Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed in Zurich, country B, on 25 September 2015,
by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge,
on the claim presented by the club,
Club A, country B,
as Claimant
against the club,
Club C, country D
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in
connection with the Player E
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the Football Association of country B, the player, Player E (hereinafter: the
player), born on 17 May 1996, was registered as an amateur with the following clubs
from country B:
Club
Registration date
Club F
from 24 January 2007 until 8 September 2009
Club G
from 9 September 2009 until 14 August 2012
Club A
from 15 August 2012 until 30 June 2013
Club G
from 1 July 2013 until 6 August 2013
Club A
from 7 August 2013 until 28 August 2014
2.
The Football Association of country B confirmed that the football season in country B
during the time the player was registered with Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant) ran
from 1 July until 30 June of the following year.
3.
According to the Football Association of country D, the player was registered for Club C
(hereinafter: the Respondent) on 29 August 2014.
4.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), at the
time the player was registered with the Respondent, said club belonged to the category
1 (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year within UEFA).
5.
On 23 April 2015, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training
compensation for the first professional registration of the player with the Respondent.
In particular, the Claimant requested to be provided with a complete copy of the
contract concluded by the player and the Respondent and, in case it is a professional
contract, the amount of EUR 180,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 28 September 2014
and that the procedural costs in the amount of “CHF 4,000” should be borne by the
Respondent.
6.
In this respect, the Claimant provided FIFA with a copy of the first page of the alleged
“non-professional civil contract” (hereinafter: the contract) concluded between the
player and the Respondent on 15 July 2014 and, subsequently, referred to the
jurisprudence according to which, the status indicated by a National Association on
registration forms, the denomination of the contract concluded or TMS do not
supersede art. 2 par. 2 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
On 20 July 2015, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant by stating that it
concluded a non-professional civil contract with the player and that the player was
registered with its youth team as an amateur. In particular, the Respondent referred to
the wording of the contract and asserted that the player was granted a scholarship in
the amount of EUR 3,000 per year in order to compensate his expenses, but that he
never received a salary from the Respondent.
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
2
8.
Furthermore, the Respondent provided FIFA with a copy of the “non-professional civil
contract”, the object of which is the “integration of the player in any of the teams of
[the Respondent] as a non-professional player”.
9.
Art. 1.1 par. 2 of the contract stipulates that “the player undertakes, amongst others,
to:
a) Collaborate with the Club whenever requested, in all the promotion actions and
events of the Club or for the benefit of the sporting, cultural, recreational or leisure
activities developed by [the Respondent].
b) Take part in the training sessions and other preparatory activities as determined by
the club, and maintain the physical and sporting condition at the maximum level in
order to fulfil his player obligations. Both parties hereby agree that, amongst others,
the following activities are incompatible with the object of the present contract:
1. Participation in sporting or recreational activities in which there is a risk of injury
and are not organized by the Respondent.
2. Engage or take part into activities that restrict, limit or reduce the physical
resting periods needed for the normal sporting activity.
3. Take part, directly or indirectly, in risky or dangerous activities (…).
4. The use of doping substances or substances that are incompatible with the
sporting activity that constitute a breach of the regulations”.
10. Furthermore, art. 3 of the contract stipulates that the contract runs for the season
2014/2015 and that the Respondent has the unilateral right to extend the contract
during the season 2015/2016 with a one month notice before the end of the season.
11. Equally, art. 4.1 of the contract stipulates that the player would receive EUR 3,000 for
the whole 2014/2015 season and EUR 18,000 for the whole 2015/2016 season. In
addition, the club will cover the accommodation and maintenance expenses.
12. Moreover, the parties agreed upon the following bonuses for the 2014/2015 season:
EUR 100 if the player is called and plays an official match with the Respondent,
EUR 50 if the player is called but does not play for an official match of the
Respondent,
EUR 500 if the player is called and plays in a first team official match,
EUR 300 if the player is called but does not play for an official match of the first
team.
13. Equally, the player and the Respondent agreed upon the following bonuses for the
2015/2016 season:
EUR 500 if the player is called and plays in a first team official match,
EUR 300 if the player is called but does not play for an official match of the first
team.
14. Art. 5.2 of the contract stipulates that in the event of an unilateral termination of the
contract by the player, the latter would have to pay to the Respondent the amount of
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
3
EUR 90,000 per season up to EUR 700,000 as a reimbursement of the training costs of
the player.
II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge (hereinafter also referred
to as the DRC judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at
hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on
26 March 2015. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’
Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, edition 2014 (hereinafter:
Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural
Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 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 2015) he
is competent to decide on the present litigation concerning 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 2014 and 2015), and considering that the player was registered with the
Respondent on 29 August 2014, the 2014 edition of said regulations (hereinafter:
the 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. The DRC judge started by
acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation
on file. However, the DRC judge emphasized that in the following considerations he
will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he
considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
5.
First of all, the DRC judge recalled that the player was born on 17 May 1996 and was
registered with the Claimant as from 14 August 2012 until 30 June 2013 as well as
from 7 August 2013 until 28 August 2014.
6.
