Acórdão do FIFA, processo 09151620-E_2015-09-01

Data

01/09/2015

Fonte

inside.fifa.com

Training Compensation

Texto da decisão

Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 September 2015,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member
Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member
Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member

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.
1.

Facts of the case
According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of country B provided
by the club from country B, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), the player from country B,
Player E, born on 16 May 1995, was registered with the following clubs:
Club

Registration dates

Category

Status

Club I

from 6 September 2005 until 15 June 2010

Amateur

Club G

from 8 August 2010 until 10 June 2014

Non-amateur

Consequently, the Football Federation of country D held that “it is clear that the player
was continuously registered for our affiliated clubs in the period 06.09.2005-10.06.2014”.
According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of country D, the player
was from country D; category 3 (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA).
4.

On 6 October 2014, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training
compensation for the first professional registration of the player with Club G (hereinafter:
the Respondent). In particular, the Claimant requested EUR 62,500, plus 5% interest p.a. as
of 1 May 2014.

In this respect, the Claimant held that, on 7 March 2012, the player was firstly registered as
an amateur with the Respondent and that, during 2014, they concluded a professional
contract.

On 3 April 2015, the Respondent rejected the claim by stating that the player was
registered with the latter on 8 August 2010 and that previously he was registered with
Club I as from 6 September 2005. Consequently, the Respondent held that the player

Training compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)

passport issued by the Football Federation of country B wrongfully reflects the career of
the player since he has always been registered in country D.
7.

In this context, the Respondent asserted that not only the Football Federation of country D
confirmed the registration of the player in country D but also it provided the match sheets
in which the player played with Club I and the Respondent, duly signed by the officials (cf.
point I.18 below).

Furthermore, the Respondent stated that, in accordance with the Football Federation of
country D’s Regulations, it paid training compensation for the domestic transfer of the
player from Club I (cf. point I.19 below).

Moreover, the Respondent assessed that when the player allegedly moved from country B
to country D he was a minor and that, as a result the Respondent should have submitted
his registration to the subcommittee of the FIFA Players’ Status Committee, but confirmed
that it never did so exactly because such transfer never occurred. In particular, the
Respondent provided a statement of the player, which reads as follows: “I, Player E, born
16. May 1995 in city J, I never trained in Club A”.

10.

In light of the above, the Respondent stated that the Claimant and the Football Federation
of country B are trying to mislead the DRC and, hence, requested the rejection of the
Claimant’s claim and that the Claimant be ordered to pay the Respondent the amount of
EUR 1,122.8 for the translation and legal costs incurred.

11.

On 9 July 2015, the Claimant reiterated its request and rejected the Respondent’s
argumentation by stating that on 15 August 2007 the player was registered with Club F
after having undergone a medical exam. Equally, the Claimant held that on 26 August
2009 the player was registered with it, after Club F issued the necessary documents for his
transfer. In this respect, the Claimant provided official match sheets issued between 3
September 2009 and 11 April 2010 and referred to the player’s license, signed by the
player and which includes two medical stamps dated 21 August 2009 and 1 March 2010.

12.

In this regard, the Claimant asserted that, while being trained in Club F and the Claimant,
the player was recognized as a high quality player by the Expert Commission of the
Football Federation of country B and, therefore invited to the selection camps, as could be
noted from the minutes of the selection camps and match sheets played with Club F, dated
26 August 2007, 14 and 28 October 2007, 30 March 2008, 7 June 2008, 13 and 20 August
2008, 1 April 2009, 24 May 2009, as well as match sheets played with the Claimant dated 3
September 2009, 21 and 28 November 2009 and 11 April 2010 provided by the Claimant.
Equally, the Claimant provided a confirmation of Club F according to which the player was
subsequently registered for the Claimant, and a confirmation of the regional federation
according to which the player was in the selection camp on 26 March 2008, 27 October
2008, 20 November 2008, 23 December 2008, from 6 to 11 January 2009, 19 and 20 August
2009 and 22 October 2009. In light of the foregoing, the Claimant concluded that it is clear
that the player was registered first for Club F and, subsequently, for the Claimant.

13.

In this respect, the Claimant referred to the Respondent’s argument, according to which
the player joined the from country D club in September 2010, and stated that the player

Training compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)

could not have done so without the “advantage transfer card” from the club with which
the player was allegedly registered, i.e. Club I. However, the Claimant held that the
relevant player passport issued by the Football Federation of country D on 18 June 2014
did not mention Club I.
14.

