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 (United Arab Emirates), member
on the claim presented by the club
K,
as Claimant
against the club
B,
as Respondent
regarding training compensation related to the transfer of the player J.
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The B player, J, was born on 6 November 1986.
2.
According to the official confirmation of the Football Federation of B, the player
was registered for the B club, K, as from 1 July 1995 until 30 June 2002 as an
amateur and as from 1 July 2002 until 3 September 2007 as a professional.
3.
The relevant B sportive seasons ran from 1 July until 30 June of the following year.
4.
On 30 June 2007, the employment contract between the B club and the player was
terminated by mutual agreement.
5.
On 3 September 2007, the player signed a professional contract with the T club B
and he was registered by the T Football Federation with B on 4 September 2007.
6.
According to the T Football Federation, B is a category 2 club.
7.
According to a written confirmation dated 6 September 2007 addressed to K by B,
the T club accepted to pay to the B club 10% of the compensation related to any
further transfer of the player.
8.
On 12 December 2007, K presented a complaint against B in front of FIFA claiming
payment of the relevant training compensation for the player in question in the
amount of EUR 340’000 for a total of 9 seasons (4 seasons at EUR 10’000 plus 5
seasons at EUR 60’000) based on art. 20 of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and
Transfer of Players (2005 edition).
9.
During the proceedings, the B club provided FIFA with a written offer dated 4
February 2008 made by the T club to pay EUR 150’000, which K considers to be an
acknowledgement of debt relating to training compensation.
10.
In its response to the claim, the T club argued that it was unaware of training
compensation due when signing on the player. The player allegedly declared not
having received any offer from his former club and was thought to be a “free
player” and it was furthermore assumed that there would be no other payments
requested than the one agreed upon, i.e. the 10% of any future transfer
compensation. Furthermore, the T club states that the player allegedly told them
that there are no other payments to be made for his transfer. Moreover, the T cub
argued that it considers the amount of the claim unreasonable in regard to the
low salary and the new commitment for one season only.
11.
Moreover, the T club argued that obscene and embarrassing pictures had been
taken of the player and displayed in every newspaper and that such a player could
2
not be presented to supporters, as a result of which it claims to have suffered
material and immaterial damages.
12.
The T club claimed to be a small but emerging club with limited financial assets.
The payment of training compensation would allegedly exceed their financial
means in regard to one single player.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed whether it was competent to
deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, it took note that the present matter
was submitted to FIFA on 12 December 2007. Consequently, the Rules Governing
the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (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, J.
3.
Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with his
new club as a professional on 4 September 2007, 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), and considering that the present
claim was lodged on 12 December 2007, the previous version of the
aforementioned regulations (edition 2005; hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable
to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4.
In continuation, and entering into the substance of the matter, the members of
the Chamber started to carefully study the facts outlined above as well as the
statements of the parties and emphasised that, as established in art. 20 of the
Regulations in combination with art. 2 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, training
compensation shall be paid to a player’s training club, inter alia, each time when a
professional is transferred between clubs of two different Associations until the
end of the season of his 23rd birthday. The obligation to pay training
compensation arises whether the transfer takes place during or at the end of the
player’s contract.
3
5.
The Chamber subsequently took into account that, according to the information
on file, B and the player, J, entered into an employment contract and the player
was registered as a professional with the Respondent on 4 September 2007, after
previously having been registered with the Claimant as an amateur as from 1 July
1995 until 30 June 2002 and as a professional as from 1 July 2002 until 3
September 2007.
6.
Furthermore, the members of the Chamber took into account that K claims being
entitled to receive from B training compensation in the amount of EUR 340’000
for 9 seasons.
7.
As a next step, and turning their attention to the Respondent’s argumentation,
the members of the Chamber noted that the T club denies being liable to pay any
training compensation to the Claimant maintaining that the player allegedly
declared not having received any offer from his former club and has to be
considered a “free agent”. As a result hereto, in the opinion of the Respondent,
there would be no other payments requested for the transfer at stake except for
the 10% relating to a future transfer compensation.
