Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 October 2015,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member
Eirik Monsen (Norway), 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.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS)
and the information provided by the Football Federation of country B
(hereinafter: Football Federation of country B), the player, Player E (hereinafter:
the player), born on 11 January 1990, was registered as a professional as follows:
-
Club F
as from 30 January 2009 until 19 August 2009;
Club A (on loan)
as from 20 August 2009 until 30 June 2010;
Club F
as from 1 July 2010 until 15 September 2010;
Club G (on loan) as from 16 September 2010 until 2 February
2011;
Club A (on loan)
as from 7 February 2011 until 30 June 2011:
Club F
as from 1 July 2011 until 12 July 2011;
Club H (on loan)
as from 13 July 2011 until 30
June 2012;
Club F
as from 1 July 2012 until 10 August 2012.
2.
The football season in country B lasts from 1 July until 30 June of the following
year.
3.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS),
the player was registered with the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the
Respondent) on 10 August 2012 as a professional.
4.
The Football Federation of country B confirmed that Club A (hereinafter: the
Claimant) belonged to the following categories during the time when the player
was registered with the club:
-
2009/2010 it belonged to category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per
year within UEFA),
2010/2011 it belonged to category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per
year within UEFA).
5.
The Football Federation of country D confirmed that the Respondent belonged to
the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year within UEFA) during the
season when the player was registered with the club.
6.
On 15 August 2014, the Claimant contacted FIFA requesting training compensation
for the subsequent transfer as a professional of the player to the Respondent in
the amount of EUR 81,369.86 plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. on said amount as
from the 31st day of the registration of the player with the Respondent.
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
2/10
7.
In support of its claim, the Claimant argued that despite the fact that it was not
the last club of the player when the player was already registered as a
professional, it should still be entitled to receive training compensation given that
the player was always permanently registered with Club F and only transferred on
loan to the Claimant. In this regard, the Claimant held that according to the
jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), “the period of time that
[a player] is registered with one club and the period of time that the player was
registered with the Claimant on loan should be considered as one entire
timeframe”.
8.
In its reply, the Respondent indicated that according to art. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players the training clubs have to lodge
a claim for training compensation within 18 months after the registration of the
player with the Respondent. Given that the claim of the Claimant was only lodged
on 15 August 2014, the claim is prescribed.
9.
Likewise, the Respondent argued that according to the jurisprudence of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), said body shall not hear any case if more than
two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute. In view of the
fact that the claim of the Claimant was only lodged more than two years after the
registration of the player with the Respondent, the claim of the Claimant is also
prescribed in this regard.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: 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 15
August 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 2014 and 2015 editions of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules, which states that the DRC shall examine its jurisdiction in
light of art. 24 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2015). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 lit. ii. in
connection with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players, the DRC is competent to decide on the present matter relating to
training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations.
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
3/10
3.
In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that contrary to the
information contained in FIFA’s letter dated 9 October 2015 by means of which
the parties were informed of the composition of the Chamber, the Member H
and the Member I refrained from participating in the deliberations in the case
at hand, due to the fact that the Member H has the same nationality as the
Claimant and that, in order to comply with the prerequisite of equal
representation of club and player representatives, also the Member I refrained
from participating and thus the Dispute Resolution Chamber adjudicated the
case in presence of three members in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 of the
Regulations.
4.
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 10 August 2012, 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.
5.
However, the Chamber reverted to the argument of the Respondent,
according to whom the present matter is barred by the statute of limitations
on the basis of art. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations as well as the
jurisprudence of the DRC. In this regard, the members of the Chamber 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.
The present claim having been lodged in front of the DRC on 15 August 2014
and the registration of the player with the Respondent having occurred on 10
August 2012, the members of the Chamber had to reject the respective
argument of the Respondent and confirmed that the present petition was
lodged in front of the DRC within said two years’ period of time. In this regard,
the Chamber wished to recall that, according to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of Annexe 4
of the Regulations, the deadline for payment of training compensation is 30
days following the registration of the professional with the new association.
Hence, the event giving rise to the dispute is the non-payment of training
compensation 30 days after 10 August 2012. The matter is, thus, not barred by
the statute of limitations in accordance with art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations.
6.
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been
established, the entered into the substance of the matter. The Chamber
started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
4/10
documentation on file. However, the DRC emphasized 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.
7.
In this regard, the members of the Chamber recalled that the player, born on
11 January 1990, was registered with Club F as a professional for the period
between 30 January 2009 and 12 July 2011 and that, between 20 August 2009
until 30 June 2010 and from 7 February 2011 until 30 June 2011, the player was
registered on a loan basis with the Claimant.
