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.
The Football Federation from country B confirmed that the player, Player E
(hereinafter: the player), born on 6 December 1994, was registered with its
affiliated club, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), from 1 October 2005 until 30
September 2012 as an amateur.
2.
The football season in country B runs as from 1 October until 30 September of
the following year.
3.
According to a written confirmation of The Football Association of country D
the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club C (hereinafter: the
Respondent) on 31 January 2013.
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 IV (indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year).
5.
On 28 June 2013, the Claimant contacted FIFA and, after completing its claim in
November 2014, requested to be awarded with the amount of EUR 65,000, plus
5% interest as of 12 February 2013, as training compensation in connection with
the first registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent. In
addition, the Claimant requested to be awarded with the amount of EUR 10,000
as damages.
6.
In this respect, the Claimant outlined that art. 2 par. 1 of the Annexe 4 of the
FIFA Regulations provides that training compensation is due either when a
player is registered for the first time as a professional, or when a professional is
transferred between clubs of two different associations before the end of the
season of 23rd birthday. Having said this, the Claimant explained that art. 2 par.
2 of the aforementioned annexe stipulates that training compensation is not
due if the player is “transferred” to a category 4 club but does not refer to the
first registration as a professional. Consequently, and since exceptions have to
be strictly interpreted, the Claimant concluded that training compensation is
due in case of first registration as a professional with a category IV club.
7.
In continuation, the Claimant alleges that according to the FIFA Circular 769,
said exception is only applicable within the EU/EEA and is thus not applicable to
the present matter which concerns a player’s move from country B to country D.
Training compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
2
8.
Moreover, the Claimant held that the aforementioned circular stipulates that, in
order to be considered as category IV, a club must either play in the fourth
division in countries where there are clubs falling under category I or play in the
third division or lower in countries where professional football exists or play in a
country, where only amateur football exists. In view of the above, the Claimant
alleged that the Respondent plays in the first division of country D and took
part, in the recent past, in the UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa
League.
9.
In its reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent explains that it hired the
player in order for him to escape from the war. In continuation, the Respondent
alleges that before signing the contract with the player, it was informed by
Agent F, the alleged player’s agent, that an amount of only EUR 10,000 should
be paid to the Claimant for the player’s training until the age of 18. In addition,
the Respondent states that it would have never signed a contract with the
player if it had known that a higher amount was due.
10. In its replica, the Claimant outlines that the Respondent does not challenge its
obligation to pay training compensation but only the “quantum” of the latter.
In this regard, the Claimant highlights that the Respondent had already
undertaken to pay it training compensation in a previous exchange of
correspondence.
11. In its final comments, the Respondent outlines that it belongs to the category IV
and has therefore no obligation to pay training compensation. In this regard,
the Respondent explains that its categorisation as such by The Football
Association of country D is correct, in particular considering that it has no
academy and has never participated in a major competition. In this respect, the
Respondent points out that the Claimant also acknowledges in its submission
that it belonged to category IV. Moreover, the Respondent highlights that if it
offered to pay EUR 10,000 to the Claimant, it was only as an act of benevolence.
12. Finally, the Respondent challenges the validity of the player passport, alleging
that it has been issued by the Claimant itself.
II. Considerations of the DRC judge
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (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 28 June 2013. Consequently, the
Training compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
3
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 the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules
and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 lit. ii. in
combination with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2015), the DRC 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
(edition 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 28 June
2013 as well as that the player was registered with the Respondent on 31
January 2013, the 2012 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, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. The DRC
judge started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well as the
documentation on file. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the
following considerations he will refer only to 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 6 December 1994
and was registered with the Claimant as from 1 October 2005 until 30
September 2012 as an amateur.
6.
In continuation, the DRC judge took note that the Claimant argued that it is
entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount
of EUR 65,000 plus 5% interest as of 12 February 2013, on the basis that the
player was registered for the first time as a professional with the Respondent. In
this respect, the DRC judge observed that the Claimant asserted that in
accordance with the FIFA Circular 769, the Respondent should be deemed
belonging to a higher category, in particular considering the fact that it
participates in the first division of country D and takes part in the European
competitions.
Training compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
4
7.
Equally, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of the
Claimant, arguing that The Football Association of country D rightly categorised
it in the category IV, taking into account that it had never participated in a
major competition.
8.
In this context, the DRC judge first of all referred to the rules applicable to
training compensation and stated 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 23 rd
birthday.
9.
Equally, the DRC judge went on to recall that, in accordance with art. 2 par. 2
lit. ii. of Annexe 4 of the Regulations as well as the longstanding and wellestablished jurisprudence of the DRC, training compensation is not due when a
player is transferred to a category IV club or is registered for the first time as a
professional with a club of such a category.
10. In continuation, the DRC judge emphasised that, in accordance with the FIFA
Circular 1299, clubs in country D shall be allocated either in category III or IV. In
this respect, the DRC judge deemed it of utmost importance to point out that
the power of classification belongs in principle to the national association and
that, therefore, his control may only be marginal. Indeed, the national
association is in the best position to allocate each of its affiliated clubs into a
particular category. Furthermore, the DRC judge outlined that the FIFA Circular
769, to which the Claimant is referring, constitutes guidelines aiming to help the
national associations in their mission of classification.
11. With this established, the DRC judge emphasised that it was the Claimant’s
responsibility to demonstrate that The Football Association of country D had
committed a manifest error of assessment when categorising the Respondent. In
this regard, the DRC judge recalled the basic principle of the burden of proof, as
stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party
claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden
of proof. Having the latter principle in mind, the DRC judge pointed out that
the Claimant did not substantiate its assertions as to the Respondent’s
participation in the first division of country D as well as in the European
competitions with any documentation and thus, held that the Claimant failed to
Training compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
5
satisfactorily carry the burden of proof regarding the alleged wrong
categorisation of the Respondent.
12. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the Respondent was to be
considered as a category IV club and that therefore, in accordance with art. 2
par. 2 lit. ii. of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, no training compensation is due by
the latter in connection with the first registration as a professional of the
player.
13. On account of all the aforesaid, the DRC judge decided to reject the Claimant’s
claim for training compensation.
14. Lastly, the DRC judge referred to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules,
according to which, in proceedings before the DRC, including the DRC judge,
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, 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.
15. In respect of the above, the DRC judge held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 65,000 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 (cf. table in Annexe A of
the Procedural Rules).
16. As a result, taking into account the particularities of the present matter as well
as that the Claimant was the unsuccessful party in the present proceedings, the
DRC judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of
CHF 2,000, which shall be borne by the Claimant.
****
III.
Decision of the DRC judge
1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is rejected.
Training compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
6
2. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 2,000 is to be
borne by the Claimant, which amount has already been paid by the Claimant,
Club A, to FIFA as advance of costs.
*****
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 DRC judge:
Markus Kattner
Acting Secretary General
Encl. CAS directives
Training compensation for the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
7