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 2019,
by Mr S tefano S artori (Italy ),
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 Association of country
A, the player, Player X (d.o.b. 19 December 1997, hereinafter: the player), was
registered as an amateur with the following country A clubs:
-
Club A, from country A:
Club C, from country A:
Club D, from country A:
14 April 2010 until 24 July 2014
5 August 2014 until 9 February 2016
19 February 2016 until 26 January 2017
2.
Furthermore, according to the information contained in the Transfer Matching
System (TMS), the player was transferred “out of contract, free of payment”
from Club D, from country A, to the Club B, from country B (hereinafter: the
Respondent), where he was registered as a professional on 13 February 2017.
3.
According to a confirmation from the Football Association of country A, the
football seasons in country A run from 1 August until 31 July of the following
year.
4.
According to the information contained in TMS, the Respondent belonged to
the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA) at the
moment that the player was registered with it.
5.
On 28 January 2018, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting
training compensation on the basis of the player’s first registration as a
professional with the Respondent. In particular, after amending its claim, the
Claimant requested the total amount of EUR 65,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 1 March 2017.
6.
In its reply to the claim, the Respondent argued, inter alia, that training
compensation was not due in this particular case. In fact, the Respondent stated
that when ending its registration with the player, the Claimant signed a release
form and that, as such, it waived its right to any future training compensation.
7.
In its replica, the Claimant held that the release form “does not mean quittance
of training compensation requested from Respondent”. The Claimant explained
that such release form is a mandatory document under the regulations of the
Football Association of country A, which must be issued when a player moves to
another club. According to the Claimant, the release form only governs the
relationship between it and the player.
8.
In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated its position. In particular, the
Respondent stated that the Claimant unambiguously waived its right to training
compensation by means of the release form, according to which it renounced to
Training compensation in connection with the player, Player X
(Club A, from country A/ Club B, from country B)
2/7
the “reimbursement of costs invested in the development of the player”.
Furthermore, the Respondent referred to DRC and CAS jurisprudence as well as
Swiss law, in support of its position that the release form is a valid waiver.
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: 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
28 January 2018. Consequently, the 2018 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 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
2019). 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, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and
2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2016, 2018
and 2019) and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent
on 13 February 2017, the 2016 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the
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. The
Single Judge started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well as the
documentation on file. 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 Transfer Matching
System (TMS).
Training compensation in connection with the player, Player X
(Club A, from country A/ Club B, from country B)
3/7
5.
First of all, the Single Judge took note of the Claimant’s claim, according to
which it is entitled to training compensation in the amount of EUR 65,000 on
the basis of the player’s first registration as a professional with the Respondent.
6.
Equally, the Single Judge took note of the main argument of the Respondent,
according to which, when ending its registration with the player, the Claimant
signed a release form and that, as such, it waived its right to any future training
compensation.
7.
In continuation, the Single Judge observed that the Claimant held that the
release form “does not mean quittance of training compensation requested
from Respondent”. The Claimant explained that such release form is a
mandatory document under the regulations of the Football Association of
country A, which must be issued when a player moves to another club.
According to the Claimant, the release form only governs the relationship
between it and the player.
8.
Furthermore, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent referred to DRC
and CAS jurisprudence as well as Swiss law, and stated that the Claimant
unambiguously waived its right to training compensation by means of the
release form, according to which it renounced to the “reimbursement of costs
invested in the development of the player”.
9.
Having established the above, the Single Judge referred to the rules applicable
to training compensation and stated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 of
Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 par. 1 lit. i. 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 professional is registered for the first
time as a professional before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
In case the player is registered for the first time as a professional, art. 3 par. 1
sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that the club with which the
player is registered is responsible for paying training compensation within 30
days of registration to every club with which the player has previously been
registered and that has contributed to his training starting from the season of
his 12th birthday.
10.
Reverting to the facts of the matter at hand, and based on the documentation
and the information contained in TMS, the Single Judge established that the
player was indeed registered for the first time as a professional with the
Respondent on 13 February 2017, following a transfer “out of contract, free of
payment” directly from Club D, from country A.
11.
On account of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge decided
that the Respondent was, in principle, liable to pay training compensation to
the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
Training compensation in connection with the player, Player X
(Club A, from country A/ Club B, from country B)
4/7
12.
Having established the aforementioned, the Single Judge turned his attention
to the main argument of the Respondent, which stated that the Claimant had
validly waived its entitlement to training compensation by means of issuing a
release form on 24 July 2014.
13.
On the other hand, the Single Judge observed that the Claimant explained that
the relevant release form is a mandatory document under the regulations of the
Football Association of country A and that it only governs the relationship
between the club and the player.
14.
Having analysed the content of the release form, the Single Judge understood
that the relevant release form is merely an administrative requirement at
national level to release a player when he is moving to another club, but that it
cannot be considered a waiver of training compensation under the FIFA
regulations. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that training compensation is
payable by the Respondent to the Claimant.
15.
Subsequently, the Single Judge considered that he had to determine which
should be the relevant amount of training compensation to be paid by the
Respondent to the Claimant. In this regard, the Single Judge went on to
establish the amount of training compensation due to the Claimant.
16.
To that end, 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, it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by
the new club if it had trained the player itself.
17.
In continuation, the Single Judge recalled that the player was born on 19
December 1997 and, in accordance with the player passport issued by the
Football Association of country A, was registered with the Claimant as from 14
April 2010 until 24 July 2014.
18.
Equally, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the information contained
in the TMS, the player was registered with the Respondent on 13 February 2017.
19.
Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the information
contained in TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative
amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA) during the season when the player
was registered with it.
20.
In view of all of the above, the Single Judge decided to partially accept the claim
of the Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of
EUR 63,333 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the
registration of the player with the Respondent.
Training compensation in connection with the player, Player X
(Club A, from country A/ Club B, from country B)
5/7
21.
Moreover, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to pay interest at
5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of 1 March 2017
until the date of effective payment.
22.
Lastly, the Chamber referred to 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 Chamber held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 65,000 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 Annexe A of
the Procedural Rules).
24.
As a result, considering the particularities of the present matter as well as the
parties’ degree of success, the Chamber determined the final costs of the current
proceedings to the amount of CHF 5,000, which shall be entirely borne by the
Respondent.
*****
III.
S ingle Judge of the s ub-com m ittee of the DRC
1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is partially 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 63,333 + 5% interest p.a.
as from 1 March 2017 until the date of effective payment.
3. Any further claim from the Claimant is rejected.
4. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the
stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s
Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
Training compensation in connection with the player, Player X
(Club A, from country A/ Club B, from country B)
6/7
5. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 5,000 is to be
paid by the Respondent w ithin 30 day s as from the date of notification of the
present decision as follows:
5.1.
The amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank
account with reference to case no. TMS XXXX
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 3,000 has to be paid back to the Claimant.
6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of
the account number to which the remittance under point 2. above is 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. 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.
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:
Training compensation in connection with the player, Player X
(Club A, from country A/ Club B, from country B)
7/7
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Training compensation in connection with the player, Player X
(Club A, from country A/ Club B, from country B)
8/7