Moreover, the Claimant assessed that the player left the club without permission. The
Claimant points out that the Respondent received from Club H (hereinafter: Club H) the
amount of EUR 500,000 for the transfer of the player, a fact that confirms the value of the
player and the damages suffered by the Claimant.

15.

In addition, the Claimant rejected the alleged statement signed by the player regarding his
non-registration with the latter for being supposedly untrue, and held that from the
documents on file, it can be noted that the player was simultaneously registered at both
the Football Federation of country B as a citizen of country B and the Football Federation
of country D as a citizen of country D. Consequently, the Claimant stated that the main
issue in the present matter is whether the Claimant contributed to the training of the
player and, consequently, whether it is entitled to receive training compensation.

16.

In this respect, the Claimant referred to the jurisprudence of CAS and held that, according
to the evidence on file, it trained the player and, as a result, it should receive training
compensation.

17.

On 13 August 2015, the Respondent referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and
assessed that the Claimant failed to meet its burden of proof since the evidence provided
supporting its right to receive training compensation (i.e. four match sheets dated 3
September 2009, 21 and 28 November 2009 and 11 April 2010, this is, only one of them
while the player was allegedly registered for the Claimant) can hardly prove that the
player was effectively trained and educated by the Claimant. In this respect, the
Respondent further underscored the lack of evidence in relation to the sporting seasons
2010/2011 and 2011/2012.

18.

In this context, the Respondent referred to the jurisprudence of the DRC and held that
training compensation is due only when there is certainty as to the contribution of a club
in the education and training of a player, which in the Respondent’s opinion is not the
case for the Claimant.

19.

Furthermore, the Respondent provided evidence that it paid training compensation for the
player to Club I in accordance with the internal regulations of the Football Federation of
country D. Consequently, the Respondent asserted that having to pay training
compensation for the player for the same period would infringe the principle of non bis in
idem, and the legal certainty would be violated since it relied on the player passport issued
by the Football Federation of country D.

20.

Moreover, the Respondent insisted that the Football Federation of country B falsified the
player passport in which the Football Federation of country B confirms that the player was
registered with Club F between 15 August 2007 and 19 August 2009 since the registration
application, which is not signed by the player or his parents, was only approved by the
Football Federation of country B on 20 February 2008. In this respect, the Respondent held

Training compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)

that “it is beyond [its] understanding, how a player can be registered by a Federation, if
the Registration Application is not even signed by the concerned player and/or his
parents” and, as a result, underscored that the registration with the Football Federation of
country B should be deemed invalid in accordance with the Regulations of the Football
Federation of country B.
21.

In addition, the Respondent further asserted that, contrary to the information contained
in the player passport issued by the Football Federation of country B, the player was born
in city J (country D) and has always lived in city K. In this respect, the Respondent provided
the player’s birth certificate in accordance with which, the player was born in city J.

22.

In this context, the Respondent provided a declaration of the player’s father given before
a public notary, which reads as follows: “I, Mr L, the father of the Player E, hereby declare,
under full responsibility, that I, at the invitation of Club F from the Republic of country B,
had the intention to take my son from Club F to the Republic of country B to play for Club
F; when everything was up for registration, we learned that international certificate
cannot be obtained for underage persons. After we learned this, my son continued to train
and play for Club F from which, in 2010, he moved to [the Respondent], country D, which
is evident from the enclosed documentation. I am shocked by the fact that Club F has
misused some information that remained with them and falsified the place of birth,
permanent residence, while it is evident that the player never signed the application for
registration in Football Federation of country B, which is enclosed hereby”. In this respect,
the Respondent also provided a declaration of the player given before a public notary,
which reads as follows: “I, Player E, born on 16 May 1995 in city J, under full liability state
that I never signed a registration form and sports card of the Soccer Club F or for the
Soccer Club A, nor have I undergone medical examinations for the aforementioned clubs.
(…) I lived with my parents in city K where I attended primary and secondary school from
2002 to 2014. I began soccer training in the Soccer Club I from country B, for whom I
played during the period 2005 to 2010, when I transferred to the Soccer Club G where I
continued training and playing for the club”.

23.