8.
Equally, the members of the Chamber took note that the Respondent stressed its
position by claiming that the player embarrassed the T club with obscene
photographs in every newspaper, resulting in material and immaterial damages as
the player could not be presented to supporters and the club could thus not
benefit from the player in games.
9.
The Respondent also argues that the claimed amount is unreasonable in relation
to the low salary and short commitment of the player at the T club.
10.
In view of the aforementioned positions put forward by the Respondent, the
members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that, first of all, the
parties involved have not concluded any agreement on compensation payable by
the T club to the B club in connection with the transfer of the player in question,
who, in fact, was no longer contractually bound to the B club when he transferred
to the T club. Indeed, the Chamber unanimously concurred that the written
confirmation dated 6 September 2007 issued by the T club and addressed to K
cannot be considered an agreement concluded between K and the T club over the
transfer of the player in question. In this regard, the Chamber stressed that the
said written confirmation does not affect any possible entitlement of K to training
compensation in accordance with the Regulations.
11.
Furthermore, the deciding authority took note that the Respondent invokes that a
player who was not offered a contract by his former club has to be considered a
“free agent” and, as a result, no training compensation would be due. The
Respondent thus implicitly seems to refer to art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the
Regulations. Thereto, the Chamber was eager to point out that the said art. 6 of
4
Annex 4 of the Regulations only applies to transfers of players within the EU/EEA.
The player J, having transferred from a B club to a T club, the special provision set
out in art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations is thus not applicable in the case
at hand.
12.
In continuation, the Chamber turned to the Respondent’s arguments related to
the alleged embarrassment of the club by the player and the player’s low salary
and short commitment to the club. In this regard, the Chamber deemed that the
player’s conduct and contractual rights and obligations towards the club must be
considered irrelevant in this connection and do not affect any possible entitlement
to training compensation of the player’s former club.
13.
In view of all the above, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent’s
argumentation cannot be backed at all.
14.
The Chamber then proceeded to establish as to whether K indeed is entitled to
receive training compensation from the T club in the light of the aforementioned
facts and the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that the player signed an
employment contract and was registered as a professional with the Respondent on
4 September 2007 after having been registered with K as a professional.
15.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 20 of the
Regulations and art. 3 par. 1 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, in accordance with
which the club, to which a professional player is transferred internationally, is
responsible for paying training compensation to the player’s former club for the
time he was effectively trained by that club. On account of the above-mentioned
facts and considerations, the Chamber decided that B is liable to pay training
compensation to K in accordance with art. 20 of the Regulations as well as art 3
par. 1 of Annex 4 of the Regulations for the training of the player J.
16.
The Chamber then turned to art. 5 paras. 1 and 2 of Annex 4 of the Regulations as
well as FIFA circular nr. 1085 dated 11 April 2007 which provide details on the
calculation of training compensation.
17.
The members of the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 6 November
1986 and that he was registered with K as from 1 July 1995 until 3 September 2007
according to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of B. In this
respect, the Chamber pointed out that the amount payable is calculated on a pro
rata basis according to the period of training that the player spent with the
Claimant as from the season in which he had his 12th birthday. Furthermore, the
Chamber pointed out that in accordance with art. 5 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the
Regulations, training costs for players for the seasons between their 12th and 15th
birthday shall be based on the training and education costs for category 4 clubs,
i.e. EUR 10,000 in the case at hand. Furthermore, B has been allocated club
5
category 2, which equals training costs in the amount of EUR 60’000 per season
(UEFA).
18.
Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the
Chamber decided to accept K’s claim and thus decided that K is entitled to receive
training compensation from B to the amount of EUR 340’000.
19.
Therefore, the Chamber decided that B is liable to pay to K training compensation
amounting to EUR 340’000.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, K, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, B, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 340’000 within
30 days as from the date of notification of this decision.
3.
If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, an
interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiry of the fixed time limit and the
present matter shall be submitted upon request to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee
for its consideration and decision.
4.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the
account number to which the remittance is 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. 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
6
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
Encl. CAS directives
7