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 (The Netherlands), member
Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member
Sofoklis Pilavios (Greece), member
Essa M. Saleh Al Housani (U.A.E.), member
on a matter presented by the club
C FC,
as Claimant
against the club
M FC,
as Respondent
regarding training compensation
in connection with the transfer of the player T
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The player, T (hereinafter: the player), a B national, was born on 28 March 1984.
2.
According to the player passport issued by the S Football Association, the player
was registered for the S club, C FC (hereinafter: the Claimant), as a professional
from 5 August 2005 until 25 May 2006. The football season 2005/2006 in S ran
from ‘6th August 2005 to 29th April 2006’.
3.
On 12 May 2006, thirteen days before the expiry date of the player’s contract with
the Claimant, the latter offered the player a new employment contract at the
same conditions as his former contract. The player decided not to sign this new
offer and instead chose to join the E club, M FC (hereinafter: the Respondent), on
23 June 2006.
4.
On 15 March 2007, the Claimant contacted FIFA, via the S Football Association, in
order to lodge a formal claim against the Respondent in respect of the payment of
training compensation in connection with the player’s transfer from the Claimant
to the Respondent. According to the correspondence exchanged, the Respondent
was not willing to proceed with the payment of training compensation as the
Claimant had not offered the player a contract before the expiry of the 60-days
period as provided for in the relevant provisions of the Regulations for the Status
and Transfer of Players.
5.
The Claimant asserted that although it had not offered the player a contract 60
days before the expiry of the contract concluded between itself and the player, in
conformity with the period of time stipulated in article 6 of Annex 4 of the
Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players, it should nevertheless be
entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent.
6.
In this respect, the Claimant argued that at that time, it had not been in a position
to comply with the aforementioned requirement due to financial uncertainty and
that it had therefore not proposed a new contract to the player 60 days prior to
the expiry of their current contract. The Claimant furthermore deemed that the
offer of a new contract made to the player on 12 May 2006 demonstrates that the
club was willing to continue its relationship with the player and that the
aforementioned circumstances should not negate its entitlement to compensation
for the training and education of the player.
2
7.
On 27 March 2007, The Football Association informed FIFA that the player had
been registered for the Respondent on 23 June 2006 and that the latter is a
category 1 club.
8.
On 17 April 2007, the Respondent, via The Football Association, submitted its
position with regard to the dispute. Basically, it relied on art. 6 of Annex 4 of the
Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players, which requires the former club
to offer the player a contract in writing via registered mail at least 60 days before
the expiry of the player’s contract. Article 6 of Annex 4 reads: “If the former club
does not offer the player a contract, no training compensation is payable unless
the former club can justify that it is entitled to such compensation. The former
club must offer the player a contract in writing via registered post at least 60 days
before the expiry of his current contract…”. As the Claimant had not met this
requirement, the Respondent considered that no training compensation should be
paid to the Claimant.
9.
By means of its fax dated 3 March 2008, the S Football Association informed FIFA
that its affiliated club was a category 3 club at the time the player was registered
with it and forwarded a copy of the employment contract concluded between the
player and the Claimant, valid from 5 August 2005 until 25 May 2006.
Furthermore, the S Football Association deemed that its member club should be
entitled to EUR 60,000, as the claim was based on the average of category 1 and
category 3, the Claimant being a category 3 club and the Respondent being a
category 1 club.
10.
Finally, on 22 June 2008, the Respondent, via The Football Association, reiterated
its previous position. Furthermore, it added that at the time the player had left its
previous club, on 31 May 2005, at the age of 21 years and two months, he had
already completed his training. Consequently, the Respondent contests its
obligation to pay training compensation to the Claimant.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Chamber analysed whether it was competent to deal with the
matter at stake. In this respect, it referred to art. 18 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber (edition 2005; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules). The present
matter was submitted to FIFA on 15 March 2007. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the said Procedural Rules are applicable to the matter at hand.
3
2.
With regard to the competence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, 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 adjudicate on disputes between two clubs belonging to different
Associations related to training compensation.
3.
As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is the competent body to
decide on the present matter concerning the payment of training compensation to
the Claimant for the training of the player.
4.
Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with his
new club in June 2006, 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 15
March 2007, the previous version of the regulations (edition 2005; hereinafter: the
Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
5.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber
acknowledged the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as all the
documentation contained in the file. In particular, the Chamber took note that the
Claimant requested training compensation from the Respondent amounting to
EUR 60,000 for the period it had trained the player, i.e. from 5 August 2005 until
25 May 2006. The Chamber also noted that the Claimant based its claim, itself
being a category 3 club and the Respondent being at category 1 club, on the
average of the indicative amounts for category 1 and category 3 clubs.
6.
On the other hand, the Dispute Resolution Chamber acknowledged that the
Respondent deemed that no training compensation was due as the period of time
of 60 days, as stipulated in art. 6 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, had not been
respected by the Claimant. Moreover, the Chamber also took note that the
Respondent had stressed that it considered that the player had already completed
his training prior to joining the Claimant in August 2005.
7.
In continuation, and taking into account that the 2005 edition of the Regulations
is applicable on the matter at stake, the members of the Chamber started by
recalling that, pursuant to art. 20 of the Regulations and art. 1 par. 1 of Annex 4
of the Regulations, training compensation shall, in general, be paid to a player’s
training club(s) when the player signs his first contract as a professional and on
each transfer of a professional until the end of the season of his 23rd birthday for
training incurred up to the age of 21.
4
8.
In this respect, upon analysis of the facts of the present dispute, the Chamber
ascertained that the player, born on 28 March 1984, was 21 when he joined the
Claimant as a professional on 5 August 2005.
9.
Consequently, the Chamber outlined, in view of the aforementioned provisions
and since the player was already 21 at the time he was registered as a professional
for the Claimant, that the latter should not be entitled to claim training
compensation from the Respondent.
10.
On account of the above, the Chamber furthermore deemed that the question
whether or not the claimant had respected art. 6 of Annex 4 of the Regulations,
according to which the former club must offer the player a contract in writing via
registered mail at least 60 days before the expiry of his current contract, could stay
open.
11.
Finally, the aforementioned considerations led the Dispute Resolution Chamber to
conclude that the Claimant’s claim for training compensation has to be rejected.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, club C FC, is rejected.
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to article 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).
5
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
6