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,
M,
as Claimant
against the club,
A,
as Respondent
regarding a training compensation dispute related to
the transfer of the player I
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the Football Federation M (FFM) the player, I (hereinafter: the player),
born on 31 October 1989, was registered with its affiliated club, M (hereinafter: the
Claimant), as from 21 July 2008 until 2 January 2010, and from 30 June 2010 until 3
August 2010 as a professional. During the period from 2 January 2010 until 30 June
2010, the player was on loan with the club, S of the country P(hereinafter: S), as a
professional.
2.
The Football Federation M confirmed that the football season in the country M runs
from 1 August until 31 July of the following year.
3.
According to the Football Association P (FAP), the player was registered for its affiliated
club, A (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 5 August 2010, as a professional.
4.
The Football Association P confirmed that during the time the player was registered
with it, the Respondent belonged to the category III.
5.
On 22 November 2010, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training
compensation from the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant requested the amount
of EUR 60,000.
6.
Moreover, according to the Football Federation M, the Claimant “stop to play in [the]
First Division and regarding Disciplinary Decisions of [the] competent bodies M was
relegated in the 4th (last) M division where the teams are completely with amateur
status, and according to the abovementioned the player received status of free player”.
7.
In its response to the claim, the Respondent held that the player signed a professional
contract with it after having received a “Confirmation” from the Claimant, dated 9 June
2010 and signed by its technical secretary (Mr X) by means of which “it confirms to Mr.
Z; licensed player’s agent, who is the official representative of the player (…) that:
Club M, Republic of country M that will NOT AS FOR ANY TRAINING COMPENSATIONS
or other compensations regarding the article 20 annex 4 of the FIFA regulations of the
Status and Transfer of players (edition July 2005).
Regarding the situation in our Club, we are confirming that we are not a professional
Club and that we are playing now in forth league, that the player I is TOTALLY FREE
without the need for paying any amount to our Club in case of his transfer to another
Club.
After the player I signs a professional contract with some other Club, we will provide all
necessary document from the Football Federation M needed for the player’s
registration.”
2/9
8.
Equally, the Respondent held that the Claimant loaned the player to S from 2 February
2010 until 30 June 2010 and for said loan it received an amount of EUR 20,000 which
was “against regulations because [the Claimant] did not have a professional status at
this moment and the player doesn’t have a valid professional contract”.
9.
In its replica, the Claimant contested the authenticity of the waiver provided by the
Respondent. In particular, it held that said confirmation is not issued and signed by an
authorized person of the Claimant. More specifically, the Claimant held that the person
who signed the waiver, i.e. Mr X, is neither employed by the Claimant nor Technical
secretary of the latter. Moreover, the stamp on the waiver is, according to the Claimant,
not a “registered and official stamp of the club” and the waiver is issued on blank
paper. Furthermore, the Claimant held that the document does not have any reference
number and that is “unclear whether the document exists in original” since the
Claimant does not have any record.
10.
Finally, the Claimant emphasized that the only authorized person to represent the club
and to sign the relevant document would be the president of the Claimant, Mr V.
11.
In spite of having been asked by FIFA to do so, the Respondent did not submit its final
position.
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 22 November 2010. 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 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 2010), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 22 November 2010, and that the
player was registered with the Respondent on 5 August 2010, the 2009 edition of the
3/9
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: 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 facts of the case as well as the documentation
on file.
5.
In particular, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant claimed training
compensation from the Respondent for a total amount of EUR 60,000, based on the
player’s international transfer to the Respondent.
6.
On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of the
Claimant to receive training compensation, because of a “Confirmation” of the
Claimant, dated 9 June 2010 and signed by the alleged club’s technical secretary, by
means of which the Claimant confirmed that it would not demand any training
compensation. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Respondent, in spite of having
been asked to do so, did not provide any final comments.
7.
In this regard, it was noted that the Claimant challenges the authenticity of the
“Confirmation” dated 9 June 2010, presented by the Respondent, bearing that it would
waive its entitlement to training compensation as well as of the signature and the
stamp, asserting that it never signed such document.
8.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, and in view of the parties’ submissions, the
Chamber first turned its attention to the preliminary question as to whether the
said “Confirmation” established that the Claimant had renounced to its right to
receive training compensation on the basis of the contents of said document.
9.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber carefully examined the contents of the
aforementioned document dated 9 June 2010 and signed by Mr. X “Tehnical Secretary”,
and addressed to the player’s agent Mr. Z, in which the Claimant stated inter alia that
”(…) will not ask for any training compensation (…)”.
10.
The Chamber, therefore, firstly compared the said “Confirmation” as well as the
documents submitted by the Claimant during the investigation phase in the present
matter. In this respect, the Chamber took duly note that the club stamp of the Claimant
contained in the “Confirmation” dated 9 June 2010 was indeed different from the one
used by the Claimant in its power of attorney issued in favour of the Football
Federation of M authorising it to act on behalf of the Claimant in the present affair.
