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 18 October 2019,
by Mr S tefano S artori (Italy ),
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 passports issued by the Football Federation of Country B
(hereinafter: the Football Federation F) on 25 July 2018, the player, Player E
(hereinafter: the player), born on 30 September 1997, was registered as an amateur
with its affiliated club, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 16 January 2017
until 10 July 2017.
2.
Pursuant to the information provided by Football Federation F, the football season
in Country B starts in July and ends in June of the following year.
3.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS),
the player moved as an “out of contract (amateur player)” from the Club of
Country G, Club H (hereinafter also referred as: the former club) to the Club of
Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 11 July 2018 with which he
registered as a professional on the same day.
4.
In this respect, based on the information available on TMS, the player and the
Respondent signed an “employment contract” (hereinafter: the contract) valid
from 8 July 2018 until 31 May 2021. In particular, clause 1.3 of the contract foresees
that “[the Respondent] engages the Player as a professional footballer for, as a
minimum, [the Respondent’s] A and/or B Team, unless the player shall agree to
play for some other team of [the Respondent], on the terms and conditions of this
Contract and subject to the Rules of the [Country D Football Association]”.
5.
In addition, clause 1.4 of the contract stipulates that the player would earn EUR
3,000 net per season.
6.
Pursuant to the information in the TMS, the Claimant belonged to category IV
(UEFA indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year) whilst the Respondent belonged
to the category III (UEFA indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) at the moment
the player registered with the latter.
7.
In this framework, on 22 November 2018, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming its
proportion of training compensation on the ground of the first registration of the
player as a professional to a club of a different association, before the end of the
season of his 23rd birthday. In particular, the Claimant requested the amount of
EUR 10,000 plus 5% interest p.a. “as of the due date”.
8.
In its reply to the claim, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant. In fact,
the Respondent argued that the player should not be considered as a professional,
and that consequently his registration should not be considered as a first
registration of a professional. Evoking art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations on the
Training compensation for the player, Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
2
Transfer and Status of Players (hereinafter also referred as: the Regulations), the
Respondent indicated that the player was only paid EUR 300 per month with no
additional bonuses and/or benefits, and that as such it could not be considered
that the player was earning more than the expenses the player effectively incurred.
The Respondent provided a copy of the player’s contract.
9.
In addition, the Respondent pointed out that as the player moved between two
countries members of the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA),
the former club must offer a contract to the player before at least 60 days prior to
the expiry of his registration in order to retain its rights to training compensation,
in line with the provisions of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. The
Respondent alleged that the Claimant did not fulfil the conditions of said article
and that therefore the Claimant waived its entitlement to training compensation
in any case.
10.
In its replica, the Claimant, with reference to clause 1.3 of the contract which
stipulates that the Respondent engaged the player as a “professional”. In addition
the Claimant highlighted that the provisions of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations were not applicable as it was not the former club in the sense of the
Regulations. To this end, the Claimant provided a copy of the player’s passport
issued by the Football Federation of Country G (hereinafter: the Football
Federation J) indicating that the player, after having been registered with the
Claimant, registered with several Clubs of Country G, always as an amateur, prior
to his registration with the Respondent.
11.
In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated all its argumentation previously submitted
within its answer to the claim.
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 Dispute Resolution
Chamber (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 22 November 2018. Consequently, the 2018 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 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
October 2019). In accordance with art. 3 of Annexe 6 in conjunction with art. 24
Training compensation for the player, Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
3
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, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with the
Respondent on 11 July 2018, the Single 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 (editions January and June 2018 as well as edition June and
October 2019), the June 2018 edition of 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 entered into the substance of the matter. The Single
Judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned 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 TMS.
5.
First of all, the Single Judge recalled that, in accordance with the player passport
issued by the Football Federation F, the player, born on 30 September 1997, was
registered with the Claimant as an amateur from 16 January 2017 until 10 July
2017.
6.
Then, the Single Judge noted that the player transferred from the Club of Country
G, Club H to the Respondent where he was registered as a professional on 11 July
2018.
7.
In continuation, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant requested the
payment of the training compensation from the Respondent on the ground of the
first registration of the player as a professional to the Respondent before the end
of the season of his 23rd birthday. In particular, the Single Judge took note that the
Claimant requested the amount of EUR 10,000.
8.
Equally, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent argued that the player was
not a professional in the sense of the Regulations in view of the fact that he was
not earning more than the expenses he incurred, and that in any case the Claimant
Training compensation for the player, Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
4
did not offer the player a contract as per art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations and therefore waived its entitlement to training compensation.
9.
Hereby referring to the rules applicable to training compensation, the Single Judge
stated that, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations in combination with art. 1
par. 1 and art. 2 par 1. 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.
10.
In continuation, the Single Judge observed that, based on the documents at
disposal, it can be established that the player was registered with the Claimant
before the end of the season of his 21st birthday, i.e. from 16 January 2017 until 10
July 2017.
11.
Furthermore, the Single Judge duly noted that the player then transferred from
the Claimant to a club affiliated to the Football Federation J, and that he
subsequently registered with several Clubs of Country G, always as an amateur.
