Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 August 2021,
regarding training compensation for the player X
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 15
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
X
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 Federation of Country A:
Club
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Club C
Unknown
Unknown
Club C
Club D
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 Federation 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 C
Club C
Club C
Club C
Club C
Club C
Club C
Club D
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 Federation 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 C
Club C
Club C
Club C
Club C
Club C
Club C
Club D
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 15
- 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 D (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 30 December 2020, 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 12th to 15th birthdays 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 Federation 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 12th to 15th birthdays 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 300,000 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 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 283,095.89 plus 5% interest as of the due date.
8.
The Claimant did not respond to the proposal.
9.
On 1 March 2021, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant.
Page 4 of 15
10.
The Respondent stated that before registering the player as a professional for the first time on
18 January 2019, it had carefully assessed the career history of the player.
11.
In this respect, the Respondent pointed out that it had received a “player passport” which
indicated the following:
Sporting passport
Season
2018/201
2017/201
2014/201
Club
D
C Academy
C Academy
Team
D Junior
C Academy
C Academy
Licence type
Transfer
Renewal
New
Type
Trainee
Amateur
Amateur
12.
This document is an abstract of the registration system of the Football Federation of Country A
but is not a player passport in the sense of the RSTP. It is not signed and/or stamped by the
Football Federation of Country A. The Respondent did not explain nor evidenced how it sourced
the document.
13.
The Respondent stated that the player’s former club, D, had, by way of a signed declaration,
confirmed that it was the only training club of the player in Country A.
14.
In this respect, the Respondent “assumed “Club C” having been the structural unit of “Club D”,
which was the sole club that contributed to the Player’s training and having switched the status
of the Player to “stagiaire” on the sporting season 2018/2019.”
15.
Upon receipt of the first player passport issued by the Football Federation of Country A and
uploaded in the transfer instruction on 11 February 2019, which confirmed the registration
information it had previously received, the Respondent “considered having duly settled all the
matters regarding the payment of the training compensation of the Player, as per clear content
of the Waiver.”
16.
The Respondent pointed out that it became only aware of the Claimant’s allegations on 5
February 2021, upon receipt of the proposal made by the FIFA administration. The Respondent
declared that this amounted to “mala fide behaviour” by the Claimant.
17.
In fact, the Respondent underlined that the Claimant, according to its own website, did not exist
when its allegedly trained the player, since it was only created in 2018.
18.
What is more, the Respondent, should it be established that A and Club C were the same entity,
requested the claim to be rejected on the basis of “false statements and forged evidence that
compromise the reality.”
19.
In this respect, the Respondent underlined that the Football Federation of Country A uploaded
the second player passport in December 2020, which contained erroneous information, just
before the Claimant lodged its claim. The Respondent requested disciplinary action against the
Page 5 of 15
Claimant and an intermediary, who is allegedly acting as the Claimant’s chairman, for forged
evidence with a view to mislead the DRC and seek undue enrichment.
20.
In continuation, the Respondent alleged that the Claimant failed to prove that it had trained the
player, in light of the fact that it failed to prove that A and Club C were the same entity, and
that the training done by Club C as per the additional registration dates displayed in the second
player passport in comparison to the first player passport actually took place.
21.
Alternatively, the Respondent declared that any training compensation awarded to the Claimant
shall not exceed the one that would be calculated upon the data contained in the first player
passport.
22.
In this regard, the Respondent, referring to DRC and CAS jurisprudence, underlined that a cub
registering a player on the basis of the information contained in a player passport may not be
held liable to pay training compensation at a later stage on the basis of information contained
in a newly issued payer passport. In particular, the Respondent inter alia referred to a DRC
decision in which the DRC stipulated the following:
“The DRC concluded that it was not acceptable for a club, which takes a player under contract
based on the confirmation of the previous association and trusting that it would not have to
pay training compensation, to be subsequently obliged to pay training compensation.”
23.
The Respondent insisted that it relied in good faith on the information contained in the first
player passport, and shall not be held liable to pay training compensation on the basis of the
information contained in the second player passport. Decision of the contrary “would violate [its]
legitimate expectations”.
24.
