Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
S ingle Judge of the s ub-com m ittee of the Dis pute
Res olution Cham ber (DRC)
passed on 8 November 2016,
by Mr Wouter Lam brecht (Belgium),
Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC,
on the claim presented by the club,
Club A, Country B
as Claimant
against the club,
Club C, Country D
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in
connection the player Player E
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of Country B the player,
Player E, born on 21 April 1994, was registered with its affiliated clubs as a professional as
follows:
Club
Registration dates
Registration basis
Club F
as from 23 August 2013 until 23 January 2014
Permanent
Club A
(hereinafter: Claimant)
as from 24 January 2014 until 30 June 2014
On loan from
Club F
Club F
as from 1 July 2014 until 9 July 2014
Permanent
2.
The football season in Country B runs from 1 July to 30 June of the following year.
3.
Also according to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of Country B, the
Claimant belonged to the category 2 (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year within UEFA)
at the time the player was registered with it.
4.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player
was registered with the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), as a
professional on 31 July 2014. According to the International Transfer Certificate (ITC)
available in TMS, Club F was the player’s former club.
5.
Also according to TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category 1 (indicative amount of
EUR 90,000 per year within UEFA) at the time the player was registered with it.
6.
On 13 June 2016, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training
compensation from the Respondent in connection with the subsequent professional
registration of the player with the Club of Country D. In particular, the Claimant requested
EUR 25,973.
7.
In spite of having been invited to do, the Respondent did not reply to the claim of the
Claimant.
II.
Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
First of all, the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(hereinafter also referred to as the Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent
to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was
submitted to FIFA on 13 June 2016. Consequently, the 2015 edition of the Rules
Training compensation for the player, Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
2
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21
of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules
and confirmed that in accordance with art. 3 of Annexe 6 in conjunction with art. 24
par. 1 and 2 and art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(edition 2016) he is competent to deal with the matter at stake relating to training
compensation between clubs belonging to different associations.
3.
Furthermore, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to
the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art.
26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012,
2014, 2015 and 2016), and considering that the player was registered with the
Respondent on 31 July 2014, the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
4.
His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single
Judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Single Judge started
by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and
documentation submitted by the parties. However, he emphasized that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence
which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
5.
In this regard, the Single Judge recalled that the player, born on 21 April 1994, was
registered on a loan basis with the Claimant for the period between 24 January 2014
and 30 June 2014. Equally, from the information available in TMS, he observed that after
the loan with the Claimant had expired, the player returned to his club of origin, Club
F, i.e. the club with which the player was still contractually bound. Thereafter, on 31 July
2014, the player was internationally transferred from Club F to the Respondent on a
definitive basis.
6.
In continuation, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant asserted that it was
entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR
25,973.
7.
Equally, the Single Judge noted that, although having been invited to do so by FIFA, the
Respondent failed to provide its position to the Claimant’s claim. Consequently, the
Single Judge deemed that the Respondent renounced to its right to defence and
accepted the allegations of the Claimant.
8.
As a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the Single Judge established
that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, he shall take a decision
Training compensation for the player, Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
3
upon the basis of the documents already on file as well as upon the information
contained in the TMS (cf. art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations).
9.
In this context, the Single Judge highlighted that the main issue in the present matter is
whether or not a club that accepted a professional on loan is entitled to receive training
compensation when, after the expiry of the loan, the professional returns to his club of
origin, and, thereafter, is transferred from the club of origin to a club belonging to
another association before the end of the season of the player’s 23 rd birthday.
10.
In consideration of the above-mentioned issue, the Single Judge, and hereby referring
to the rules applicable to training compensation, started by stating that, as established
in art. 20 of the Regulations as well as 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 a player is registered for
the first time as a professional before the end of the season of the player’s 23 rd birthday
or when a professional is transferred between clubs of two different associations before
the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. In case the latter occurs, art. 3 par. 1
sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that training compensation will only
be owed to the player’s former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club.
11.
Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations, according to
which professionals may be loaned to another club on the basis of a written agreement
between the professional and the clubs concerned. Moreover, the last sentence of said
provision stipulates that any such loan is subject to the same rules as apply to the transfer
of players, including the provisions on training compensation and the solidarity
mechanism.
12.
Following the above, the Single Judge stressed that one of the aims of the last sentence
of art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations is to ensure that training clubs which register a player
on a loan basis also benefit from the solidarity mechanism and training compensation,
provided that the relevant prerequisites in the pertinent provisions of the Regulations
are fulfilled. This approach is also in line with the well-established jurisprudence of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), according to which all clubs which have in fact
contributed to the training and education of a player as from the age of 12 are, in
principle, entitled to training compensation for the timeframe that the player was
effectively trained by them.
13.
In other words, the Single Judge emphasised that the nature of the player’s registration
with a club claiming training compensation, i.e. on a definite or on a temporary basis, is
in fact irrelevant with respect to the question as to whether such club would be entitled
to receive training compensation for the period of time that the player was effectively
trained by that club.
14.
