Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 13 September 2013,
on the claim presented by the club,
Club S, from country M
as Claimant
against the club,
Club B, from country R
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in
connection with the player Q
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The Football Federation of country M confirmed that the player Q (hereinafter:
the player), born on xxxxxxx, was registered with its affiliated club S
(hereinafter: Claimant), as from 10 August 2001 until 19 December 2005 as an
amateur. As from 20 December 2005 until 16 May 2008, the player was
registered as an amateur with the club Z from country M. The player passport
further indicated that on 16 August 2008 the player was transferred to country
R.
2.
The football season in country M runs as from 1 August until 31 July of the
following year.
3.
According to the official confirmation of the Football Association of country R
(FSR) dated 12 March 2013, the player was registered with the club B from
country R (hereinafter: Respondent) as an amateur player as from 27 August
2008 until 5 March 2009 and as a professional player as from 6 March 2009.
4.
The FSR confirmed that the Respondent belonged to category II (indicative
amount of EUR 60,000 per year).
5.
On 10 December 2012, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of
training compensation from the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant
requested the amount of EUR 25,000. To its claim, the Claimant enclosed an
undated player passport of the FSR which indicated that the player was
registered with the Respondent as follows:
Amateur: as from 27 August 2008 until 6 March 2009;
Scholarship: as from “3” March 2009 until 9 July 2012;
Professional: as from 9 July 2012.
6.
On 16 April 2013 and in light of the confirmation of the FSR of 12 March 2013,
FIFA informed the Claimant about art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players indicating that its claim appeared to be barred by the
statute of limitations.
7.
In its response, dated 24 April 2013, the Claimant stated that “the confirmation
issued by the Football Association of country R (FSR) which confirms that in the
period between 6 March 2009 – 8 February 2010 the player was in a professional
status, is incorrect and imprecisely defined. With this confirmation FSR
misinforms FIFA and complicates, with no grounds, the case which is quite
clear”.
Training compensation in connection with the player Q
(Club S, from country M / Club B, from country R)
2
8.
In this regard, the Claimant contested the information provided by the FSR
alleging that it is clear that the player was under a scholarship agreement and
that it was only after 20 June 2011 that all the players under such kind of
contract were considered as professionals, according to the FSR Regulations on
registration, status and transfer of players. In this respect, the Claimant enclosed
a letter of the FSR sent to one of the latter’s affiliated clubs in which it states
that “since 20.06.2011, the Regulations (…) defines: “In terms of the provisions
of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of players and the provisions
of this Regulations, the player that has concluded a scholarship agreement with
a club, has a status of a professional player”.
9.
Furthermore, the Claimant submitted a partial translation of the 2007 edition of
the FSR Regulations which included 3 categories of players: amateur,
scholarships and professionals. Art. 6 of the aforementioned regulations
stipulates that “scholarship players are the players that have concluded written
agreement on receiving scholarship with a club from the Super, the First and the
League of country R, based on which they received monthly scholarship, that
has a character of an allowance for sports improvement and the development
of the player.” Furthermore, scholarship players “could receive payments of the
total costs of accommodation and food, expenses of lost profit due to
participation results in the competition (…)”.
10. In this respect, the Claimant assessed that the player was under a scholarship
agreement dated 3 March 2009, so “he was not in a professional status and [the
Claimant], was not in a legal position to ask the right of training
compensation”.
11. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that “from all aspects it is evident that the
player didn’t have a successful career in the period as a scholarship player, and
had not have until then terminated his training period. As the player’s training
already completed, the player was transferred to [the Respondent] and on 9 July
2012 signed his first professional agreement with [the Respondent]”.
12. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to provide its position regarding the
claim, the Respondent did not respond to the claim or make any statements at
all during the course of the investigation.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
Training compensation in connection with the player Q
(Club S, from country M / Club B, from country R)
3
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber judge (hereinafter also referred to
as the “DRC judge”) 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 5 April 2013. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the
Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, edition 2012
(hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21
par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC judge 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),
he is competent to decide on the present dispute regarding training
compensation between clubs belonging to different associations.
