Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 24 November 2011,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Carlos Soto (Chile), member
Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member
Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member
Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member
on the claim presented by the club,
C,
as Claimant
against the club,
A,
as Respondent
regarding a training compensation dispute
related to the transfer of the player X
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The Football Federation B (FFB) confirmed that the player, X (hereinafter: the
player), born on 6 February 1987, was registered with its affiliated club, C
(hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 18 February 2000 until 6 May 2005 as an
amateur and as from 7 May 2005 until 1 March 2007 as professional.
2.
The sporting season in country B follows the calendar year.
3.
According to a written statement of the Football Federation I (FFI), the player has
never been registered with A (hereinafter: the Respondent). Furthermore, the
Football Federation I confirmed that the Respondent belonged to category I
(indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year within UEFA) during the season
2006/2007.
4.
On 23 March 2009, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of
training compensation in connection with the transfer of the player from the
Claimant to the Respondent on 13 March 2007. In particular, the Claimant
requested EUR 375,917 as training compensation plus interest at 5% p.a. as of
13 March 2007 as well as disciplinary sanctions and “costs or fees regarding such
dispute”.
5.
In its response to the claim, the Respondent stated that on 19 March 2007, before
registering the player, it had “to renounce, together with the player, its
registration due to the lack of the related requirements”. In particular, the
Respondent stated that the player was required to have country S citizenship. The
Respondent provided a copy of a letter sent to the Football Federation I, dated
19 March 2007, in which it stated that “[it] give up the registration of the player as
it has not been provided all the documentation necessary for its inclusion in its
team” as well as a copy of a letter sent by the Football Federation to the
Respondent and dated 29 March 2007 in which the latter stated that it would
“store the documentation concerning the registration of the player as devoid of
any effect”.
6.
On 19 February 2010, FIFA informed the parties that it appears that the competent
deciding body of FIFA would not be in position to intervene in the present matter
since, according to a confirmation issued by the Football Federation I, the player
was never registered for the Respondent.
7.
In its replica, the Claimant argued that “according to the Football Association B,
the player’s ITC was forwarded to the attention of the Football Federation I on
13 March 2007”. Furthermore, it referred to art. 8 of the Regulations on the Status
2
and Transfer of Players, which states that the application for registration of a
professional must be submitted together with a copy of the player’s contract.
According to the Claimant, therefore, “[the Respondent] signed an employment
contract with the player and applied for its registration before the Football
Federation I and as consequence the issuance of the ITC”.
8.
In its final position, the Respondent reiterated that the player was never registered
with it and that therefore no training compensation shall be payable to the
Claimant.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC)
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 23 March 2009.
Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the
Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the
Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 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 in
combination with art. 22 lit. (d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2010), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with
the matter at stake relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to
different associations.
3.
Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the
matter. In this respect, taking into consideration that the player was allegedly
transferred to the Respondent on 13 March 2007 as well as the fact that the
present claim was lodged on 23 March 2009, it confirmed that in accordance with
art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(editions 2010, 2009 and 2008), the 2005 edition of the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so,
the members of the Chamber started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well
as the documentation on file.
3
5.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber started by acknowledging that the
player, born on 6 February 1987, was registered for the Claimant as from
18 February 2000 until 6 May 2005 as an amateur and as from 7 May 2005 until
1 March 2007 as professional and that the sporting season in country B follows the
calendar year.
6.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant claimed
training compensation from the Respondent for a total amount of EUR 375,917
plus interest at 5% p.a. as of 13 March 2007 as well as disciplinary sanctions and
“costs of fees” in connection with the alleged transfer of the player as a
professional from the Claimant to the Respondent.
7.
On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of
the Claimant to receive training compensation since it had ultimately renounced
the registration of the player.
8.
In this respect, the Chamber referred to the rules applicable to training
compensation, and stated that, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations in
combination with art. 1 par. 1 and art. 2 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, training
compensation is payable, as a general rule, for training incurred between the ages
of 12 and 21, when the player concerned is registered for the first time as a
professional, or when a professional is transferred between two clubs of two
different associations, before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
9.
Moreover, the Chamber recalled that, as established in art. 3 par. 2 of Annex 4 of
the Regulations, the deadline for payment of training compensation is 30 days
following the registration of the player with the new association and, therefore,
the obligation to pay training compensation arises from the registration of the
player with the new club.
10.
In this regard, the DRC went on to analyse the documentation submitted by the
Respondent as well as the information provided by the Football Federation I. In
this respect, the DRC acknowledged that the Respondent held that it did not
register the player “due to lack of the related requirements” and, in particular,
since the player was required to have country S citizenship.
11.
Equally, the members of the Chamber took note of the correspondence of the
Football Federation I by means of which it confirmed that the player has never
been registered with the Respondent.
12.
In continuation, and taking into account the statements of the Claimant, who held
that the ITC was issued by the Football Association B in favour of the Football
4
Federation I, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that the receipt of an
International Transfer Certificate (ITC) of a player from the relevant association
does not equal to the act of his registration. In fact, the members of the DRC
pointed out that the registration of a player after the receipt of the ITC is not a
mandatory act. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the obligation to pay
training compensation is related to the registration of the player (cf. point II.9).
13.
Moreover, with regard to the allegation of the Claimant that the player signed a
professional contract with the Respondent, the Chamber equally underlined that
the possible conclusion of a contract is not decisive for the entitlement to training
compensation.
14.
In view of the above, and since the Regulations concerning training compensation
are only applicable if a player is registered with a club affiliated to its national
association, as well as considering that the Football Federation I, which is the
Federation to which the Respondent is affiliated, has confirmed that the player
was never registered with the Respondent, the DRC came to the conclusion that
training compensation was not payable in the present affair.
15.
In light of all the above-mentioned consideration, the DRC decided to reject the
claim of the Claimant.
16.
Lastly, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to
which in the 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 costs are to be borne in
consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings.
17.
In this respect, the Chamber reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is rejected.
Therefore, the Claimant has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front
of FIFA.
18.
According to Annex A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to
be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute.
19.
In this regard, the members of the Chamber reverted to the claim of the Claimant
and remarked that the amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the
present proceedings amounts to EUR 375,917. Therefore, the Chamber concluded
that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000
(cf. table in Annex A).
5
20.
Considering that the case at hand did not compose any complex factual or legal
issues, the Chamber determined the final amount of costs of the current
proceedings in the amount of CHF 7,000.
21.
However, the members of the Chamber took note that the Claimant had paid the
amount of CHF 5,000 as advance of costs for the present affair. Therefore, the DRC
concluded that the amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA to
cover the costs of the proceeding.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club C, is rejected.
2.
The final amount of costs of the proceedings amounts to CHF 7,000 of which
CHF 5,000 have already been paid by the Claimant, Club C. Consequently, the
amount of CHF 2,000 is to be paid by the Claimant, Club C, within 30 days of
notification of the present decision to FIFA to the following bank account with
reference to case no.:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
*****
6
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
7