date.
6.
The Claimant indicated that it had contacted the Respondent by email several times to seek
payment of the claimed training compensation, to no avail.
7.
On 5 February 2021, the FIFA administration sent a proposal to the parties according to which
the Respondent was offered to pay EUR 4,931.51 plus 5% interest as of the due date.
8.
The Claimant did not respond to the proposal.
9.
On 12 February 2021, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant.
10.
The Respondent stated that the Claimant had waived its training compensation rights by way of
a waiver dated 31 December 2018.
Page 4 of 13
TMS
11.
The Respondent underlined that the waiver had been signed and stamped by the Claimant’s
Chairman, Mr., and reads as follows:
“Player: Player C (…)
Club A (…) (hereinafter as the CLUB)
DECLARES AND CERTIFIES by signing this document:
1. The CLUB waives gives up and renounces to any rights, indemnities and/or amounts over
the Player in relation to article 20 training compensation and article 21 solidarity mechanism
and Annexe 4 and Annexe 5, all as defined in the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players regarding the above-named Player, and the terms of this declaration are in full and
final settlement of all and any claims or rights of action that the CLUB has or may have
arising out of the Player training compensation and solidarity mechanism to any club-sport
entities in the world and the Player.
2. Consequently, the CLUB confirms that it has not any rights, indemnities and/or amounts
over the Player in relation to article 20 training compensation and article 21 solidarity
mechanism and Annexe 4 and Annexe 5, all as defined in the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players regarding the above-named Player.
3. The CLUB confirms that the Player has been fully trained in the CLUB and has contributed to
his training starting from the calendar year of his 12th birthday and there are no other third
clubs, academies or entities that are entitled to any rights, indemnities and/or amounts over
the Player in relation to article 20 training compensation and article 21 solidarity mechanism
and Annexe 4 and Annexe 5, all as defined in the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players regarding the above-named Player.”
12.
What is more, the Respondent pointed out that it had never been contacted via email by the
Claimant since registering the player, and that the emails the Claimant is referring to in his claim
are emails that were sent in relation to the potential transfer of the player to the Country E Club
E.
13.
Finally, the Respondent declared that in any case, since the player was only registered for 20
days with the Claimant, no training compensation shall be due since any training given over such
a short timeframe did not have any impact on the player’s development.
14.
On 25 March 2021, the Claimant requested a 10-day extension of the deadline set by the FIFA
administration to provide its comments regarding the waiver provided by the Respondent, which
was originally due to expire on 26 March 2021.
15.
On 2 April 2021, the Claimant attempted to send its response via email. The email was not
delivered due to an “error” from the email service.
16.
On 9 April 2021, the Claimant submitted once again its response, which was this time delivered
successfully.
Page 5 of 13
TMS
17.
The Claimant declared that the waiver provided by the Respondent was forged.
18.
In fact, the Claimant stated that its Chairman did not and could not sign this document.
19.
In addition, the Claimant pointed out that it would have not signed a document where it
declared that it was the sole training club of the player since his 12th birthday, since the player
was in fact registered with another club in Country A during his formative years.
20.
What is more, the Claimant pointed out some inconsistencies in the Respondent’s position. In
fact, the Claimant referred to What’s App conversations and emails exchanges with the
Respondent in which the Respondent opened negotiations with the player’s second former club
in Country A, Club D, and offered it the sum of EUR 15,000 to settle their dispute, which is in
contradiction with the waiver the Respondent is relying upon in the current dispute. The
Claimant questioned why the Respondent would rely on the waiver where the Claimant is
allegedly stating that it was the only training club of the player in Country A whilst it was aware
that the player had also played for Club D before playing for the Claimant.
21.
On 6 April 2021, the Respondent requested an oral hearing on the day the case is to be
presented to the DRC.
22.
In the context of the dispute between Club D and the Respondent, the Claimant’s legal
representative submitted a statement from the Claimant dated 19 March 2021 in which it stated
the following:
a. The Claimant engaged in email conversations with an agent, Mr., in relation with the
necessary paperwork for the registration of the player with the Respondent, and never
received any communication from Club B;
b. The Claimant never renounced to its training compensation rights;
c. The only document the Claimant signed was the TPO declaration;
d. The waiver is forged because the signature of the Claimant in the TPO declaration is
identical to the one that has been copied in the waiver, and the Claimant is convinced
that this is how the “fraud” started.
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): June 2018 edition
Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (Procedural Rules): 2021 edition
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested
Admissible:
Yes, uncontested
Page 6 of 13
TMS
Decision:
1.
Hearing in front of the DRC are generally conducted on the basis of the documentation on file,
as well as any documentation of relevance that is available through TMS (cf. art. 6 par. 4 of
Annexe 3 RSTP) and evidence not presented by the parties (cf. art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural
Rues).
2.
According to art. 11 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, if the circumstances appear to warrant it,
the parties may be summoned to attend an oral hearing.
3.
The Respondent requested that the parties appear orally at the hearing of the present dispute.