In this respect and for the sake of good order, the Single Judge deemed it essential to
emphasise that, as to the liability to pay training compensation, the analogy established
Training compensation for the player, Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
4
in art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations could not be extended to the case in which players
were loaned to other clubs and, thus, are not being definitively transferred to a new
club. In other words, the transfer of a player from the club of origin to the club that
accepts the player on loan as well as the return of the player from the club that accepted
him on loan to the club of origin do not constitute a subsequent transfer in the sense of
art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. The Single Judge was eager to point
out that it could not have been the intention of the legislator of the relevant regulatory
provision (art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations) to trigger the consequences of art. 3 par. 1
of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the occasion of a transfer on a loan basis and, thus,
potentially depriving the loan of its essential flexibility and function of providing young
players the opportunity to gain practical experience in another club in order to develop
in a positive way, personally and, eventually, also for the benefit of the player’s new
club.
15.
Following the above, the Single Judge pointed out that the obligation to pay training
compensation thus arises in case a player is definitively transferred from one club to
another club belonging to a different association, but not when he is temporarily
transferred to another club while still being contractually bound to his club of origin
(yet, with the effects of the relevant contract being temporarily suspended), such as a
loan. Hence, the relevant entitlement can only be claimed towards a new club that
acquires the services of a player on a definitive and permanent basis subject to the
fulfilment of the prerequisites established in art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
16.
In this regard, the Single Judge wished to recall that art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4
stipulates that “In the case of subsequent transfers of the professional, training
compensation will only be owed to his former club for the time he was effectively
trained by that club”. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Claimant
was not the player’s former club stricto sensu, however, he pointed out that, within the
framework of loans, the period of time that the player was registered with Club F and
the period of time that the player was registered with the Claimant on loan, should be
considered as one entire timeframe. Any other interpretation would lead to the
situation in which clubs accepting a player on loan would never be entitled to receive
training compensation, even if they contribute to the training and education of players.
17.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Single Judge deemed that any other interpretation
of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations would clearly contravene the
intention of the legislator of the Regulations according to which all training clubs shall,
in principle, be rewarded for their efforts invested in training young players, including
those clubs that have accepted a player on a temporary basis.
18.
Moreover, the Single Judge further referred to art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations,
which contains special provisions regarding players moving from one association to
another association inside the territory of the European Union (EU)/European Economic
Area (EEA). In this regard, he indicated that, since the player moved from one
association to another association inside the territory of the EU, said article is applicable.
Training compensation for the player, Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
5
Hence, the Single Judge concluded that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations
applies in the case at hand as lex specialis.
19.
However, in this regard, the Single Judge pointed out that, in casu, a possible obligation
to offer the player a contract in compliance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations would in principle lie with the former club of the player, i.e. Club F, and not
with the Claimant. As stated in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, said provision
is without prejudice to the right of training compensation of the player’s previous
club(s).
20.
Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Single
Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the
Claimant for the training of the player in accordance with art. 20 of the Regulations and
art. 2 par. 1 lit. ii. and art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
21.
As a result, and considering art. 3 par. 1 sent. 2 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 Single Judge concluded that
the effective period of time to be considered in the matter at stake corresponds to 5
months of the season of the player’s 20th birthday.
22.
Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 5 par. 1 and par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations, which stipulate 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.
23.
Equally, the Single Judge referred to art. 6 par. 1a) of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which
contains special provisions in case a player moves from a lower to a higher category club or
from a higher to a lower category club within the territory of the EU/EEA. In this respect,
the Single Judge took into account that according to the documentation on file, the
Claimant belonged to the category 2 during the season 2013/2014 and that the
Respondent belonged to the category 1 at the time the player was registered with said
club. Therefore, in accordance with art. 6 par. 1a) of Annexe 4 of the regulations, the
calculation of the relevant training compensation shall be based on the average training
costs of the two clubs.
24.
In light of the above-mentioned considerations and considering the amount claimed by
the Claimant, the Single Judge decided to accept the Claimant’s claim and held that the
Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR
25,973.
25.
Lastly, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with
art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the DRC
and its Single Judge relating to disputes regarding training compensation and the
solidarity mechanism, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. It is
Training compensation for the player, Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
6
further stipulated that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree
of success in the proceedings and that, in accordance with Annexe A of the Procedural
Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute.
26.
In respect of the above, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 25,973 related to the claim of the
Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs
of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural
Rules).
27.
As a result, and taking into account that the Respondent never took stance in the
procedure, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the
amount of CHF 5,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent.
*****
Decision of the S ingle Judge of the s ub-com m ittee of the DRC
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, w ithin 30 day s as from the date of
notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 25,973.
3.
In the event that the aforementioned sum is not paid by the Respondent within the stated
time limit, interest of 5% p.a. falls due 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 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 Single Judge of the subcommittee of the DRC of every payment received.
5.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 5,000 are to be paid by the
Respondent, w ithin 30 day s of notification of the present decision to FIFA to the following
bank account with reference to case no. XXX:
Training compensation for the player, Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
7
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH 27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
*****
Note relating to the m otiv ated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 58 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 Single Judge of the
sub-committee of the DRC:
Marco Villiger
Deputy Secretary General
Enclosed: CAS directives
Training compensation for the player, Player E
(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)
8