Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 31 October 2008,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member
Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member
Sofoklis Pilavios (Greece), member
Essa M. Saleh Al-Housani (U.A.E.), member
on a matter between the club,
K,
as Claimant
and the club,
C,
as Respondent
regarding a training compensation dispute related to the
transfer of the player T.
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The player T (hereafter: the player) was born on 1 February 1985.
2.
The B Football Association confirmed that the player had been registered as an
amateur player for the B club, K (hereafter: the Claimant), throughout the entire
2000-01 season. The B Football Association also confirmed that the season had
begun on 1 July and had ended on 30 June and that the Claimant was a category
2 club.
3.
On 21 December 2001, the player signed a professional contract with the D club, C
(hereafter: the Respondent), for the period from 1 July 2002 until 30 June 2004.
On 4 May 2004, he signed a new professional contract with the Respondent for
the period from 1 July 2004 until 30 June 2007.
4.
For their part, the D Football Association confirmed that the player had been
registered for the Respondent as a professional player on 10 August 2002.
Moreover, the D Football Federation confirmed that its affiliated club, the
Respondent, was a category 1 club.
5.
On 22 January 2007, the Claimant contacted FIFA to claim training compensation
from the Respondent for the training and education of the player during the
2000-01 season. The Claimant alleged that it had learned by chance on 11
December 2006 of the player’s debut appearance with the Respondent on 22 May
2005 via the Respondent’s club website. As a result, in a letter dated 4 January
2007, the Claimant requested from the Respondent payment of training
compensation totalling EUR 60,000 for the player for the 2000-01 season. In a
letter dated 8 March 2007, The Claimant amended its request and increased the
compensation claimed to EUR 75,000, plus 5% p.a. as of the date on which the
player’s first professional contract had been concluded.
6.
The Respondent rejected the claim and stated that the player had signed a
professional contract with it on 21 December 2001 for the period from 1 July 2002
until 30 June 2004. On 4 May 2004, the player had signed a new professional
contract with the Respondent for the period from 1 July 2004 until 30 June 2007.
The player had therefore signed his first professional contract on 21 December
2001, which had come into force on 1 July 2002, and the claim by the Claimant
was consequently inadmissible. The Respondent asserted that the time limit of
two years did not apply as from the moment the club became aware of its right to
receive training compensation. The Respondent maintained that it was the
jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber to oblige training clubs, in this
case the Claimant, to follow the career of the player when they intended to claim
compensation based on transfers to other clubs. According to the Respondent, the
Claimant could have found out that the player had signed his first professional
contract in December 2001.
7.
In response, the B Football Association and the Claimant asserted that the dispute
was based on the question of determining the moment at which a professional
2
contract had been signed by the player, either 10 August 2002, the date on which
he had been registered with the D Football Association as a professional player for
the Respondent, or 22 May 2005, the date, as indicated on the Respondent’s
website, on which he had made his debut appearance for the Respondent’s first
team.
8.
The Respondent did not add anything else to its argumentation brought forward
beforehand.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution 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 22 January 2007. Consequently, the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(edition 2005; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand
(cf. art. 18 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and art. 22
lit. (d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2008) the
Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on the present litigation with
an international dimension concerning the training compensation claimed by the
Claimant for the training and education of the player T.
3.
Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with his
new club on 10 August 2002, the Chamber analysed which regulations 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 (edition 2008), the edition 2001 of the Regulations for the Status and
Transfer of Players (hereafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
4.
The applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber turned its
attention to the question whether or not it could hear the case in view of art. 44
of the Regulations according to which the FIFA Players’ Status Committee shall not
address any dispute if more than two years have elapsed since the facts leading to
the dispute arose. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that this provision also
applied to the Dispute Resolution Chamber, being a decision-making body of the
Players’ Status Committee (cf. art. 47 of the FIFA Statutes), and that it shall
examine the application of this time limit ex officio.
5.
In this regard, the Chamber emphasized that according to art. 14 of the
Regulations in connection with art. 9 par. 1 of the Regulations governing the
3
Application of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players any
entitlement to training compensation falls due within 30 days of the signature of
the first contract under the terms of art. 4 of the Regulations, i.e. a written
contract concluded with the club employing him with a duration between 1 and 5
years. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that on 21 December 2001, the
player signed a professional contract with the Respondent for the period from 1
July 2002 until 30 June 2004. Furthermore, the Chamber took note that according
to the information received from the D Football Association, the player received a
gross annual salary of EUR 18,151.21 during the relevant contractual period and
that he was registered as a professional player with the Respondent on 10 August
2002.
6.
On account of the above, the Chamber stated that the player had signed a
professional contract on 21 December 2001 and was registered as a professional
on 10 August 2002, whereas the Claimant lodged a claim for training
compensation before FIFA against the Respondent on 22 January 2007, and that
therefore, more than two years had elapsed since the event giving rise to the
dispute.
7.
Moreover and with regard to the Claimant’s allegation that the moment from
which the time limit of two years to claim training compensation started to run
was 22 May 2005, the date, as indicated on the Respondent’s website, on which
the player had made his debut appearance for the Respondent’s first team, the
Chamber was eager to stress that its jurisprudence confirmed the obligation of the
clubs training and educating players to follow the career of the player when they
intend to claim training compensation before FIFA’s decision-making bodies. In
this respect, the Chamber also pointed out that the Claimant could have found
out about the registration of the player by contacting the D Football Association
since 10 August 2002, or even by contacting the player himself.
8.
On account of all of the above, the Chamber decided that the claim of the
Claimant cannot be heard due to the fact that more than two years had elapsed
since the event giving rise to the dispute and therefore rejected the claim of the
Claimant.
*****
4
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
The claim of the Claimant, K, cannot be heard by the Dispute Resolution Chamber.
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 63 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:
__________________________________
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Enclosed: CAS directives
5