11.
In addition, the members of the Chamber took into account that the “Confirmation”
was printed on blank paper and did not contain the club’s letterhead.
4/9
12.
Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that with regard to the Claimant’s allegations that
Mr. X, by whom the alleged “Confirmation” was signed, is not employed by the
Claimant, as well as the fact that the original version of said document was not
provided by the Respondent, the latter never provided FIFA with its position. Therefore,
the DRC deemed that, by doing so, the Respondent renounced to its right to defence
and accepted the allegations of the Claimant made in the latter’s last submission (cf.
art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules), that said “Confirmation” cannot be taken into
account as a waiver to receive training compensation.
13.
As a result and in consideration of the above-stated, the members of the Chamber
concluded that the “Confirmation” provided by the Respondent, without having
provided FIFA with an original version, could not be taken into account in the present
matter, and that therefore, the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation.
14.
Finally, with regard to the allegations of the Respondent that the Claimant would not
be entitled to request training compensation, since the player was loaned from the
Claimant to S (cf. point I.8), the Chamber was eager to emphasize that said matter was
not relevant as to the substance of the present case and that would not prejudice the
right to training compensation.
15.
Having established that, 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 Annexe 4 to the Regulations, training
compensation is payable, as a general rule, for training incurred between the ages of 12
and 21 when a professional is transferred between two clubs of two different
associations, before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
16.
Moreover, the Chamber also recalled that in accordance with art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4
of the Regulations, the new club, with which the player is registered, is responsible to
pay training compensation.
17.
In continuation, the Chamber observed that it was undisputed that the player, who was
a professional, was transferred and registered to a club belonging to a different
association, i.e. the Respondent, before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. In
view of the foregoing, the DRC decided that the Respondent is liable to pay
training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the
Regulations.
18.
Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the members of the
Chamber referred to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations, which stipulates
that, as a general rule, to calculate the training compensation due to a player’s former
club, it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club if it
had trained the player itself and that it is thus calculated based on the training costs of
the new club multiplied by the number of years of training with the former club.
5/9
19.
In addition, the DRC recalled that, according to the documentation on file, it could be
established that the season in the country M runs from 1 August until 31 July of the
following year, that the player, born on 31 October 1989, had been registered with the
Respondent on 5 August 2010, and that the Respondent belonged to the category III
(indicative amount of EUR 30,000 within UEFA) when the player was registered with the
latter.
20.
Having established the above, the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations, which stipulated that the amount payable is calculated on a pro rata basis
according to the period of training that the player spent with the club. In this regard,
the Chamber concluded that the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation
for the training and education of the player concerned for the period of time from 21
July 2008 until 2 January 2010 as well as from 30 June 2010 until 3 August 2010, during
the season of the player’s 19th birthday and 20th birthday, i.e. for 18 months.
21.
As a result, taking into consideration all the above, the Chamber decided that the
Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 45,000 to the Claimant for the training
and education of the player.
22.
The Chamber concluded its deliberations as to the substance of the case by rejecting any
further claim of the Claimant.
23.
Lastly, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in
conjunction with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in
proceedings before the DRC relating to disputes regarding training compensation and
the solidarity mechanism, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25’000 are levied. The
relevant provision further states that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the
parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and that, in accordance with Annex A of
the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the
amount in dispute.
24.
In respect of the above, the DRC held that the amount to be taken into consideration in
the present proceedings is EUR 60,000 related to the claim of the Claimant.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the
proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000 (cf. table in Annex A).
25.
As a result, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been partially
accepted, the Chamber concluded that both the Claimant as well as the Respondent
have to bear a part of the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA.
26.
Considering the above, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to
the amount of CHF 5,000, of which CHF 3,000 shall be borne by the Respondent and
CHF 2,000 shall be borne by the Claimant.
6/9
27.
In this respect, the Chamber also took into account that the Claimant had already paid
the amount of CHF 2,000 at the outset of the present proceedings, and that it is
therefore exempted from paying the relevant amount of procedural costs.
*****
7/9
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, M, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, A, has to pay to the Claimant M, the amount of EUR 45,000 within 30
days as of notification of the present decision.
3.
If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, interest at
the rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiry of the stipulated time limit and the
present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee, for
consideration and a formal decision.
4.
The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 5,000 is to be paid
as follows:
4.1
The amount of CHF 3,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, A, within 30 days
of notification of the present decision to FIFA to the following bank account
with reference to case no. XX-XXXXX/xxx:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
4.2
The amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid by the Claimant, M, to FIFA, which
have already been paid by the Claimant as advance of costs at the start of the
present proceedings.
5.
Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, M, are rejected.
6.
The Claimant, M, is directed to inform the Respondent, A, 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.
*****
8/9
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
9/9