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 8 October 2019,
by Mr Roy Vermeer (Netherlands),
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 of Country B) on 6 February 2017 and 6
February 2019, the player, Player E, born on 1 October 1997 (hereinafter: the
player), was registered with its affiliated clubs, including Club A (hereinafter: the
Claimant), as follows:
Clubs
Regis tration dates
S tatus
The Claimant
From 29.09.2011 until 01.01.2012
Amateur
Club X
From 02.01.2012 until 30.11.2012
Amateur
The Claimant
From 01.12.2012 until 01.03.2013
Amateur
Club XX
From 02.03.2013 until 30.11.2013
Amateur
The Claimant
From 11.12.2013 until 30.11.2014
Amateur
The Claimant
From 01.12.2014 until 30.10.2016
Professional
Club XXX
From 01.12.2016 until 30.01.2017
Amateur
2.
The relevant football seasons in Country B ran as follows:
- From 29 September 2011 until 31 July 2012;
- From 1 December 2012 until 31 October 2013;
- From 11 December 2013 until 30 October 2014; and
- As from 1 December 2014: from 1 December of one year until 31 October of
the following year.
3.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS),
the player, coming from Club XXX (hereinafter also the former club), was
registered as a professional with the club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the
Respondent), on 31 January 2017.
4.
In this regard, Club XXX and the Respondent entered into a transfer agreement on
27 January 2017, according to which the two clubs agreed on the payment from
the Respondent to the former club of conditional first team appearances-based
bonuses as well as a percentage of a future transfer of the player. In return, the
former club agreed to “renounce to training compensation in the sense of article
20 of the Regulations on the Transfer and Status of Players of FIFA”.
5.
In addition, said transfer agreement stipulates that “[the former club] is a club
affiliated to the [Football Federation of Country B], competing in the County
Football Association of Country B” and that “Miss Y, chairwoman of [the former
club] declares that the player is duly registered with [the former club] since the
season 2016/2017 and that he is currently bound by an ‘amateur player’
Training compensation for the player Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
2
registration as defined within the Regulations on the Transfer and Status of Players
of FIFA”.
6.
Pursuant to the information in the TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category
I (UEFA indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year) at the moment the player was
registered with it.
7.
In this framework, on 25 February 2019, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming its
proportion of training compensation on the ground of the subsequent registration
of the player as a professional with 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 297,545.45 plus 5% interest p.a. as of “the due date”. In particular,
the Claimant based its claim on art. 3 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Transfer and
Status of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations). What is more, the Claimant alleged
that the player’s registration as an amateur with Club XXX was made in an attempt
to circumvent the payment of training compensation.
8.
In its reply to the claim, the Respondent, inter alia, maintained that it acted in good
faith, and sustained that the player was registered with Club XXX as a professional.
In fact, the Respondent declared that the mention “amateur” in the player’s
passport was the result of a typo, and provided a declaration from the player and
from Chairwoman of Club XXX whom stated that the player was earning a salary
during their time with them. The player additionally declared, inter alia, that he
had been detected by the Respondent whilst playing for the Claimant in October
2016 and that, as his contract with the Claimant was expiring, an agent advised
him to take up a registration with Club XXX for a few weeks in order to keep his
level of fitness to a good standard.
9.
In addition, should it be deemed that the player was an amateur with the former
club, the Respondent argued that should any training compensation be due, it
should only be due to Club XXX. In fact, the Respondent explained that as the
player was registered as a professional for the first time with the Claimant, the
new registration of the player as a professional should be considered as a
subsequent registration in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations,
and that therefore training compensation would only be due to the player’s former
club.
10.
Furthermore, the Respondent stated that should it be deemed that training
compensation is due to the Claimant, the player had already completed his training
period on 30 October 2014 at the latest, having by then played matches for the
Claimant’s first team during the season 2012/2013 and 2013/2014, and having
signed his first professional contract on 1 December 2014. What is more, the
Claimant indicated that the player had also received call-ups to join the Senior
National Team of Country B in November 2014 and March 2015. The Respondent
provided press articles relating, inter alia, to the alleged call-ups. Therefore, the
Training compensation for the player Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
3
Respondent argued that in this scenario, only EUR 117,545.45 should be due to the
Claimant.
11.
In its replica, the Claimant declared that when the player joined the Respondent,
he joined the latter’s reserve team and, making reference to Court of Arbitration
for Sport (CAS) jurisprudence regarding the early completion of the training
period, indicated that the player had not competed to a high enough level with
consistency in Country B to be considered to have terminated his training period
before the age of 21.
12.
Then, making reference to the player’s statement submitted by the Respondent,
the Claimant questioned why the player did not directly register with the
Respondent after the expiry of the contract with the Claimant if, as he declared,
the Respondent was already in contact with him since October 2016. He further
stated that such montage amounted to a bridge transfer in order to circumvent
the Regulations and avoid paying training compensation to the Claimant. As such,
the Claimant reiterated his request.
13.