4.
The current dispute does not contain any exceptional circumstances that would require the
summoning of the parties to an oral hearing.
5.
Thus, the request of the Respondent is rejected, and the hearing shall be conducted based on
the evidence on file, the evidence available in TMS and evidence not presented by the parties
which may bear relevance to the present dispute.
6.
The matter revolves around the fact that the Claimant allegedly waived its training compensation
rights:
a. The Respondent stated that the Claimant waived said rights by way of a signed letter
dated 30 December 2018;
b. The Claimant is contesting the authenticity of the document, declaring that it never
signed such document and that it would have never signed this document in view of
the fact that it contained inaccurate declarations as to the player’s career in Country
A.
7.
It is undisputed that the player was registered for the first time as a professional with the
Respondent on 18 January 2019. In this respect, art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 RSTP stipulates that
any training compensation due in connection with the first registration as a professional of a
player shall be distributed, by the club registering the player as a professional for the first time
in accordance with the players’ career history as provided for in the player passport(s).
8.
In casu, the Respondent shall be responsible to distribute training compensation for the first
registration of the player as a professional to the club(s) affiliated to any different member
association(s) where the player was registered as from the start of his 12th birthday season up
until the start of his registration with the Respondent (i.e. 18 January 2019) in accordance with
the information contained within the relevant player passport(s).
9.
Art. 5 par. 1 RSTP stipulates that all professional and amateur players must be registered with
an association in order to play for a club whereas the associations are the ones responsible for
such registrations. Equally, art. 7 RSTP foresees that an association has to provide its affiliated
Page 7 of 13
TMS
club registering a player with a player passport indicating the complete player’s football career
as from the season of his 12th birthday.
10.
According to the jurisprudence of the DRC, the Chamber shall in principle rely on the information
inputted in the player passport(s) issued by the relevant member association(s) unless there is
clear evidence that would contradict its contents.
11.
In addition, the jurisprudence of the DRC established that a registering club shall act with utmost
due diligence when registering a player. More particularly, the DRC has determined that in
instances where a registering club can demonstrate that it acted with due diligence in attempting
to obtain the accurate career history of a player but that the relevant member association
produced multiple contradictory player passports afterwards, the player passport first issued by
said member association (either downloaded in TMS or via official communication) shall be the
passport relied upon when determining if and to whom training compensation is payable.
12.
The Football Association of Country A produced three player passports, the third having been
issued in response to the FIFA administration’s request to obtain the complete career history of
the player in Country A, which contains the exact same data as the second player passport
uploaded by the Football Association of Country A in the transfer instruction on 16 December
2020.
13.
In principle, based on the declaration of the Football Association of Country A made on 15
January 2021, the contents of the second/third player passports shall be relied upon to establish
the player’s career history in Country A.
14.
Based on the contents of the second and third player passport, the player was always registered
in Country A as an amateur as follows:
a. With D between 1 January 2012 until 30 November 2018 (with interruptions);
b. With the Claimant as from 30 December 2018 until 18 January 2019.
15.
The Respondent does not contest the contents of the second/third player passports, nor
submitted evidence that would permit to establish that the information displayed in said
passports was erroneous.
16.
As such, the second/third player passports contain the accurate career history of the player in
Country A.
17.
Therefore, it is established that the player was registered with the Claimant as from 30 December
2018 until 18 January 2019.
18.
Training compensation is in general calculated either (1) based on the number of years of training
and education given by the previous training clubs multiplied by the training costs of the new
club in the context of a first registration as a professional; or (2) based on the training costs of
Page 8 of 13
TMS
the new club multiplied by the number of years of training with the former club in the context
of the subsequent registration of the professional player (cf. art. 5 par. 2 of Annexe 4 RSTP).
19.
As a general rule, for the purpose of training compensation, the entire 12-month period of the
year is taken into account. As a result, in the context of the present dispute, the football seasons
in Country A is extended to a 12-month format, starting on 1 January and ending on 31
December.
20.
Therefore, it is established that the player was registered with the Claimant for 2 days of the
season of his 18th birthday and 18 days of the season of his 19th birthday, and since the
registration of the player with the Respondent was his first as a professional, training
compensation shall in principle be due to the Claimant.
21.
Nevertheless, the Respondent argued that the Claimant renounced to receive any training
compensation with regards to the player by signing a waiver on 30 December 2018.
22.
The authenticity of the waiver presented by the Respondent is disputed by the Claimant.
23.
As per the jurisprudence of the DRC, the validity of a waiver in the context of the entitlement to
receive training compensation is subject to a clear and unequivocal declaration by the party
concerned and requires a clear language which reflects such party’s intention to renounce its
rights.
24.
In other words, the above jurisprudence requires a document:
a. Containing a clear and unequivocal renouncement to training compensation; and
b. Issued by the party concerned by such renouncement.
25.
The alleged waiver stipulates that no training compensation is required for the player of
reference.
26.
As such, the first prerequisite of a valid waiver is met, i.e. a clear and unequivocal renouncement
to training compensation.