8.
In continuation, the DRC took note that the Claimant asserted that it was
entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount
of EUR 81,369.86 indicating that the player was transferred as a professional
from Club F to the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd
birthday and that the period that the player was registered with Club F as well
as with the Claimant itself on loan should be considered as one entire
timeframe.
9.
In consideration of the above-mentioned issue, the DRC 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 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.
10.
Furthermore, the DRC referred to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations, which
stipulates that professionals may be loaned to another club on the basis of a
written agreement between the professional and the clubs concerned.
Moreover, the last sentence of said article stipulates that any such loan is
subject to the same rules as apply to the transfer of players, including the
provisions on training compensation and the solidarity mechanism.
11.
With due consideration to the above, the DRC 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 a loan basis also benefit from the solidarity
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
5/10
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 DRC’s well-established 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.
12.
In other words, the Chamber 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.
13.
In this respect and for the sake of good order, the DRC deemed it essential to
emphasise that, as to the liability to pay training compensation, the analogy
established in art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations could not be extended to the
case in which a player is loaned to a club and thus is not being definitively
transferred to the latter club. In other words, the transfer of a player from the
club of origin to the club that accepts the player on loan, as well as the return
of the player from the club that accepted him on loan to the club of origin, do
not constitute a subsequent transfer in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of
Annexe 4 of the Regulations. The DRC was eager to point out that it could not
have been the intention of the legislator of the relevant regulatory provision
(i.e. art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations) to trigger the consequences of art. 3 par.
1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the occasion of a transfer on a loan basis
and, thus, potentially deprive the loan of its essential flexibility and, in
connection with the training and education of players, its purpose of providing
young players with the opportunity to gain practical experience in another
club in order to develop in a positive way, personally and, eventually, also for
the benefit of the player’s new club.
14.
Following the above, the Chamber 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.
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
6/10
15.
What is more, and while recalling that art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations 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”, the DRC acknowledged that
the Claimant was not the player’s former club stricto sensu, however, the DRC
pointed out that, within the framework of loans and for the purposes of the
rules governing training compensation, the period of time that the player was
registered with the Claimant on loan and the period of time that the player
was registered with Club F, 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.
16.
On account of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided
that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in
accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
17.
Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the DRC
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.
18.
Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber referred to art. 6 of
Annexe 4 of the Regulations which contains special provisions in case a player
moves from a lower to a higher category club or from a higher to a lower
category club within the territory of the EU/EEA. Since the player was
transferred from a club from country B to a club from country D, the DRC
decided that the special provisions for transfers within the EU/EEA are
applicable to the matter at hand.
19.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber recalled that the player was
born on 11 January 1990 and was registered with the Claimant as from 20
August 2009 until 30 June 2010 and from 7 February 2011 until 30 June 2011.
20.
Equally, the DRC recalled that according to the information contained in the
TMS, the player was registered with the Respondent on 10 August 2012.
21.
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 DRC concluded that the effective period of time to be considered in
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
7/10
the matter at stake corresponds to 10 months of the 2009/2010 season and 5
months of the 2010/2011 season.
22.
Consequently, in light of the above-mentioned considerations and considering
the amount claimed by the Claimant, the DRC decided to accept the Claimant’s
claim and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR
81,369.86 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the
registration of the player with the Respondent.
23.
Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2
of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the DRC decided that the Respondent has to
pay, in conformity with its longstanding practice, interest at 5% p.a. over the
amount payable as training compensation as of the 31st day of the registration
of the player with the Respondent on a definitive basis, i.e. as of 10 September
2012, until the date of effective payment.
24.
Lastly, the Chamber 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
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.
25.
In respect of the above, the DRC held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 81,369.86 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).
26.
As a result, taking into account the particularities of the present matter as well
as that the claim of the Claimant is accepted, the DRC determined the costs of
the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 8,000, which shall be borne by
the Respondent.
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
8/10
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
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, within 30 days as from
the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 81,369.86 plus 5%
interest p.a. on said amount as of 10 September 2012 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 8,000 are to be paid
by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of notification of the
present decision as follows:
5.1. The amount of CHF 6,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank
account with reference to case nr. xxxxxxxxxxx:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH 27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
5.2. The amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant.
Training compensation in connection with the Player E
(Club A, country B / Club C, country D)
9/10
6.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of
the account number to which the remittances under points 3. and 5.2. above
are to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every
payment received.
*****
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)
10/10