In its duplica, the Respondent indicated that upon his arrival, the player was
offered a 3-year contract as a sign of the trust put in his abilities, and that the
player was integrated to its first team for training. The Respondent however stated
that the player arrived injured and in the middle of the winter, which made his
adaptation to his new surroundings difficult.
14.
Additionally, the Respondent insisted that it had acted in good faith, and there
was no attempt to circumvent the Regulations nor any mandate given to an agent
to do so. In this respect, the Respondent stated that if a circumvention would have
been attempted, one would have made sure that the player was registered as a
professional with Club XXX rather than as an amateur.
15.
In any case, the Respondent reiterated all his previous arguments, namely that the
player was a professional with Club XXX, and that if any training compensation is
deemed to be due to the Claimant said amount shall be reduced in view of the fact
that the player terminated his training period in October 2014.
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 also referred to 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 25 February 2019. 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).
Training compensation for the player Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
4
2.
Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which
states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC) 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 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 31 January 2017, 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 (editions 2016,
January 2018, June 2018, June 2019 as well as October 2019), the 2016 edition of
the said 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 emphasized 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.
In this regard, the Single Judge recalled that, in accordance with the player
passports issued by the Football Federation of Country B, the player, born on 1
October 1997, was registered with the Claimant as (a) an amateur from 29
September 2011 until 1 January 2012; 1 December 2012 until 1 March 2013; 11
December 2013 until 30 November 2014, and (b) as a professional as from 1
December 2014 until 30 October 2016. Furthermore, the Single Judge took note
that according to the information contained in the TMS, the player moved to
another club affiliated to the Football Federation of Country B, Club XXX where
he was registered as an amateur from 1 December 2016 until 30 January 2017, and
from which he moved to the Respondent where he was registered as a
professional.
6.
In continuation, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant requested the
payment of training compensation from the Respondent on the ground of the
subsequent registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent before
the end of the season of his 23rd birthday, based on the provisions foreseen in art.
3 par. 2 of the Regulations. In particular, the Single Judge took note that the
Training compensation for the player Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
5
7.
Claimant requested the amount of EUR 297,545.45 plus 5% interest p.a. as of “the
due date”.
In this respect, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent dismissed the claim
of the Claimant, based on its view that the player was a professional receiving a
remuneration at his former club, Club XXX, and that in that sense his registration
with the Respondent was a subsequent transfer of a professional, meaning that
training compensation was only due to Club XXX. In addition, the Respondent
alleged that should training compensation be awarded to the Claimant, the
amount due should be reduced in view of the fact that the player had completed
his training period upon signing his first professional contract with the Claimant
on 1 December 2014.
8.
Furthermore, and 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.
9.
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. as (a) an amateur from 29
September 2011 until 1 January 2012; 1 December 2012 until 1 March 2013; 11
December 2013 until 30 November 2014, and (b) as a professional as from 1
December 2014 until 30 October 2016.
10.
Likewise, the Single Judge duly noted that the player was then registered with the
club of Country B Club XXX, between 1 December 2016 until 30 January 2017, from
which he moved to be registered as a professional with the Respondent on 31
January 2017, i.e. before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.
11.
With regards to the status of the player with Club XXX, the Single Judge observed
that the Respondent sustained that the player was a professional, as he was being
remunerated during his 2-month stay prior to his registration with it. In fact, the
Single Judge took note that a club official of Club XXX and the player confirmed
that the player was receiving a remuneration.
12.
The Single Judge also took note that the player explained that he only signed with
Club XXX to keep his level of fitness up prior to his move to the Respondent.
Additionally, the Single Judge paid particular attention to the contents of the
player passports issued by the Football Federation of Country B which clearly
indicate that the player was registered as an amateur with the former club. What
is more, the Single Judge duly observed that the transfer agreement signed by the
Training compensation for the player Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
6
Respondent and Club XXX unequivocally confirm that “the player is duly registered
with [the former club] since the season 2016/2017 and that he is currently bound
by an ‘amateur player’ registration as defined within the Regulations on the
Transfer and Status of Players of FIFA”.
13.
Consequently, the Single Judge had no other option but to determine that the
player was indeed registered with Club XXX as an amateur in the sense of art. 2
par. 2 of the Regulations, and that such information was available to, known to
and acknowledged by the Respondent at the time of registration of the player,
despite arguing the contradictory in its response to the claim.
14.
Then, recalling the provisions of art. 3 par. 2 of the Regulations, the Single Judge
indicated that when a player reacquires amateur status, no compensation is
payable by the club which registers him under such status. However, the Single
Judge pointed out that should the player re-register as a professional within 30
months of being reinstated as an amateur, the club re-registering him as a
professional shall pay training compensation in accordance with art. 20 of the
Regulations.
15.
Applying the aforementioned article to the facts of the case, the Single Judge
observed that the player reacquired amateur status with Club XXX on 1 December
2016 and that he re-registered as a professional with the Respondent on 31 January
2017, that is to say approximately 2 months after having being reinstated as an
amateur.
