Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 September 2015,
by Philippe Diallo (France), 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 Federation of country B, the player, Player E (hereinafter: the
player), born on 10 January 1992, was registered with its affiliated club, Club A
(hereinafter: the Claimant) as from 15 July 2009 until 22 January 2010, as a professional
on loan basis from the club from country B, Club F (hereinafter: Club F), with which the
player was subsequently registered as a professional between 27 January 2010 and 12
July 2013, after returning from his loan.
2. The Football Federation of country B confirmed that the Claimant belonged to the
category 3 (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA) at the time the
player was registered with said club.
3. The football season in country B runs from 1 July until 30 June of the following year.
4. The Football Association of country D confirmed that the player was registered with the
club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 31 August 2013.
5. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the
player was transferred on a permanent basis from Club F to the Respondent and, 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).
6. On 3 October 2014, the Claimant contacted FIFA requesting from the Respondent the
payment of training compensation for the subsequent professional registration of the
player. In particular, the Claimant requested EUR 31,135.84.
7. In its reply, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant by stating that the player
signed a scholarship agreement with Club F until 15 May 2010 and that, in the
framework of this scholarship agreement, the player was loaned to the Claimant.
However, on 19 February 2010, the player and Club F signed a professional employment
contract. As a result, the Respondent held that the last club and therefore, the only one
entitled to receive training compensation, is Club F.
8. Furthermore, the Respondent contested the “professional” status of the player under
the scholarship agreement by referring to the wording of the player passport, which
refers to “non-amateur”. In this respect, the Respondent further pointed out that the
player, at the time he concluded the scholarship agreement, was 14 years old and that
the club from country D has reasonable doubts whether a 14 year old player could be
considered a professional player in the sense of art. 2 of the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players.
9. In light of the foregoing, the Respondent concluded that the first professional
registration of the player only occurred upon the signature of his first professional
Training compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
2
employment contract with Club F on 19 February 2010 (i.e. after the player was
registered with the Claimant).
II.
Considerations of the DRC judge
1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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 3 October 2014.
Consequently, the 2014 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’
Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is
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) the Dispute
Resolution Chamber judge is competent to deal with the matter at stake relating to
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 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2009,
2010, 2012, 2014 and 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 3
October 2014, the 2014 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been
established, he 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, he 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. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that the player, born on 10 January 1992, was
registered on a loan basis with the Claimant for the period between 15 July 2009 and 22
January 2010 as a professional. Equally, he observed that after the loan with the
Claimant had expired, the player returned to his club of origin, Club F, i.e. the club with
which the player was still contractually bound. Thereafter, on 31 August 2013, the player
was internationally transferred from Club F to the Respondent.
6. In continuation, the DRC judge took note that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled
to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 31,134.84.
7. Equally, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant,
arguing that the player was registered with the Claimant on loan in the framework of a
Training compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
3
scholarship agreement when he was 14 years old and that, thereafter, the player and
Club F concluded a professional contract. Consequently, the DRC judge noted that the
Respondent contested the professional status of the player under the scholarship
agreement. Equally, the DRC judge further underscored that, in the Respondent’s
opinion, the Claimant is not the player’s former club in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3
of Annexe 4 of the Regulations and that, as a result, the latter is not entitled to receive
training compensation for the player.
8. In this context, the DRC judge firstly 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, as well as
to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations, in accordance with which, professionals may be
loaned to other clubs.
9. In this regard, the DRC judge referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which
stipulates that any party claiming the right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the
burden of proof. In particular, he underscored that, according to the player passport
issued by the Football Federation of country B, the player was registered with the
Claimant as a “non-amateur” on loan from Club F. Equally, the DRC judge underscored
that the Respondent failed to provide any evidence supporting its allegations regarding
the non-professional status of the player.
10. In light of the foregoing, the DRC judge took the view that the player was a professional
in the sense of art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations at the time he was loaned to the Claimant
from Club F.
11. Furthermore, the DRC judge underscored that the second issue to address is whether or
not a club that accepted a professional on loan is entitled to receive training
compensation when, after the expiry of the loan, the professional returns to his club of
origin and, thereafter, is transferred from the club of origin to a club belonging to
another association before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
12. In consideration of the above-mentioned issue, the DRC judge, and hereby referring to
the rules applicable to training compensation, started by stating that, as established in
art. 20 of the Regulations as well as 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 23rd 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.
Training compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
4
13. Furthermore, the DRC judge referred to the last sentence of art. 10 par. 1 of the
Regulations, according with which any loan is subject to the same rules as apply to the
transfer of players, including the provisions on training compensation and the solidarity
mechanism.
