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 21 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, Player X
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
According to the player passport issued by the Football Association of country
A, we have noted that the player, Player X (hereinafter: the player), born on 30
December 1994, was transferred on a loan basis by the club, Club C, from
country A to the club, Club A, from country A (hereinafter: the Claimant),
where he was registered from 1 September 2014 until 10 June 2015.
2.
The sporting season in country A runs from 1 July until 30 June of the
following year.
3.
Furthermore, according to the information contained in the Transfer Matching
System (TMS), on 19 July 2017, the club, Club B, from country B (hereinafter:
the Respondent), registered the player as a professional player following a
transfer from Club C, from country A.
4.
Also according to TMS, the Claimant belonged to the category 3 (indicative
amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA), while 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.
5.
On 29 July 2019, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent before
FIFA asking to be awarded training compensation for the subsequent transfer
of the player as a professional to the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant
requested EUR 45,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due date.
6.
In its claim, the Claimant referred to the jurisprudence of the DRC and
explained that it is entitled to receive training compensation as the period of
registration of the player with the club of origin, Club C, and the period of
registration of the player with the Claimant on loan shall be considered one
timeframe, entitling the Claimant to receive training compensation although it
is not the player’s former club stricto sensu.
7.
In its reply, the Respondent argued that Club C, from country A stipulated in
the transfer agreement concluded with it that “as far as [Club C] is aware, no
other football club (…) shall be entitled to bring a claim against [the
Respondent] in respect of its registration of the player save in respect of
solidarity under the FIFA Regulations”. In addition, the Respondent provided
an email from Club C in which the former club states that it does not consider
that the Claimant is entitled to training compensation, making reference to
the loan agreement it signed with the Claimant at the time, but did not
however provide a copy of said loan agreement.
Training compensation in connection with the player, Player X
(Club A, from country A / Club B, from country B )
2
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 29 July 2019. 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 19 July 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).
5.
In this regard, the Single Judge recalled that the player, born on 30 December
1994, was registered with the Claimant as a professional on a loan basis from
Club C for the period between 1 September 2014 and 10 June 2015.
Training compensation in connection with the player, Player X
(Club A, from country A / Club B, from country B )
3
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 45,000, indicating that the player was transferred as a
professional from Club C to the Respondent before the end of the season of
his 23rd birthday and that the period that the player was registered with Club
C, as well as with the Claimant itself on loan, should be considered as one
entire timeframe.
7.
Subsequently, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent rejected the
claim of the Claimant arguing that Club C stipulated in the transfer agreement
concluded with it that “as far as [Club C] is aware, no other football club (…)
shall be entitled to bring a claim against [the Respondent] in respect of its
registration of the player save in respect of solidarity under the FIFA
Regulations”. In addition, the Respondent provided an email from Club C in
which the former club states that it does not consider that the Claimant is
entitled to training compensation, making reference to the loan agreement it
signed with the Claimant at the time, but did not however provide a copy of
said loan agreement.
8.
Having established the above, 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, whether during or at the end of his contract,
before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday (emphasis added).
Based on the clear wording of the aforementioned provision, the Single Judge
pointed out that training compensation is due regardless of whether the
player transfers during or at the end of his contract. Consequently, the Single
Judge decided that the first argument of the Respondent cannot be upheld.
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 apply to the transfer of players, including the
provisions on training compensation and the solidarity mechanism.
10.
With due consideration to 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
Training compensation in connection with the player, Player X
(Club A, from country A / Club B, from country B )
4
prerequisites in the pertinent provisions of the Regulations are fulfilled. This
approach is also in line with the DRC’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 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
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 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 in art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations could not be
extended to the case in which a player is loaned to a club and thus is not being
definitively transferred to the latter 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 (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 another club in order to develop in a positive way,
personally and, eventually, also for the benefit of the player’s new club.
13.
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.
14.
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
Training compensation in connection with the player, Player X
(Club A, from country A / Club B, from country B )
5
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. 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.
15.
On account of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge
decided that the Respondent is, in principle, liable to pay training
compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the
Regulations.
16.
Turning his attention to the argument of the Respondent that Club C, from
country A stated that it does not consider that the Claimant is entitled to
training compensation and guaranteed that no other football club is entitled
to bring a claim against the Respondent, the Single Judge pointed out that he
was not convinced by such argument and stated that the assessment of Club C
could not affect the entitlement to training compensation of the Claimant.
17.
Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules
and pointed out that the Respondent did not provide any conclusive evidence
in support of its aforementioned argument. Consequently, in absence of any
clear and unambiguous document stipulating that the Claimant waived its
entitlement to training compensation, the Single Judge decided that the
Respondent’s argument cannot be upheld.
18.
Having established the above, the Single Judge proceeded to the calculation of
training compensation, the Single Judge referred to art. 5 par. 1 of Annexe 4
of the Regulations, which stipulates that, as a general rule, 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 continuation, the Single Judge recalled that the player was born on 30
December 1994 and was registered with the Claimant during the relevant
period as from 1 September 2014 until 10 June 2015.
20.
Equally, the Single Judge recalled that the sporting season in country A ran
from 1 July until 30 June of the following year.
Training compensation in connection with the player, Player X
(Club A, from country A / Club B, from country B )
6
21.
Furthermore, 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 9 months of the season of the
player’s 20th birthday.
22.
Consequently, in light of the above-mentioned considerations as well as the
fact that the Claimant belonged to the UEFA category 3 while the Respondent
belonged to the UEFA category 1, the Single Judge referred to art. 6 par. 1 lit.
a) of Annexe 4 of the Regulations and held that the Respondent is liable to
pay the amount of EUR 45,000 to the Claimant as training compensation in
relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent.
23.
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 19 August 2017 until the date of effective payment.
24.
Lastly, the Single Judge 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.
25.
In respect of the above, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken
into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 45,000 related to the
claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the
maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000 (cf.
table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules).
26.
As a result and taking into account that the Claimant is the successful party in
the proceeding, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current
proceedings to the amount of CHF 5,000, which shall be borne by the
Respondent.
*****
Training compensation in connection with the player, Player X
(Club A, from country A / Club B, from country B )
7
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 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 45,000 + 5% interest p.a.
as from 19 August 2017 until the date of effective payment.
3. Any further claim lodged by 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.
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 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
Training compensation in connection with the player, Player X
(Club A, from country A / Club B, from country B )
8
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:
__________________________________
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 )
9