Alternatively, the Respondent requested than any training compensation awarded shall not
exceed EUR 34,166 as per the contents of the first player passport – detailed calculation below:
Season
2014/2015
2017/2018
Period of effective training
5 months
4 months
Yearly amount
EUR 10,000
EUR 90,000
Amount
EUR 4,166
EUR 30,000
25.
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.
26.
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.
27.
On 9 April 2021, the Claimant submitted once again its response, which was this time delivered
successfully.
Page 6 of 15
28.
The Claimant rejected the argumentation of the Respondent as to the fact that it had assumed
that Club C was the youth entity of Club D because the latter declared via a document signed
30 December 2018 having been the only training club of the player in Country A.
29.
In this respect, the Claimant declared that the waiver had been forged. In fact, the Claimant
submitted a statement from Club D dated 19 March 2021 in which it stated the following:
a. Club D engaged in email conversations with an agent, Mr. A, in relation with the
necessary paperwork for the registration of the player with the Respondent, and never
received any communication from Club B;
b. Club D never renounced to its training compensation rights;
c. The only document Club D 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 Club D is convinced that
this is how the “fraud” started.
30.
The Claimant declared that although the Respondent is contesting the second player passport
issued by the Football Federation of Country A, it should in the first place, when signing the
player, been alerted of the presence of two different clubs in the player passport, and the
Claimant was of the opinion that the Respondent shall have contacted the Football Federation
of Country A in this respect to seek clarification.
31.
What is more, the Claimant provided email correspondence from the Respondent, in which the
latter offered EUR 15,000 to the former in order to settle the present claim on 16 February 2021,
and EUR 34,896.29 on 18 February 2021.
32.
Finally, the Claimant provided abstracts of the official registry of Country A as well as
confirmation from the Football Federation of Country A that as from 10 January 2018, the Club
E became Club A.
33.
On 6 April 2021, the Respondent requested an oral hearing on the day the case is to be
presented to the DRC.
34.
On 26 July 2021, the Football Federation of Country A confirmed that Club C and Club A are
one and the same entity, Club C being the name given to the youth academy.
Page 7 of 15
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
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.
As confirmed by the Football Federation of Country A on 26 July 2021, the Claimant, Club A,
and Club C, one of the player’s training club in Country A, are one and the same entity.
7.
The above being established, it is determined that the Claimant participated in the training of
the player as per the contents of the several player passports issued by the Football Federation
of Country A.
8.
The dispute revolves around the effective registration dates of the player with the Claimant.
9.
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).
10.
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
Page 8 of 15
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).
11.
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
club registering a player with a player passport indicating the complete player’s football career
as from the season of his 12th birthday.
12.
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.
13.
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.
14.
The Football Federation 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 Federation of Country A in the transfer instruction on 16 December
2020.
15.
In principle, based on the declaration of the Football Federation 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.
16.
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 the Claimant between 1 January 2012 until 30 November 2018 (with
interruptions);
b. With Club D as from 30 December 2018 until 18 January 2019.
17.
The Respondent stated that the second player passport had been maliciously issued by the
Football Federation of Country A to support the claim of the Claimant, which itself had been
lodged in bad faith. In addition, the Respondent argued that the Claimant did not provide
evidence that it had trained the player during the new periods of registration that had been
added to the second player passport.
Page 9 of 15
18.
The Respondent did not provide evidence that would contradict the declarations of the Football
Federation of Country A made in the second/third player passport.
19.
As such, we propose to consider that the second/third player passports contain the accurate
career history of the player in Country A.
20.
Having established the above, the Respondent shall in principle be liable to pay training
compensation to the player’s training clubs as per the information displayed in the second player
passport.
21.
Nevertheless, in line with the above jurisprudence, if the Respondent can demonstrate that it
acted with due diligence in attempting to obtain the accurate career history of a player but that
the Football Federation of Country A produced multiple contradictory player passports
afterwards, the player passport first issued by the Football Federation of Country A (either
downloaded in TMS or via official communication) shall be the passport relied upon when
determining if and to whom training compensation is payable.
22.
The Respondent stated that it registered the player on the basis of a document it named “player
passport” of the player. This document, which is not a player passport in the sense of the RSTP
but rather an abstract of the Football Federation of Country A registration system, indicated the
following:
Sporting passport
Season
2018/201
2017/201
2014/201
Club
Club D
Club C Academy
Club C Academy
Team
Club D Junior
Club C Academy
Club C Academy
Licence type
Transfer
Renewal
New
Type
Trainee
Amateur
Amateur
23.