In continuation, the DRC judge observed that the Claimant asserted that it
appeared that the player was registered as a professional for the first time with the
Respondent before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday and that,
consequently, it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent
in the amount of EUR 180,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 28 September 2014 and
the reimbursement of the advance of costs in the amount of CHF 4,000. It also
requested that the procedural costs be borne by the Respondent.
7.
Equally, the DRC judge took note that the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim
for the payment of training compensation, stating that the player was registered
with it as an amateur.
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
4
8.
In this respect, the DRC judge firstly deemed it important to establish whether the
player held the amateur status or the professional status at the time he was
registered with the Respondent. To this end, he examined the contract that the
Respondent had submitted in the present proceedings.
9.
In this regard, the DRC judge duly noted that the contract contained a provision
stipulating that the player would render his services to the Respondent as a nonprofessional player and that, for the season 2014/2015, the player was entitled to
receive from the Respondent a scholarship in the amount of EUR 3,000 in order to
compensate his expenses. Furthermore, the DRC judge noted that the contract
indicated that, for the season 2015/2016, in the event the Respondent decided to
exercise the unilateral option to extend the contract, the player would be entitled
to receive the amount of EUR 18,000 plus the accommodation and maintenance
expenses. Equally, the DRC judge noted that the contract provided for bonus
payments ranging from EUR 50 to EUR 500 in case the player would be called or
played with the Respondent or with its first team and that, should the player
terminate the contract before the expiration date, he would have to reimburse to
the Respondent the training costs up to the amount of EUR 700,000.
10. Thus, the player was entitled to receive at least EUR 3,000 per year, which amount
was due to increase in case the player would be called or play official matches either
with one of the teams of the Respondent, as well as accommodation and
maintenance expenses.
11. In this context, the DRC judge referred to art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations, which
stipulates that “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.
All other players are considered to be amateurs”.
12. Taking into consideration the criteria set out in art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations as
well as the amounts payable to the player on the basis of the aforementioned
contract, the DRC judge concluded that it was beyond a doubt that the player was
in fact paid more for his footballing activity than the expenses he effectively
incurred. In this regard, the DRC judge was eager to emphasize that a player’s
remuneration as per the criteria set out in art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations
constitutes the decisive factor in the determination of the status of the player and
that the legal nature or the designation of the contract is of no relevance in this
regard. This approach has been confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport
(CAS) in its decision CAS 2006/A/1177, whereby the Panel also emphasized that the
definition contained in the mentioned provision is the only ground to establish a
player’s status. For the sake of completeness, the DRC judge pointed out that
according to the said decision the classification of a player made by the association
of his club is not decisive to determine the status of a player.
13. Equally, the DRC judge highlighted that the second element contained in said art. 2
par. 2 of the Regulations, i.e. the existence of a written contract, is met.
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
5
14. On account of all the above, the DRC judge concurred that the player was
registered as a professional with the Respondent.
15. Having established the above, the DRC judge referred to the rules applicable to
training compensation. In this context, the DRC judge started by stating that, as
established in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 par. 1 lit. ii. 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.
16. On account of the above considerations, the DRC judge concluded that, based on
the documents at his disposal, it can be established that the player was registered
with the Claimant as an amateur and thereafter signed his first professional
contract with the Respondent, with which he was registered on 29 August 2014, i.e.
before the end of his 23rd birthday and thus, entitling the Claimant to receive
training compensation from the Respondent in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe
4 of the Regulations.
17. Turning his attention to the calculation of training compensation, the DRC judge
referred to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of the Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulate
that as a general rule, it is necessary to take the costs that would have been
incurred by the new club as if it had trained the player itself and, thus, it is
calculated based on the training costs of the new club multiplied by the number of
years of training with the former club.
18. In continuation, the DRC judge observed that according to the documentation on
file, the Respondent belonged to the category 1 and that the player was registered
with the Claimant as from 15 August 2012 until 30 June 2013 and as from 7 August
2013 until 28 August 2014.
19. In view of all of the above, the DRC judge decided to partially accept the claim of
the Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR
180,000 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of
the player with the Respondent.
20. Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of
Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent has to
pay interest at 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of 29
September 2014 until the date of effective payment.
21. Lastly, the DRC judge 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 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
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
6
Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on
the basis of the amount in dispute.
22. In respect of the above, the DRC judge held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 180,000 related to the claim of the
Claimant. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the maximum amount of
costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 20,000 (cf. table in Annexe A pf the
Procedural Rules).
23. As a result, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been
partially accepted, the DRC judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the
costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA.
24. Considering that the case at hand did not compose any complex factual or legal
issues, the DRC judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the
amount of CHF 15,000.
*****
III.
Decision of the DRC judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as of the
date of notification of the present decision, the amount of EUR 180,000 plus 5%
interest p.a. on said amount as of 29 September 2014 until the date of effective
payment.
3.
If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the stated time limit,
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 is rejected.
5.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 15,000 are to be paid by
the Respondent, within 30 days of notification of the present decision as follows:
5.1 The amount of CHF 11,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank
account with reference to case nr. XXXX:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
7
5.2 The amount of CHF 4,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant.
6.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the
account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the DRC
judge 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
country B
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the DRC judge:
Markus Kattner
Acting Secretary General
Enclosed: CAS directives
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
8