Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 9 November 2004,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Philippe Piat (France), member
Philippe Diallo (France), member
on the claim presented by
the club, X, Japan,
as Claimant
against
the club, Y, The Netherlands,
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in connection with the player, Z,
Facts of the case
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
The player, Z, born on 25 February 1981, was contractually bound to X as from 1 June
2000 until 1 January 2001.
According to the Japanese club, the player joined X directly from university without
having practised non-amateur football with any other club.
Another employment contract was signed between the parties valid from 1 February
2001 until 1 January 2002 and a third contract was signed covering the period from 1
February 2002 until 1 January 2003.
The club points out that the player was selected for national team matches and it has
submitted copies of requests for the release of the player.
X maintains that on 26 November 2002 it made a proposal to the player to extend the
employment contract.
In January 2003, the Japanese club learned about the request for an international
registration transfer certificate (IRTC) made by the Dutch Football Federation for the
player in question in favour of Y.
The Japan Football Association issued the IRTC on 20 January 2003.
The Japanese club maintains having incurred the following costs during the player’s
activities at the club: YEN 185,165,132 relating to salaries and YEN 22,950,526
regarding other expenses.
X claims that it is entitled to receive training compensation from Y for the full period that
Z was registered at the Japanese club, i.e. from 1 June 2000 until 1 January 2003, and
asks that the DRC determines the amount due. It furthermore claims payment of interest
as from the date on which the training compensation should have been paid by the Dutch
club as well as of legal fees.
In this respect, the Japanese club refers to article 16 of the Regulations for the Status and
Transfer of Players as well as to article 5 of the Regulations governing the Application of
the aforementioned Regulations and to circular letter 826, according to which the
indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per training season (category 1 club in Europe) would
apply.
Y, for its part, maintains that it does not owe any training compensation to the Japanese
club as the player clearly had terminated his training before he reached the age of 21. In
this respect, the Dutch club points out that the player was selected for the national
Korean team during the 2002 World Cup. According to Y, the training period of the player
terminated when he signed a contract with the Japanese club.
According to the Japanese club, Y’s argument is not valid, since according to such
statement compensation would not be payable for almost any player over 18 years old as
many of these players participate in first division teams and form part of sections of the
national teams. Furthermore, X stresses that such argument fails to take into account
that the level of requirements, development and competence of European football is
higher than that of Asiatic football.
According to the Japan Football Association (cf. fax dated 1 July 2004), X is a category 2
club.
2
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
The members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber were summoned to pass a decision on this
matter by the Chairman pursuant to Art. 1 point 6) of the Rules Governing the Practice and
Procedures of the Dispute Resolution Chamber.
As established in art. 42 §1 (b) (iv) of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of
Players, it falls within the purview of the Dispute Resolution Chamber to decide on disputes
concerning the compensation for the training and education of young players and to adjust
training compensation fees.
In the case at hand, the player Z was transferred to Y at the age of 21. As a result, the
question arises whether X is entitled to claim training compensation as provided for in Art.
13 and following of the FIFA transfer regulations. Training compensation is payable by the
new club with which a player has signed a contract for training and education that he
received from the age of 12 up to 21, payable until he reaches the age of 23. The player, Z,
was employed by X at the age of 19 and remained with the Japanese club during 2,5 sportive
seasons.
Y rejects the claim put forward by the Japanese club, maintaining that at the time that Z was
transferred to the Dutch club, he had already terminated his training, which allegedly is
corroborated by the fact that Z was selected for his national team during the 2002 World
Cup. Y asserts that the player’s training had already finished when he signed on with X.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber were of the opinion that the fact that the player
was selected for his national team for the 2002 World Cup, when he already had turned 21,
shows that he was duly trained by the Japanese club. Furthermore, the Chamber took into
account that Y has failed to provide any documentary evidence in support of its assertions. In
this context, the Chamber pointed out that the party claiming that a player finished his
training prior to his 21st birthday shall provide the Dispute Resolution Chamber with the
required written evidence.
In this regard, the Chamber took note of the fax which was received by the FIFA
administration from the Dutch Football Federation on 8 November 2004 conveying
supplementary remarks on behalf of its member club Y. The Dutch club criticizes the fact that
only on Friday 5 November 2004 was the club informed of the fact that the present matter
was included in the agenda for the meeting of the Dispute Resolution Chamber on 9 and 10
November 2004. In this regard, with reference to article 16.3(c) of the FIFA Regulations for
the Status and Transfer of Players Y asserts that it could only prepare its defence on Monday
8 November 2004.
After careful study of the relevant file, the members of the Chamber concluded that the
administrative proceedings were duly finalised prior to the communication of the date of the
meeting of the Dispute Resolution Chamber to the parties involved in the dispute.
3
In fact, the Dutch club has been given ample opportunity to present its response. On 11 May
2004 the Dutch club was invited to present its reply to the claim lodged by the Japanese club
on 26 May 2004, which deadline was ignored. Therefore, by fax dated 4 June 2004, the
Dutch club was given a second deadline expiring on 11 June 2004 to present its reply, which
was received on 9 June 2004. On 11 June 2004, the administrative proceedings having come
to an end, the parties were informed that the matter would be submitted to the Dispute
Resolution Chamber for a formal decision, the meeting date of which would be
communicated at a later stage. Therefore, the members of the Chamber agreed that the
comments of the Dutch club which have been conveyed by the Dutch Football Federation on
8 November 2004 must be considered inappropriate.
In the light of the above, the Chamber decided that Y must pay training compensation to X
for the player in question in accordance with the aforementioned Regulations and circular
letter no. 826 dated 31 October 2002.
Taking into consideration the above, it can be established that the player, Z, has been
trained and developed by the Japanese club X between the age of 19 and 21. In accordance
with article 5.1 of the Regulations governing the Application of the Regulations for the Status
and Transfer of Players, “for the purposes of calculating compensation, the training period …
finishes at the end of the season of his (the player) 21st birthday.”
Furthermore, the amount due by the Dutch club Y is to be calculated in accordance with the
parameters provided by circular letter 826 dated 31 October 2002, i.e. with an amount
corresponding to EUR 60,000 per year of training between the ages of 19 to 21
(corresponding to the club category 2 of X).
In this respect, the Chamber noticed that X has erroneously based its calculation on the club
category of Y.
That is, in accordance with article 7.3 of the Application Regulations and the said circular
letter the calculation shall be based on the costs of the country in which the new club is
located.
Therefore, X being a 2nd category club, the amount of training compensation is obtained by
multiplying the amount corresponding to the category of the training club for which the
player was registered by the number of years of training from 12 to 21 (cf. art. 7.1 of the
Application Regulations) based on the costs of 2nd category clubs in the Netherlands.
Consequently, X is entitled to receive training compensation to the total amount of EUR
120,000 (2 seasons x EUR 60,000).
The Chamber decided to reject X’s claim for payment of interest and reimbursement of legal
fees.
4
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, X, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Y, has to pay the amount of EUR 120,000 to the Claimant.
3.
The amount due to the Claimant has to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as
from the date of notification of this decision.
4.
If the sum of EUR 120,000 is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, the
present matter shall be submitted to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, so that the
necessary disciplinary sanctions may be imposed.
5.
According to art. 60 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 10 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:
Avenue de l’Elysée 28
1006 Lausanne
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:
Urs Linsi
General Secretary
Enclosed: CAS directives
5