3.
Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as
to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance
with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (editions 2009, 2010 and 2012), and considering that the player was
registered with the Respondent on 27 August 2008 as an amateur, on 3 March
2009 as a scholar and on 9 July 2012 as a professional, as well as that the present
claim was lodged on 12 December 2012, the 2008 edition of said regulations
(hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
4.
His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the
DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. He started by
acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the
documentation on file.
5.
First of all, the DRC judge recalled that the player was born on 24 February 1992
and was registered with the Claimant as from 10 August 2001 until 19
December 2005 as an amateur. Equally, the Chamber took note that the player
was registered as an amateur with the club Z, as from 20 December 2005 until
16 May 2008.
6.
In continuation, the DRC judge observed that the Claimant asserted that it was
entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount
of EUR 25,000, as the player was registered as a professional for the first time
with a club belonging to a different association before the end of the season of
the player’s 23rd birthday. Equally, the DRC judge took note that the
Respondent did not answer any of FIFA’s correspondences.
Training compensation in connection with the player Q
(Club S, from country M / Club B, from country R)
4
7.
In continuation, the DRC judge was keen to remind that, in accordance with art.
20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is due, in general,
when a player is registered for the first time as a professional. Equally, he found
it important to stress that, pursuant to art. 2 of the Regulations, a professional is
a player who has a written contract with a club and is paid more for his
footballing activity than the expenses he effectively incurs.
8.
Consequently, and in light of the aforementioned facts, the DRC judge deemed
it important to establish when the player was registered with the Respondent as
a professional. To this end, he carefully examined the documents on file.
9.
In so doing, the DRC judge recalled that the Claimant repeatedly alleged that,
pursuant to the FSR Regulations, the player was an amateur during the period
he was under the scholarship agreement.
10. Equally, the DRC judge noted that, according to the player passport of the FSR
as well as to its confirmation dated 12 March 2013, the player was registered
with the Respondent as a professional under a scholarship agreement on 3
March 2009.
11. In this respect, the DRC judge underscored the content of art. 12 par. 3 of the
Procedural Rules, which stipulates that any party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof, and underlined that the
Claimant had failed to provide any evidence in order to prove that, despite the
player passport issued by the FSR and its confirmation dated 12 March 2013, the
player was indeed an amateur from 3 March 2009 to 9 July 2012.
12. On account of the above, the DRC form the belief that the player was registered
with the Respondent as a professional on 3 March 2009.
13. Having said that, the DRC judge emphasized the content of art. 3 of Annexe 4
of the Regulations, which provides that the club with which the player is
registered for the first time as a professional, is responsible for paying training
compensation within 30 days of said registration. Therefore, the DRC judge
decided that training compensation fell due on 2 April 2009.
14. The DRC judge, then, referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations, in accordance
with which FIFA decision-making bodies shall not hear any case subject to these
regulations if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving raise to
the dispute.
15. In this respect, the DRC judge observed that the Claimant lodged the present
claim on 10 December 2012, this is, that more than two years have elapsed since
Training compensation in connection with the player Q
(Club S, from country M / Club B, from country R)
5
the training compensation fell due and, therefore, he formed the belief that the
claim was inadmissible.
16. Lastly, the DRC referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in conjunction with
art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before
the DRC judge relating to disputes regarding training compensation and the
solidarity mechanism, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied.
The relevant provision further states 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.
17. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 25,000 related to the claim of
the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount
of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of
the Procedural Rules).
18. As a result, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant is
inadmissible, the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant has to bear the costs
of the current proceedings in front of FIFA.
19. Considering that the case at hand did not compose any complex factual or legal
issues, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the
amount of CHF 2,000.
*****
III.
Decision of the DRC judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant, club S, is inadmissible.
2.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 2,000 are to be paid by
the Claimant, club S, within 30 days of notification of the present decision, to
FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. xxxxxxxxxx:
Training compensation in connection with the player Q
(Club S, from country M / Club B, from country R)
6
*****
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 Q
(Club S, from country M / Club B, from country R)
7