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 19 November 2018,
by John Bram hall (England),
Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC,
on the claim presented by the club,
Club A, from country A
as Claimant
against the club,
Club B, from country B
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in connection with the
player X
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of country A,
the player, Player X (hereinafter: the player), born on 26 March 1994, was
registered with the Club A, from country A (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from
1 January 2014 until 31 December 2014, as a professional on loan from the Club
C, from country A.
2.
The football seasons in country A during the period of time in which the player
was registered with the Claimant ran from January until December.
3.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS),
the player was registered with the Club B, from country B (hereinafter: the
Respondent), on 3 March 2016.
4.
Equally, according to the information contained in the TMS, the Respondent
belonged to the category II at the moment the player was registered with it.
5.
On 28 March 2018, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the
Respondent requesting training compensation on the ground of the subsequent
transfer of the player as a professional from Club C to the Respondent before
the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. In particular, the Claimant requested
EUR 60,000 plus 5% interest p.a. “as of the due date until the date of effective
payment”.
6.
In its reply, the Respondent asked that the claim be rejected. According to the
Respondent, the Claimant was not entitled to any payment, given that,
allegedly, training compensation “is only due to the former club and not to any
clubs that have had the player on loan”. More in particular, the Respondent
explained that, following the “literal interpretation” of the relevant provisions
of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the player’s
former club is “the club that the Player is leaving” and, thus, not the Claimant
but rather Club C.
II.
Cons iderations of the S ingle Judge of the s ub-com m ittee of the DRC
1.
First of all, the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC (hereinafter also
referred to as: Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with
the matter at stake. In this respect, the Single Judge took note that the present
matter was submitted to FIFA on 28 March 2018. Consequently, the Single Judge
concluded that the 2018 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the
Training compensation for the player X
(Club A, from country A / Club B, from country B)
2
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 of the Procedural Rules, which
states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its jurisdiction in light
of arts. 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition
2018). In accordance with art. 3 of Annexe 6 in conjunction with art. 24 par. 3
and art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the
Single Judge is competent to decide on the present dispute relating to training
compensation between clubs belonging to different associations handled
through TMS.
3.
Furthermore, the Single Judge 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, the Single Judge confirmed that in accordance with art.
26 par. 1 and par. 2 of said Regulations (editions 2015, 2016 and 2018) and
considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 3 March
2016, the 2015 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.
The competence of the Single Judge and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Single Judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this
respect, he started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as
the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the
Single Judge emphasised 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. In particular, the Single
Judge recalled that, in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the
Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the
application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or
contained in the TMS.
5.
The Single Judge started by acknowledging that the Claimant requested the
payment of training compensation in the amount of EUR 60,000 on the ground
of the subsequent transfer of the player as a professional from Club C to the
Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.
6.
In continuation, the Single Judge took note that the Respondent, for its part,
deemed that the Claimant was not entitled to any payment relating to the
training compensation of the player since, according to the Respondent, the
Claimant was not the player’s former club in the sense of the Regulations.
Training compensation for the player X
(Club A, from country A / Club B, from country B)
3
7.
In light of the above, the Single Judge observed that the underlying issue in this
dispute was to determine as to 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.
8.
When addressing the abovementioned issue, the Single Judge referred to the
rules applicable to training compensation and stated 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 23rd birthday or when a professional is transferred between clubs of
two different associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23 rd
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.
9.
Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations,
which stipulates that 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 article stipulates that any such loan is subject
to the same rules as those which apply to the transfer of players, including the
provisions on training compensation and the solidarity mechanism.
10.
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 Dispute Resolution Chamber’s well-established jurisprudence
that all clubs which have in actual fact contributed to the training and
education of a player as from the age of 12 until the age of 21 (unless it is
evident that the player has already terminated his training period before the
age of 21) are, in principle, entitled to training compensation for the timeframe
that the player was effectively trained by them.
11.
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
Training compensation for the player X
(Club A, from country A / Club B, from country B)
4
whether such club would be entitled to receive training compensation for the
period of time that the player was effectively trained by that club.
12.
In this respect, the Single Judge deemed it equally important to recall that 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 (i.e. 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
deprive the loan of its essential flexibility and, in connection with the training
and education of players, its purpose of providing young players with the
opportunity to gain practical experience in official matches for another club in
order to develop in a positive way.
13.
What is more, and while recalling that art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations 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”, the Single Judge pointed out that,
within the framework of loans and for the purposes of the rules governing
training compensation, the period of time that the player was registered with
the Claimant on loan and the period of time that the player was registered with
Club C should be considered as one entire timeframe.
14.
Having said that, the Single Judge turned his attention to the argument of the
Respondent that the Claimant is not the former club in the sense of the
Regulations. In this respect, the Single Judge wished to recall that art. 3 par. 1
sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations 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, the Single Judge pointed out that, within the
framework of loans and for the purposes of the rules governing training
compensation, the period of time that the player was registered with Club C
and the period of time that the player was registered with the Claimant (and
any other club) 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.
Training compensation for the player X
(Club A, from country A / Club B, from country B)
5
15.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Single Judge deemed that the Respondent’s
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.
16.
Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the
Single Judge had to reject the Respondent’s argumentation in relation to art. 3
par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations and decided that it is liable to pay
training compensation to the Claimant for the period of time corresponding to
the length of the loan in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the
Regulations.
17.
Having established the above, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the
player passport issued by the Football Federation of country A, the Claimant
was involved in the training and education of the player as from 1 January 2014
until 31 December 2014.
18.
Turning his attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Single
Judge referred to the FIFA circular no. 1627 dated 9 May 2018 which provides
details for the calculation of training compensation as well as 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.
19.
In this respect, the Single Judge observed that, according to the TMS, the
Respondent belonged to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per
year) and that the player was registered with the Claimant as from 1 January
2014 until 31 December 2014. Therefore, the player was effectively trained by
the Claimant for a period of 12 months.
20.
Consequently, and in light of the above-mentioned considerations, the Single
Judge decided to accept the Claimant’s claim and decided that the Respondent
is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR
60,000.
21.
Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2
of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent
has to pay interest at 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training
compensation as of 3 April 2016 until the date of effective payment.
Training compensation for the player X
(Club A, from country A / Club B, from country B)
6
22.
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 relating to disputes regarding training
compensation and the solidarity mechanism, costs in the maximum amount of
CHF 25,000 are levied. It is further stipulated that the costs are to be borne in
consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and, 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.
23.
In respect of the above, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge concluded that the maximum
amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000 (cf. table in
Annexe A of the Procedural Rules).
24.
As a result, considering the specific circumstances of the case, the Single Judge
determined the final costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF
4,000, which shall be paid by the Respondent.
III.
Decis ion 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 B, has to pay to the Claimant, w ithin 30 day s as from
the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 60,000 plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 3 April 2016 until the date of effective payment.
3.
In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid by the
Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted,
upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal
decision.
4.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 4,000 are to be paid by
the Respondent, w ithin 30 day s as from the date of notification of the present
decision as follows:
4.1
The amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank
account with reference to case no.:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Training compensation for the player X
(Club A, from country A / Club B, from country B)
7
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
4.2.
5.
The amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid to the Claimant.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of
the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 4.2. above are
to be made and to notify the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC of
every payment received.
*****
Note relating to the m otiv ated decis ion (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 (CAS)
Avenue de Beaumont 2
CH-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:
Omar Ongaro
Football Regulatory Director
Encl.: CAS directives
Training compensation for the player X
(Club A, from country A / Club B, from country B)
8