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,
B,
as Claimant
against the club,
P,
as Respondent
regarding a training compensation dispute related
to the transfer of the player S
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The Football Federation B (FFB) confirmed that the player S (hereinafter: the
player), born on 22 July 1986, was registered with the club, Club B (hereinafter:
the Claimant), as from 1 April 2005 until 22 February 2008 as well as from
24 May 2008 until 9 March 2009 as a professional.
2.
The Football Federation B confirmed that the football season in country B follows
the calendar year, i.e. it runs from 1 January until 31 December.
3.
According to a written statement of the Football Federation P (FFP) the player was
registered with its affiliated club, Club P (hereinafter: the Respondent), on
6 August 2009 as a professional.
4.
The Football Federation P confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the club
category III.
5.
On 3 August 2011, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of
training compensation for the transfer of the player to Club P.
6.
In particular, the Claimant requested EUR 82,602.74 as training compensation
plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as from 6 September 2009 as well as
procedural costs.
7.
In its response to the claim, the Respondent stated that “the rights obtained
from sports training must be claimed within 18 months in accordance with art. 3
nr. 3 of the Annexe 4 of the Regulations”. Thus, the Respondent alleged that
the Claimant claimed training compensation on 28 July 2011, when the 18
months term had already elapsed. Therefore, the Respondent considered the
claim as prescribed. Furthermore, the Respondent pointed out that the player
signed his first professional contract with the Claimant and therefore it
considered that the latter “was not a training club, but the player’s employer”
and that “the sports training of the player had already expired and concerned
or belonged to the previous club or clubs where the player participated”.
8.
In its reply thereto, the Claimant referred to its previous position and
additionally recalled that the relevant period of prescription starts counting
from the day of the player’s registration with the Respondent, i.e.
6 August 2009, and lasts two years. Therefore, it maintained that the claim is
not prescribed.
9.
In its last position, the Respondent reiterated its argument that only clubs, who
trained the player as an amateur, are entitled to receive training compensation
2/10
and that, therefore, the Claimant is not entitled to receive training
compensation since the player had a professional contract with it.
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
3 August 2011. 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 (editions 2008 and 2009), 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 registered
with the Respondent on 6 August 2009 as well as the fact that the present claim
was lodged on 3 August 2011, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions
2008 and 2009), the 2008 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. The members
of the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as
well as the documentation on file.
5.
First of all the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 22 July 1986 and
was registered with the Claimant as from 1 April 2005 until 22 February 2008 as
well as from 24 May 2008 until 9 March 2009 as a professional.
6.
Moreover, the Chamber noted that the Player was registered with the
Respondent on 6 August 2009.
3/10
7.
In continuation, the Chamber took note that on 3 August 2011 the Claimant
claimed EUR 82,602.74 as training compensation plus 5% interest p.a. as from
6 September 2009 as well as procedural costs.
8.
Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of the
Claimant arguing that the time-limit in order for the Claimant to claim training
compensation had expired on the basis of art. 3 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations. On account of the aforesaid, the Respondent stressed that the
Claimant had not claimed training compensation within 18 months of the
player’s registration and that, thus, the Claimant’s claim was time-barred.
Finally, the Respondent held that the Claimant was not entitled to training
compensation since the latter “was not a training club but the player’s
employer”.
9.
In light of the above, the members of the Chamber concurred that they first
and foremost had to verify as to whether the claim of the Claimant was
brought to FIFA in a timely manner.
10.
In doing so, the Chamber first referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations,
which, in completion to the general procedural terms outlined in the Procedural
Rules, clearly establishes that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear
any dispute if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to
the dispute arose and that the application of this time limit shall be examined
ex officio in each individual case.
11.
Furthermore, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 3 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations which, inter alia, stipulates that if a link between the professional
and any of the clubs that trained him cannot be established, or if those clubs do
not make themselves known within 18 months of the player’s first registration
as a professional, training compensation shall be paid to the Association(s) of
the country (or countries) where the professional was trained.
12.
In this context, the Chamber stressed that the Respondent’s interpretation of
art. 3 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations is incorrect. The Chamber wished to
clarify that art. 3 par. 3 of Annexe 4 contains the possibility for a national
association to claim for training compensation when a link between the
professional and any of the clubs that trained him cannot be established, or if
those clubs do not make themselves known within 18 months of the player’s
transfer. In this regard, the Chamber emphasised, however, that the
aforementioned possibility for a national association to claim for training
compensation is issued strictly subsidiary and is to be made within the two
years’ time lime contained in art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations.
4/10
13.
Following the above, when a club which has trained the player does not make
itself known within 18 months of the player’s transfer, but does make itself
known prior to the expiry of the two year time-limit stipulated in art. 25 par. 5
of the Regulations, the claim of the training club is, contrary to the
interpretation of the Respondent, not barred by the statute of limitations.
14.
In addition, the Chamber wished to stress that art. 3 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations merely deals with the possible entitlement of an Association to
receive the training compensation if the pertinent requirements set out in the
Regulations are fulfilled.
15.
In view of the above, the Chamber deemed fundamental to underline that in order
to determine whether it could hear the present case, it should establish which is
“the event giving rise to the dispute”, i.e. which is the starting point of the time
period of two years set out under art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations. In this respect,
the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which
stipulates that “(…) the deadline for payment of training compensation is 30 days
following the registration of the professional with the new association”.
16.
