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 a training compensation dispute
related to the transfer of the Player E
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to a player passport (hereinafter: player passport 1) issued by the
Football Association of country B and uploaded in the Transfer Matching System
(TMS), the player, Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 25 August 1995,
was registered with the following clubs:
- Club F (country G)
- Club H (country B)
2.
Furthermore, according to another player passport (hereinafter: player passport
2) issued by the Football Association of country B and uploaded in TMS, the
player was registered as an amateur with its affiliated clubs as follows:
- Club A
- Club H
3.
as from 2007 until 2012;
during the 2012/2013 season.
as from 16 April 2007 until 1 August 2011;
as from 1 August 2011 until 27 January 2014.
The relevant football seasons in country B ran as follows:
- season 2007
- season 2008
- season 2009
- season 2010
- season 2011/2012
from 11 March 2007 until 11 November 2007;
from 16 March 2008 until 22 November 2008;
from 15 March 2009 until 29 November 2009;
from 14 March 2010 until 28 November 2010;
from 20 January 2011 until 13 May 2012.
4.
According to the information contained in TMS, the player was registered with
Club C from country D (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 2 February 2014.
5.
Furthermore, as well confirmed by the information contained in TMS, the
Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per
year within UEFA) during the time when the player was registered with it.
6.
On 19 February 2015, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant) contacted FIFA
requesting training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the
player had signed his first professional contract with said club “in the year 2014”.
In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 42,541.
7.
In support of its claim, the Claimant attached the original of a player passport
(hereinafter: player passport 3) issued by the Football Association of country B
with a translation into English. According to player passport 3, the player was
registered with Club A as from 16 April 2007 until 1 August 2011.
8.
In its reply, the Respondent firstly explained that, according to the player
passport uploaded by the Football Association of country B in TMS at the time
the player was registered with the Respondent, the player had not been
registered with the Claimant but only with Club H and Club F from country G.
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
2/7
9.
Upon request of the FIFA administration, the Football Association of country B
clarified and confirmed that player passport 1 is not valid and was uploaded in
TMS by mistake. Furthermore, the Football Association of country B confirmed
that it had uploaded the correct player passport (i.e. player passport 2) in TMS
on 23 April 2015.
10. In its replica, the Claimant stated that the clarification of the Football
Association of country B confirms its position.
11. In its duplica, the Respondent pointed out that player passport 2 did in fact not
contain the name of the football club “Club A”, but “Sports School Club A”
instead. In this respect, the Respondent contested that “Sports School Club A” is
an affiliated member of the Football Association of country B and has the legal
capacity with respect to art. 6 par. 1 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of
the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber to file a
claim before the competent bodies of FIFA.
12. Furthermore, the Respondent emphasized that the original and translated copy
of player passport 3, which were provided by the Claimant, do not match with
each other as the date of issuance on the original is 10 April 2015, whereas the
date of issuance on the translated copy is 27 January 2015. With respect to this
fact, it is clear that the Claimant is acting in bad faith, according to the
Respondent.
13. Furthermore, the Respondent repeated that, during the course of the
registration of the player, the Respondent received the confirmation as well as
player passport 1 from the Football Association of country B according to which
the player was only registered with Club H and Club F. In this respect, according
to the Respondent, Club H waived its right for training compensation.
14. Moreover, the Respondent outlined that the Claimant only noticed the wrong
uploaded player passport approximately 15 months later. In this regard,
according to the Respondent it is irresponsible of the Football Association of
country B to issue two player passports and create confusion and inconsistency
in the registration process of a player. Therefore, the Respondent argued that it
cannot be held liable to pay training compensation due to this kind of mistake
of the Football Association of country B.
15. In addition, the Respondent added that, in order to be entitled to receive
training compensation, according to art. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players it is not enough that the club contributed to
the training of the player, but the player has to be registered with the club “in
accordance with the players’ career history as provided for in the player’s
passport”. As the Claimant did not appear in the player passport at the time the
player was registered with the Respondent, it is not liable to pay training
compensation.
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
3/7
16. Finally, the Respondent mentioned that it is the responsibility of the association
to assure that the information contained in a player passport is correct according
to art. 8 par. 1 no. 3 of Annexe 3 and art. 2 no. 3 of Annexe 3a of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players. Further to this, the Respondent stated that
according to well-established jurisprudence of the FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber, a club that relies in good faith on the information contained in a
player passport cannot be held liable due to information which appeared in a
second player passport. Therefore, the Respondent asserted that it could in good
faith trust the information contained in player passport 1, which was firstly
issued and uploaded by the Football Association of country B.
17. Upon request of the FIFA administration, the Football Association of country B
clarified that “Club A (which was later renamed into Club A2) is wholly owned
by Club A, which is the sole founder of the Academy and effects the whole it’s
financing”. Further, the Football Association of country B added that “Club A
and Club A2 are different legal entities.”
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC
or Chamber) 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 19
February 2015. Consequently, the 2014 edition of the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand
(cf. art. 21 of the 2014 and 2015 editions of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 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
2015), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at
stake relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different
associations.
3.
Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the
matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012, 2014 and
2015), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 2
February 2014, the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
4/7
4.
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The
members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well
as the documentation on file. However, the DRC emphasised that in the
following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and
documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the
matter at hand.
5.
First of all, the DRC took note that the Claimant held that it had trained the
player between 16 April 2007 and 1 August 2011 and, in support of this,
submitted a player passport (i.e. player passport 3), issued by the Football
Association of country B and dated 27 January 2015, from which it appears that
the player had been registered with the Claimant during the aforementioned
period.
6.
Equally, the DRC noted that the Respondent argued that the only player
passport (i.e. player passport 1) which was uploaded into TMS by the Football
Association of country B, at the time the player was registered with the
Respondent, did not contain the Claimant but only the club from country G,
Club F, and the club from country B, Club H.
7.
In addition, the members of the Chamber highlighted that, according to the
information contained in the TMS, the Respondent entered a transfer
instruction to engage the player on 31 January 2014. The transfer instruction
was finalized by the Football Association of country B and the Football
Federation of country D upon receipt of the International Transfer Certificate
by the Football Federation of country D on 2 February 2014.
8.
In continuation, the members of the DRC referred to the player passport dated
7 February 2014 (i.e. player passport 2), uploaded in the TMS on 24 April 2015,
which included the Claimant as one of the clubs that had trained the player.
9.
In view of the foregoing and in particular the chronology of events, the DRC
held that, at the moment that the Respondent was in the process of registering
the player, as well as when it entered the transfer instruction into the TMS, it
was only in possession of the player passport 1 which it received from the
Football Association of country B and according to which the player had only
been registered with Club F and Club H.
10.
In light of all the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent could
rely in good faith on the player passport 1 and reasonably assume that the
player had not been trained by any other club than Club F and Club H. As a
result, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s claim.
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
5/7
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 Annexe 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 42,541 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).
13.
As a result, considering that the case at hand did pose some particular factual
difficulties as well as that the claim of the Claimant has been rejected, the DRC
determined the final costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF
4,000 which shall be borne by the Claimant.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is rejected.
2.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 4,000 are to be paid by
the Claimant. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of CHF 2,000
as advance of costs at the beginning of the present proceedings, the additional
amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid by the Claimant within 30 days as from
the date of the notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the following
bank account with reference to case nr.:
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)
6/7
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:
Markus Kattner
Acting Secretary General
Enclosed: CAS directives
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
7/7