16.
Recalling the constant jurisprudence of the DRC in that regard, the Single Judge
concluded that the suspension of the Claimant’s entitlement to training
compensation for the entire period in which it trained the player, both as an
amateur and as a professional, that had been in force since his reinstatement as an
amateur was effectively lifted upon the re-registration of the player as a
professional.
17.
In view of the above, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent is liable to
pay training compensation to the Claimant which the last club where the player
had been registered as a professional prior to his re-registration as a professional
with the Respondent, and that had contributed to his training in the sense of art.
3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
18.
Furthermore, the Single Judge wished to highlight that in such scenario, training
compensation would, in principle, be due to the club with which the player was
registered as an amateur, i.e. Club XXX, which was confirmed by the Respondent
in its answer to the claim.
19.
In this context, the Single Judge considered that he had to determine which should
be the relevant amount of training compensation to be paid by the Respondent to
Training compensation for the player Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
7
20.
the Claimant. In this regard, the Single Judge went on to establish the proper
calculation of the relevant training compensation due to the Claimant.
First, the Single Judge recalled that art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations
foresees the potential early termination of the training period of a player prior to
the end of the season of the player’s 21st birthday.
21.
Having considered the Respondent’s position about the player’s completion of his
training period before his 21st birthday, the Single Judge concluded that the
Respondent did not provide evidence within the meaning of art. 12 para. 3 of the
Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an
alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. The Single Judge remarked that the
Respondent only relied upon the fact that the player signed his first professional
contract with the Claimant on 1 December 2014 along with some press articles in
order to arrive to the conclusion that his training period had been completed by
then.
22.
In that regard, the Single Judge pointed out that in the absence of any supporting
evidence, he was not in a position to determine whether or not the player had
indeed already ended his training period when turning professional with the
Claimant. As such, the Single Judge concluded that the player’s training period had
not been completed prior to the end of the season of his 21st birthday.
23.
To that end, 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.
24.
In continuation, the Single Judge recalled that the player was born on 1 October
1997 and was registered with the Claimant as (a) an amateur from 29 September
2011 until 1 January 2012; 1 December 2012 until 1 March 2013; 11 December 2013
until 30 November 2014, and (b) as a professional as from 1 December 2014 until
30 October 2016.
25.
In order to obtain homogeneous football seasons start and end dates that last 12
months, the Single Judge decided to consider that the relevant football seasons in
Country B started on 1 December of one year and ended on 30 November of the
following year.
26.
In view of the above, the Single Judge concluded that the effective period of time
to be considered in the matter at stake corresponds to the following:
- 2 months of the season of the player’s 14th birthday;
- 1 month of the season of the player’s 15th birthday;
- 3 months of the season of the player’s 16th birthday;
- The entire season of the player’s 17th birthday;
- The entire season of the player’s 18th birthday; and
Training compensation for the player Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
8
-
The entire season of the player’s 19th birthday.
27.
Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the information
contained in the TMS, the player was registered with the Respondent on 31
January 2017.
28.
Equally, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the information contained in
the TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category I at the moment of the player’s
registration with it (UEFA indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year).
29.
Consequently, in light of the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge
decided to accept the Claimant’s claim and decided that the Respondent is liable
to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 294,999.
30.
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, in conformity with the longstanding practice of the DRC, interest of 5% p.a.
over the amount payable as training compensation as of 3 March 2017 until the
date of effective payment.
31.
Lastly, the Single Judge 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.
32.
In respect of the above, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 297,545.45 related to the claim of
the Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum
amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000 (cf. table in Annexe
A of the Procedural Rules).
33.
As a result, the Single Judge determined the final costs of the current proceedings
in the amount of CHF 17,000 that shall be split between the parties. In fact, the
Single Judge decided to impose procedural costs of an amount of CHF 12,000 on
the Respondent in view of the outcome of the case, and CHF 2,000 on the Claimant
in view of its degree of success in the current proceedings. In this regard, the Single
Judge acknowledged that the Claimant had already paid the amount of CHF 5,000
as advance of costs, therefore no further costs shall be charged upon said party.
34.
The Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any further claim of the
Claimant.
*****
Training compensation for the player Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
9
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 partially accepted.
2.
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 294,999 + 5% interest p.a.
as from 3 March 2017 until the date of effective payment.
3.
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
4.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
5.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 17,000 are to be paid
w ithin 30 day s as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows:
5.1.
The amount of CHF 15,000 has to be paid by the Respondent.
5.2.
The amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid by the Claimant. As the Claimant
already paid the amount of CHF 5,000 as advance of costs, the Claimant is
exempted from paying the aforementioned amount.
5.3.
The above-mentioned amounts have to be paid to FIFA to the following
bank account with reference to case nr. XXX XXXX/XXX:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
Training compensation for the player Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
10
6.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the
account number to which the remittance under point 2. 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
Encl.: CAS directives
Training compensation for the player Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
11