27.
The Respondent submitted an electronic copy of the document only, without indicating by which
means it was received, and without providing any proof that it had been originally sent by the
Claimant to either the Respondent directly or via a third party involved in the registration of the
player with the Respondent.
28.
In addition, the Respondent did not upload the document in TMS, contrary to common practice.
29.
What is more, the Claimant denied having signed this document, and pointed out that the only
document it issued in the context of the registration of the player with the Respondent was the
TPO declaration. The Claimant underlined that the signature contained in the TPO declaration
was identical to the one contained in the waiver.
Page 9 of 13
TMS
30.
It is undisputed that the player played in Country A for Club D and the Claimant, although the
waiver stipulates that the player played with the Claimant only, an inaccuracy that the Claimant
interprets as a sign of forgery – indeed, the Claimant stated that it would have never signed a
document containing such erroneous representation.
31.
The signature and seal on the waiver appears to a layman to be identical to the signature and
seal of the Claimant’s TPO declaration.
32.
The likelihood of producing two identical signatures and stamps in two different documents is
very low.
33.
In view of the above, since (1) the authenticity of the waiver is contested; (2) it is not possible to
establish that it was issued directly or indirectly by the Claimant to the Respondent; and (3) that
the document contains a signature and stamp that appears to be identical to the one displayed
in another document, it is determined that the waiver does not meet the second prerequisite
established by the jurisprudence of the DRC, i.e. it cannot be established that it was issued by
the party waiving its training compensation rights.
34.
Therefore, the waiver shall not be taken into consideration, and training compensation is due to
the Claimant for the first professional registration of the player with the Respondent.
35.
However, the Respondent further argued that the Claimant did not train the player.
36.
The training and education provided by a club to a player is determined by his effective
registration dates with said club as per the player passport.
37.
It has been established that the player was registered with the Claimant for 20 days before the
end of the season of his 21st birthday.
38.
As such, it is determined that the Claimant provided training and education to the player during
the above timeframe, thus the argumentation of the Respondent in this respect shall be rejected.
39.
Having determined that (1) the player was first registered as a professional with the Respondent
on 18 January 2019; and (2) the player was registered with the Claimant for 2 days of the season
of his 18th birthday and 18 days of the season of his 19th birthday; the Claimant shall receive
training compensation in the amount of EUR 4,931.50.
40.
Furthermore, the Claimant requested the award of interest rate of 5% per annum, “as per the
due date”.
41.
In accordance with the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC, interest are applied as from
the first overdue day for the payment of training compensation.
Page 10 of 13
TMS
42.
According to art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 RSTP, the Respondent had 30 days after registering the
player as a professional to pay training compensation to the Claimant, i.e. up until 17 February
2019.
43.
As a result, the Claimant shall receive interest in the rate of 5% per annum as from the date at
which training compensation became overdue to the Claimant, that is to say as from 18 February
2019.
44.
The interest rate of 5% per annum on EUR 4,931.50 shall apply until the date of effective
payment of the outstanding ‘training compensation and its applicable interest.
45.
In view of all the above, the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and the Respondent shall
pay training compensation in the amount of EUR 4,931.50 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 18
February 2019 until effective payment.
46.
Any further claim of the Claimant rejected.
47.
Procedural costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 may be levied for decisions passed by
the subcommittee of the DRC in disputes related to training compensation (cf. art. 18 par. 1 of
the Procedural Rules).
48.
The amount claimed by the Claimant corresponds to EUR 10,000, i.e. below CHF 50,000.
Therefore, procedural costs levied in this respect shall not exceed the sum of CHF 5,000 (art. 1
of Annexe A of the Procedural Rules).
49.
In consideration of the amount claimed by the Claimant, costs of the current proceedings shall
be set at CHF 2,000.
50.
In view of the outcome of the case, costs shall be borne in full by the Respondent.
51.
The relevant provisions of art. 24bis RSTP are applicable in the present matter.
Page 11 of 13
TMS
III.
DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club B, shall pay to the Claimant EUR 4,931.50 as training compensation, plus
5% interest per annum on that amount as from 18 February 2019, until the date of effective
payment.
3.
Any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in the
enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of full payment to [email protected]. If applicable,
the evidence shall be translated into an official FIFA language (English, French, German, Spanish).
6.
If the due amount (including all applicable interest) is not paid by the Respondent within 45 days
as from notification of the bank account details, the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three
entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The ban will be lifted immediately, and prior to its complete serving, following confirmation
that the due amount (including all applicable interest) has been received by the Claimant.
3. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end of
the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
7. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 2,000 are to be paid by the Respondent
to FIFA with reference to case no. TMS (cf. note relating to the payment of the procedural costs
below).
For the DRC:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 12 of 13
TMS
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
Pursuant to article 58 paragraph 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed before the
Court of Arbitration for Sport within 21 days of notification.
NOTE RELATED TO PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party
within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted
version (cf. article 20 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 13 of 13