Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
S ingle Judge of the s ub-com m ittee of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber (DRC)
passed on 25 September 2019,
by Geoff Thom ps on (England),
Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC,
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, Player E
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
According to the player passport issued by the Football Association of Country
B, the Player E (d.o.b. 20 November 1997, hereinafter: the player) was
registered as an amateur with the following clubs:
-
Club F:
Club A:
Club G:
Club H:
Club L:
1 January 2003 until 30 June 2009
1 July 2009 until 30 June 2011
1 July 2011 until 30 June 2013
1 July 2013 until 31 December 2014
1 January 2015 until 31 December 2015
2.
The sporting season in Country B ran from 1 January until 31 December “prior
to 2010”, and as from 1 July until 30 June from “season 2010 - present”.
3.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System
(TMS), on 5 January 2016, the club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the
Respondent), registered the player as a professional player following a transfer
“out of contract free of payment” from Club L. The relevant transfer
instruction indicated that the player was an amateur player with his former
club. Furthermore, according to the player passport issued by the Football
Association of Country B, uploaded within the relevant transfer instruction, the
player was registered as an amateur with all above-mentioned clubs.
4.
Also according to TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category 1 (indicative
amount of EUR 90,000 per year within UEFA; EUR 10,000 for category 4 clubs)
at the time the player was registered with it.
5.
On 1 February 2018, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent
before FIFA asking to be awarded training compensation for the first
registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent. In particular,
the Claimant requested EUR 15,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due date.
6.
In its claim, the Claimant referred to an exchange of correspondence with the
Respondent in which the latter apparently stated that the player had already
signed a professional contract with the Club M in Country B. However,
according to the Claimant, said contract was not legally binding as it was
signed by the player when he was a minor, and for the same reason said
contract was not registered by the Football Association of Country B as is
corroborated by the player passport.
7.
In its reply to the claim, the Respondent firstly argued that the claim is timebarred considering that it signed the employment contract with the player on
21 November 2015. In continuation, the Respondent maintained that the
player had already signed a professional contract with Club M in 2014 and
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
2
that, in any case, the Claimant waived its right to receive training
compensation.
8.
Despite having been invited to submit its replica, the Claimant did not submit
any further comments.
II.
Cons iderations of the S ingle Judge of the s ub-com m ittee of the DRC
1.
First of all, the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC (hereinafter: the
Single 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 1 February 2018. Consequently, the 2018 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 Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules,
which states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its jurisdiction
in light of arts 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(edition 2019). In accordance with art. 3 of Annexe 6 in conjunction with art.
24 par. 3 and art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players, the Single Judge is competent to decide on the present dispute
relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different
associations handled through TMS.
3.
Furthermore, the Single Judge 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, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2015,
2016, 2018 and 2019) and considering that the player was registered with the
Respondent on 5 January 2016, the 2015 edition of said regulations
(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
4.
The competence of the Single Judge and the applicable regulations having
been established, the Single Judge reverted to the argument of the
Respondent, according to whom the present matter is barred by the statute of
limitations. In this regard, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the
Regulations, according to which, inter alia, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
shall not hear any case subject to the said Regulations if more than two years
have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute. Equally, the Single
Judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
3
that the deadline to pay training compensation is 30 days following the
registration of the professional with the new association.
5.
Considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 1 February
2018 and that the event giving rise to the dispute, that is, the non-payment of
training compensation 30 days after the player’s registration with the
Respondent, the latter having occurred on 5 January 2016 according to the
information contained in TMS, the Single Judge had to reject the respective
argument of the Respondent and confirmed that the present petition was
lodged in front of FIFA within said two years’ period of time. The matter is,
thus, not barred by the statute of limitations in accordance with art. 25 par. 5
of the Regulations.
6.
Having established the aforementioned, the Single Judge entered into the
substance of the matter. The Single Judge started by acknowledging the facts
of the case as well as the documentation on file. However, the Single Judge
emphasised 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. In particular, the Single Judge recalled that
in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use,
within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the
Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in the
Transfer Matching System (TMS).
7.
In this regard, the Single Judge recalled that the player, born on 20 November
1997, was registered with the Claimant as from 1 July 2009 until 30 June 2011
as an amateur. Equally, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the player
passport issued by the Football Association of Country B, the player was
registered with several other clubs from Country B as an amateur from 1 July
2011 until 31 December 2015.
8.
Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that according to the information
contained in the TMS, on 5 January 2016, the Respondent registered the player
as a professional player following a transfer “out of contract free of payment”
from Club L. Moreover, the Single Judge acknowledged that the relevant
transfer instruction indicated that the player was an amateur player with his
former club and that, according to the player passport issued by the Football
Association of Country B and uploaded within the relevant transfer instruction,
the player was registered as an amateur with all clubs in Country B.
9.
In continuation, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant asserted that it
was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the
amount of EUR 15,000, indicating that the player was registered as a
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
4
professional for the first time with the Respondent before the end of the
season of his 23rd birthday.
10.
Equally, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant referred to an exchange
of correspondence with the Respondent in which the latter apparently stated
that the player had already signed a professional contract with the Club M in
Country B. However, according to the Claimant, said contract was not legally
binding as it was signed by the player when he was a minor, and for the same
reason said contract was not registered by the Football Association of Country
B as is corroborated by the player passport.
11.
Subsequently, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent maintained that
the player had already signed a professional contract with Club M in 2014 and
that, in any case, the Claimant waived its right to receive training
compensation.
12.
At the same time, while referring to the principle of the burden of proof
stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Single Judge observed
that the Respondent had not submitted any documentary evidence in support
of its arguments.
13.
Having analysed the parties’ submissions, the Single Judge referred to the rules
applicable to training compensation and stated that, as established in art. 1
par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 par. 1 lit. i. 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 23 rd
birthday. In case the player is registered for the first time as a professional, art.
3 par. 1 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that the club with
which the player is registered is responsible for paying training compensation
within 30 days of registration to every club with which the player has
previously been registered and that has contributed to his training starting
from the season of his 12th birthday.
14.
Based on the documentation provided by the Football Association of Country
B and the information contained in TMS, as well as the lack of evidence in
support of the Respondent’s arguments, the Single Judge concluded that it
could indeed be established that the player had been registered for the first
time as a professional with the Respondent.
15.
On account of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge
decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the
Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
5
16.
Turning his attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Single
Judge referred to art. 5 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates
that, as a general rule, it is necessary to take the costs that would have been
incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself. Furthermore, the
Single Judge referred to art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, according
to which the training costs for players for the seasons between their 12th and
15th birthdays shall be based on the training and education costs of category 4
clubs.
17.
In continuation, the Single Judge recalled that the player was born on 20
November 1997 and was registered with the Claimant during the relevant
period as from 1 July 2009 until 30 June 2011.
18.
Equally, the Single Judge recalled that the sporting season in Country B ran
from 1 January until 31 December “prior to 2010”, and as from 1 July until 30
June from “season 2010 - present”.
19.
Furthermore, and considering art. 3 par. 1 sent. 2 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations, which stipulates that the amount payable is calculated on a pro
rata basis according to the period of training that the player spent with each
club, the Single Judge concluded that the effective period of time to be
considered in the matter at stake corresponds to 12 months of the season of
the player’s 12th birthday (this is an extended 18 month season running from 1
January 2009 until 30 June 2010 due to the change of season dates) and the
entire season of the player’s 13th birthday.
20.
Consequently, in light of the above-mentioned considerations and considering
the amount claimed by the Claimant, the Single Judge decided to accept the
Claimant’s claim and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of
EUR 15,000 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the
registration of the player with the Respondent.
21.
Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2
of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent
has to pay interest at 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training
compensation as of 5 February 2016 until the date of effective payment.
22.
Lastly, the Single Judge referred to 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
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
6
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.
23.
In respect of the above, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken
into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 15,000 related to the
claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the
maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000 (cf.
table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules).
24.
As a result and taking into account that the Claimant is the successful party in
the proceeding, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current
proceedings to the amount of CHF 4,000, which shall be borne by the
Respondent.
*****
III.
Decis ion of the S ingle Judge of the s ub-com m ittee of the DRC
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, w ithin 30 day s as from
the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 15,000 plus 5%
interest p.a. on said amount as of 5 February 2016 until the date of effective
payment.
4.
In the event that 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.
5.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 4,000 are to be paid
by the Respondent w ithin 30 day s as from the date of notification of the
present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case
nr. XXX:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
7
IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
6.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of
the account number to which the remittance under point 3. above is to be
made and to notify the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC of every
payment received.
*****
Note relating to the m otiv ated decis ion (legal remedy):
According to art. 58 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 Single Judge of the
Sub-committee of the DRC:
__________________________________
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Enclosed: CAS directives
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
8