12.
Then, the Single Judge acknowledged that the player moved from the Club of
Country G, Club H to the Respondent where he was registered as a professional on
11 July 2018, i.e. before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.
13.
In particular, the Single Judge duly noted that the player and the Respondent
signed an employment contract in which it is unequivocally stipulated that the
player is engaged as a professional player, and that the player received a
remuneration EUR 3,000 net per season.
14.
The Single Judge recalled the provisions set out in art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations,
a professional is a player who has a written contract with a club and is paid more
for his footballing activity than the expenses he effectively incurs.
15.
With reference to the argumentation of the Respondent in respect of the status of
the player, the Single Judge acknowledged that a player’s remuneration as per the
criteria set out in the aforementioned article constitutes the decisive factor in the
determination of the status of the player and that in this respect, the long-standing
jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber has established that the
remuneration of a player may well fall short of a living wage, but as long as it
exceeds the expenses effectively incurred by the player, the criterion of article 2 of
the Regulations is met.
Training compensation for the player, Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
5
16.
In this respect, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent did not bring any
evidence that would have led to the conclusion that the player was not earning
more than the expenses he incurred. What is more, the Single Judge strongly
emphasised that the Respondent itself entered the registration of the player in
TMS, in which it indicated that the player was registered as a professional player.
17.
In light of the above, the Single Judge confirmed that in accordance with art. 2
par. 2 of the Regulations as well as in line with the long-standing jurisprudence of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the player must be considered a professional
player when he registered with the Respondent.
18.
In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent is, in
principle, liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant for the training of
the player in accordance with art. 20 as well as Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
19.
Then, the Single Judge referred to art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which
contains special provisions regarding players moving from one association to
another association inside the territory of the EU/EEA. In this regard, the Single
Judge indicated that, since the player moved from one association to another
association inside the territory of the EU, said article is applicable. Hence, the Single
Judge concluded that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies in the
case at hand as lex specialis.
20.
However, in this regard, the Single Judge pointed out that, in casu, a possible
obligation to offer the player a contract in compliance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe
4 of the Regulations would in principle lie with the former club of the player, i.e.
Club H, and not with the Claimant. As stated in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations, said provision is without prejudice to the right of training
compensation of the player’s previous club(s).
21.
On account of the above considerations, the Single Judge concluded that the
Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant.
22.
Turning his attention to the calculation of the training compensation, the Single
Judge referred to 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. In addition, the Single
Judge 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. What is more, the Single Judge referred to art. 6 of Annexe
4 of the Regulations which contains special provisions in case a player moves from
Training compensation for the player, Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
6
a lower to a higher category club or from a higher to a lower category club within
the territory of the EU/EEA.
23.
In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that the player was born on 30 September
1997 and was registered with the Claimant from 16 January 2017 until 10 July 2017.
As such, the Single Judge concluded that the effective period of time to be
considered in the matter at stake corresponds to the 6 months of the season of the
player’s 19th birthday.
24.
Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that, at the date of player’s registration
with the Respondent (i.e. 11 July 2018), the Claimant belonged to category IV
(UEFA indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year) whilst the Respondent belonged
to the category III (UEFA indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year).
25.
Consequently, taking into consideration all the above, the Single Judge decided
that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 10,000 to the Claimant for
the training and education of the player, as per art. 6 par. 1 lit. a) of Annexe 4 of
the Regulations.
26.
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 11
August 2018 until the date of effective payment.
27.
Lastly, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in conjunction
with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings
before the Dispute Resolution Chamber relating to disputes regarding training
compensation and the solidarity mechanism, costs in the maximum amount of CHF
25,000 are levied. The relevant provision further states 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.
28.
In respect of the above, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 10,000 related to the claim of the
Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of
costs of the present proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000.
29.
As a result, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to
the amount of CHF 5,000 which should be borne by the Respondent considering
the outcome of the present dispute.
*****
Training compensation for the player, Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
7
III. Decis ion of the S ingle Judge of the sub-com m ittee of the DRC
1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is accepted.
2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 10,000 plus
5% interest p.a. as from 11 August 2018 until the date of effective payment.
3. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
4. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly, of the
relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the amount mentioned
under point 2. above.
5. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount plus interest
in accordance with point 2. above to FIFA to the e-mail address [email protected], duly
translated, if need be, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French,
German, Spanish).
6. In the event that the amount due plus interest in accordance with point 2. above are
not paid by the Respondent w ithin 45 day s as from the notification by the Claimant
of the relevant bank details to the Respondent, the Respondent shall be banned
from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the
due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive
registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players).
7. The ban mentioned in point 6. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving, once the due amount are paid.
8. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is still not paid by the end of
the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall
be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and
a formal decision.
9. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 5,000 are to be paid by the
Respondent, w ithin 45 day s of notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the
following bank account with reference to case no. XXX:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH 27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
10. In the event that the aforementioned amount of costs is not paid within the stated
time limit, the present matter shall be submitted to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for
consideration and a formal decision.
Training compensation for the player, Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
8
*****
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.
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
Training compensation for the player, Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
9