14. Following the above, the DRC judge stressed that one of the aims of the last sentence of
art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations is to ensure that training clubs which register a player
on loan basis also benefit from the solidarity mechanism and training compensation,
provided that the relevant prerequisites in the pertinent provisions of the Regulations
are fulfilled. This approach is also in line with the Dispute Resolution Chamber’s wellestablished jurisprudence that all clubs which have in actual fact contributed to the
training and education of a player as from the age of 12 are, in principle, entitled to
training compensation for the timeframe that the player was effectively trained by
them.
15. In other words, the DRC judge emphasised that the nature of the player’s registration
with a club claiming training compensation, i.e. on a definite or on a temporary basis, is
in fact irrelevant with respect to the question as to whether such club would be entitled
to receive training compensation for the period of time that the player was effectively
trained by that club.
16. Following the above, the DRC judge pointed out that the obligation to pay training
compensation, thus, arises in case a player is definitively transferred from one club to
another club belonging to a different association, but not when he is temporarily
transferred to another club while still being contractually bound to his club of origin
(yet, with the effects of the relevant contract being temporarily suspended), such as a
loan. Hence, the relevant entitlement can only be claimed towards a new club that
acquires the services of a player on a definitive and permanent basis subject to the
fulfilment of the prerequisites established in art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
17. In this respect, the DRC judge underscored that the triggering element for the payment
of training compensation is the registration of the player and that the contractual link
between the player and the club that loans him is irrelevant for this purpose. In other
words, the fact that the player was loaned while under a scholarship agreement with
Club F and that, upon his return to the latter, the parties concluded a new employment
contract, is unconnected with the entitlement of the Claimant to receive training
compensation from the Respondent in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the
Regulations.
18. As to the argument of the Respondent that the Claimant is not the former club in the
sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the DRC judge wished to
recall that art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 stipulates that “In the case of subsequent
transfers of the professional, training compensation will only be owed to his former club
for the time he was effectively trained by that club”. In this context, the DRC judge
Training compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
5
acknowledged that the Claimant was not the player’s former club stricto sensu,
however, he pointed out that, within the framework of loans, the period of time that
the player was registered with Club F and the period of time that the player was
registered with the Claimant on loan, should be considered as one entire timeframe.
Any other interpretation would lead to the situation in which clubs accepting a player
on loan would never be entitled to receive training compensation, even if they
contribute to the training and education of players.
19. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the DRC judge deemed that the Respondent’s
interpretation of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations would clearly
contravene the intention of the legislator of the Regulations as well as the wellestablished jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, according to which all
training clubs shall, in principle, be rewarded for their efforts invested in training young
players, including those clubs that have accepted a player on a temporary basis.
20. The aforementioned having been established, the DRC judge turned his attention 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, he indicated that, since the
player moved from one association to another association inside the territory of the EU,
said article is applicable. Hence, the DRC judge concluded that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4
of the Regulations applies in the case at hand as lex specialis.
21. However, in this regard, the Chamber pointed out that, in casu, a possible obligation to
offer the player a contract in compliance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations would in principle lie with Club F, this is, the club with which the player
concluded a professional agreement that was suspended during the loan, and not with
the Claimant. As stated in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, said provision is
without prejudice to the right of training compensation of the player’s previous club(s).
22. On account of the above considerations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is
liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant for the training of the player in
accordance with art. 20 of the Regulations, art. 2 par. 1 lit. ii., art. 3 par. 1 and art. 6 par.
1 a) of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
23. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the DRC judge
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 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. Equally, the DRC judge recalled the
contents of art. 6 par. 1 of the Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that when
a player moves from a lower to a higher category club within the territory of the
Training compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
6
EU/EEA, the amount of training compensation payable shall be calculated on the
average training costs of the two clubs.
24. In this respect, the DRC judge noted that according to the Football Federation of country
B, the Claimant belonged to the category 3 (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year
within UEFA) and that at the time the player was registered for the Respondent, the
latter belonged to the category 1 (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year within
UEFA). Consequently, the training compensation for the player shall be calculated on the
basis of the average training costs in the amount of EUR 60,000 per season.
25. In light of the foregoing, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay
training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 31,135.84.
26. Lastly, the DRC judge 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 and the solidarity mechanism, costs
in the maximum amount of CHF 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.
27. In respect of the above, the DRC judge held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 31,134.85 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).
28. As a result, and taking into account the complexity of the case, the Chamber determined
the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 4,000, which shall be borne
by the Respondent.
III.
Decision of the DRC judge
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 of the date of
notification of the present decision, the amount of EUR 31,135.84.
3. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the stated time limit, an interest rate of
5% p.a. year will apply as of expiry of the fixed time limit and the present matter shall
be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a
formal decision.
Training compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
7
4. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 4,000 are to be paid by the
Respondent within 30 days of notification of the present decision 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
5. 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. 63 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 DRC judge:
Markus Kattner
Acting Secretary General
Enclosed: CAS directives
Training compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
8