Equally, the Respondent provided a declaration of the president of Club F dated 22 July
2014 (i.e. before the present claim was lodged), which reads as follows: “The former
management of Club F made certain mistakes in 2007 when registering the Players E, born
on 16 May 1995 in city J (…). As the above mentioned player had already been registered
in 2005 for Club I from city K, country D, it tried to get International Certificate for those
players. However, since they were underage, it did not manage. The players had already
given their photographs, and they were registered as the first registration; and neither the
players (nor their parents) signed the Registration cards. We kindly ask the Competition
Commission of the Football Association of region M to void and annul the registration of
the players E (…) for our club, as to avoid unnecessary complications”.

24.

Lastly, the Respondent provided documentation in relation to the calling-up of the player
for the youth national from country D team during his registration with the Respondent.

25.

In light of all the foregoing, the Respondent requested the rejection of the claim, to be
reimbursed the legal and translation costs in the amount of EUR 1,122.8, to refer the

Training compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)

Claimant and the Football Federation of country B to the Disciplinary Committee for trying
to circumvent the articles relating to the transfer of minors (i.e. art. 19 of the Regulations)
as well as the violation of art. 2, 8, 9 and 61 of the Disciplinary Code.
II.

Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or
DRC) 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 6 October 2014.
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).

Subsequently, the members of the Chamber 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 2014 and 2015), the
Dispute Resolution Chamber is, in principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake
relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations.

At this point, the DRC stated that prior to deliberating on the substance of the matter, the
Chamber must verify whether the competent FIFA body would be able to deal with the
present affair or not for formal reasons. In particular, the Chamber emphasized that such
an analysis must be made ex officio by the deciding body, regardless of whether or not the
Respondent has raised any objections to the admissibility of the claim of the Claimant.
Having said that, and in view of the documentation provided by both parties in the
context of the present affair, the Chamber deemed it necessary to assess the admissibility
of the Claimant’s claim, in particular with regard to the time of its submission to the DRC.

In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (editions 2014 and 2015), in connection with the Procedural Rules,
which stipulates that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more
than two years have elapsed since the facts leading to the dispute arose and that the
application of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in each individual case.

Furthermore, DRC deemed it appropriate to refer to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules,
according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the
burden of proof.

Subsequently, the Chamber took note of the fact that both the Claimant and the
Respondent have provided documentation regarding the registration of the player, issued
respectively, by the Football Federation of country B and the Football Federation of
country D. After a careful analysis of such documentation, the Chamber noted that the
Claimant’s allegation that the player was first registered as an amateur with the
Respondent and in 2014 he acquired the professional status with the aforementioned club
was not supported by any evidence. In fact, without entering the matter of establishing
the player’s registration history by analyzing in detail the contradictory allegations and

Training compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)

documentation provided by the parties, the Chamber noted that in accordance with art. 12
par. 3 the Claimant is the party claiming its right to receive training compensation, thus it
bears the burden of proof.
7.

Having said that, the Chamber noted that in accordance with the documentation provided
by the Claimant itself, the player was registered with the Respondent as a non-amateur
already on 7 March 2012 (cf. point I.1 above) and that the Claimant lodged its claim before
FIFA on 6 October 2014.

In this context, the Chamber underscored that, in the documentation the Claimant
provided in support of its claim, it is established that the player was allegedly already a
professional with the Respondent on 7 March 2012.

In continuation, and hereby referring to the rules applicable to training compensation, the
Chamber stated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2
par. 1 lit. i. of Annexe 4 and art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (editions 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2015), training compensation is payable
30 days following the registration of the professional with the new association, 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.

10.

On account of the above considerations, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant lodged
its claim on 6 October 2014 only, this is, more than two years had elapsed since the event
giving rise to the dispute (i.e. on 7 April 2012 at the latest) and, thus, decided that the
claim of the Claimant is inadmissible.

11.

Lastly, the Chamber 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 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 Annex A of
the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the
amount in dispute.

12.

In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration
in the present proceedings is EUR 62,500 related to the claim of the Claimant.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the
proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000.

13.

As a result, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant is inadmissible as well as
the complexity of the case, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings
to the amount of CHF 10,000, which shall be borne by the Claimant.

III.

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Training compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)

The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is inadmissible.

The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 10,000 are to be paid by the
Claimant to FIFA. Given that the latter already paid an advance of costs of CHF 2,000 at the
beginning of the present proceedings, the Claimant has to pay the amount of CHF 8,000,
within 30 days of notification of the present decision, 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
*****

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 Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Markus Kattner
Acting Secretary General
Enclosed: CAS directives
Training compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)