This document is not signed and stamped by the Football Federation of Country A, and the
Respondent did not submit any evidence that it had obtained this document from the Football
Federation of Country A, nor that its member association obtained this document from the
Football Federation of Country A.
24.
This document does indicate that the player had been registered with Club D and the Claimant.
The document does not contain the start and end dates of the player’s registrations in Country
A.
25.
The Respondent stated that it had also relied on the declaration of Club D that it was the only
training club in Country A and that it had assumed that Club C was the youth entity of Club D.
26.
Any potential declaration made by Club D cannot impact the Claimant’s potential entitlement
to training compensation since these two clubs are two separate entities.
27.
It is undisputed that the Respondent registered the payer as a professional on 18 January 2019.
Page 10 of 15
28.
It is undisputed that the Football Federation of Country A uploaded the first player passport in
TMS on 11 February 2019.
29.
Based on the evidence on file, it is determined that the Respondent did not seek nor receive
from the Football Federation of Country A the first player passport before registering the player,
and that it received via TMS the first player passport almost 1 month after having registered the
player.
30.
This, it is determined that the Respondent did not register the player on the basis of the first
player passport. In the contrary, it appears that the Respondent registered the player on the basis
on an unofficial document which did not contain registration dates, and that on its own
assumption that the Claimant was in fact the same entity than Club D, as well as on the basis of
an alleged declaration of Club D that it had been the sole training club of the player in Country
A.
31.
As such, the argumentation of the Respondent in this regard is rejected and it is established that
the Respondent did not act with due diligence before registering the player as a professional for
the first time.
32.
In view of all the above, training compensation is due to the Claimant.
33.
Based on the contents of the second/third player passports, the player was registered with the
Claimant:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
As from 1 January 2012 until 30 November 2012;
As from 1 January 2013 until 30 November 2013;
As from 1 January 2014 until 30 November 2014;
As from 23 March 2015 until 30 November 2015;
As from 30 December 2015 until 30 November 2016;
As from 30 December 2016 until 30 November 2017;
As from 26 February 2018 until 30 November 2018;
34.
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
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).
35.
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 are extended to a 12-month format, starting on 1 January and ending on 31
December.
36.
Therefore, it is established that the player was registered with the Claimant for:
Page 11 of 15
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
335 days of the player’s 12th birthday season;
334 days of the player’s 13th birthday season;
334 days of the player’s 14th birthday season;
255 days of the player’s 15th birthday season;
337 days of the player’s 16th birthday season;
334 days of the player’s 17th birthday season; and
278 days of the player’s 18th birthday season;
37.
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 between his 12th and
18th birthday seasons as per the registration dates above, the Claimant shall receive training
compensation in the amount of EUR 268,465.74.
38.
Furthermore, the Claimant requested the award of interest rate of 5% per annum, “as per the
due date”.
39.
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.
40.
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.
41.
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.
42.
The interest rate of 5% per annum on EUR 268,465.74 shall apply until the date of effective
payment of the outstanding training compensation and its applicable interest.
43.
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 268,465.74 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 18
February 2019 until effective payment.
44.
Any further claim of the Claimant rejected.
45.
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).
46.
The amount claimed by the Claimant corresponds to EUR 300,000, i.e. above CHF 250,000.
Therefore, procedural costs levied in this respect shall not exceed the sum of CHF 25,000 (art. 1
of Annexe A of the Procedural Rules).
Page 12 of 15
47.
In consideration of the amount claimed by the Claimant, costs of the current proceedings shall
be set at CHF 22,000.
48.
In view of the outcome of the case, costs shall be borne in full by the Respondent.
49.
The relevant provisions of art. 24bis RSTP are applicable in the present matter.
Page 13 of 15
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 268,465.74 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 25,000 are to be paid are to be paid as
follows:
a. The amount of CHF 3,000 shall be paid by the Claimant;
b. The amount of CHF 22,000 shall be paid by the Respondent;
c. The above costs shall be paid to FIFA with reference to case no. (cf. note relating to the
payment of the procedural costs below)
For the DRC:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 14 of 15
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 15 of 15