Therefore, the members of the Chamber came to the firm conclusion that, in casu,
and, in accordance with art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the payment
of contribution fell due on 6 September 2009, i.e. 31 days after the registration of
the player within the Football Federation P, and that this latter date was the
starting point of the time period of two years set out under art. 25 par. 5 of the
Regulations. Equally, the Chamber held that the time period of two years had
elapsed, in casu, on 5 September 2011.
17.
As a consequence, the Chamber concluded that less than two years had elapsed
between the event giving rise to the dispute and the submission of the present
claim to FIFA by the Claimant on 3 August 2011, and therefore that the claim of the
Claimant for training compensation can be heard by the Dispute Resolution
Chamber.
18.
Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber wished to recall that, as
established in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4, in combination with art. 2 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 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.
19.
Moreover, the Chamber stressed that, as established in art. 3 par. 2 Annexe 4 of the
Regulations, the deadline for payment of training compensation is 30 days
5/10
following the registration of the player, therefore the obligation to pay training
compensation arises from the registration date of the player with the new club.
20.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber stated that on the basis of the
Regulations, and provided that the prerequisites of art. 20 of the Regulations as
well as the preconditions set out in Annexe 4 of the said Regulations are fulfilled, a
club is entitled to training compensation for the period during which the player has
been registered for that club, which has consequently contributed to the player’s
training incurred as from the season of his 12th birthday up to the season of his 21st
birthday.
21.
In this context, and considering the allegations of the Respondent according to
which the Claimant is not entitled to training compensation since the player had a
professional contract with it, the DRC underlined that training compensation is
payable, inter alia, when a professional is transferred between two clubs of two
different associations, before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday (cf.
point II. 16. above).
22.
Furthermore, the Chamber noted that, based on the documents at its disposal, it
could be established that the professional player in question, born 22 July 1986,
was internationally transferred before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.
23.
On account of all the above, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant was
fulfilling the required conditions to claim for training compensation and therefore,
it decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the
Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
24.
Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation due to the
Claimant by the Respondent, the Chamber referred to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of the
Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulate that as a general rule, it is necessary
to take into consideration the costs that would have been incurred by the new club
as if it had trained the player itself and thus, it is calculated based on the training
costs of the new club multiplied by the number of years of training with the former
club.
25.
Additionally, and considering art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which
stipulates that the amount payable is calculated on a pro rata basis according to
the period of training that the player spent with each club, the Chamber concluded
that the effective period of time to be considered in the matter at stake
corresponds to 33 months (i.e. 9 months of the season 2005 and the entire seasons
2006 and 2007).
6/10
26.
Furthermore, the Chamber took due note that according to the information
provided by the Football Federation P the Respondent belonged to the category III.
27.
Consequently and taking into account all the above-mentioned elements, the
Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the Claimant was entitled to receive
training compensation for the training and education of the player concerned for
the period of time from 1 April 2005 until 31 December 2007, during the seasons of
the player’s 19th, 20th and 21st birthday, i.e. for 33 months, for an indicative amount
of EUR 30,000 per year.
28.
As a result, the DRC, taking into consideration all the above, as well as art. 5 par. 1
and 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, concluded that the Claimant is entitled to
receive the amount of EUR 82,500 from the Respondent for the training and
education of the player concerned.
29.
In view of all of the above, the Chamber decided that the claim of the Claimant is
partially accepted and, in this regard, reiterated that the Respondent must pay the
amount of EUR 82,500 to the Claimant.
30.
Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of
Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the members of the Chamber decided that the
Respondent has to pay, in conformity with its longstanding practice, interest at 5%
p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of the 31st day of the
registration of the player with the Respondent, i.e. as of 6 September 2009, until
the date of effective payment.
31.
In continuation, 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 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.
32.
In this respect, the Chamber reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is partially
accepted. Therefore, the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current
proceedings in front of FIFA.
33.
According to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to
be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute.
34.
The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings
amounts to EUR 82,602.74 related to the claim of the Claimant. Therefore, the
Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings
corresponds to CHF 10,000 (cf. table in Annexe A).
7/10
35.
Considering that the case at hand did not show particular factual difficulty but, on
the other hand a certain legal complexity, the Chamber determined the final
amount of costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 10,000.
36.
In this respect, the Chamber took into account that the Claimant paid an advance
of costs in the amount of CHF 2,000 in accordance with art. 17 of the Procedural
Rules.
37.
In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the amount of CHF 10,000
has to be paid by the Respondent to cover the costs of the present proceedings.
Thereof the amount of CHF 8,000 has to be paid by the Respondent to FIFA and the
amount of CHF 2,000 to the Claimant.
38.
In conclusion, the DRC decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of
EUR 82,500 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 6 September 2009 until the date of effective
payment to the Claimant for the training and education of the player as well as the
amount of CHF 10,000 as procedural costs.
39.
Finally, the Chamber concluded its deliberation by deciding that any further claim
of the Claimant is rejected.
*****
8/10
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club B, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club P, has to pay to the Claimant, Club B, the amount of
EUR 82,500 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 6 September 2009 until the date of effective
payment, within 30 days as of the date of notification of the present decision.
3.
If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the aforementioned
deadline, 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, Club B, is rejected.
5.
The final amount of costs of the proceeding in the amount of CHF 10,000 is to be
paid by the Respondent, Club P, within 30 days of notification of the present
decision as follows:
5.1 The amount of CHF 8,000 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
5.2 The amount of CHF 2,000 to the Claimant, Club B.
6.
The Claimant, Club B, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club P, immediately
and directly of the account number to which the remittances are to be made and to
notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
*****
9/10
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
Encl. CAS directives
10/10