Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 November 2009,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Michele Colucci (Italy), member
Ivan Gazidis (England), member
on the claim presented by the club,
H,
as Claimant
and the club
L,
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in connection with
the player S
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The player, S (hereinafter: the player), was born on 17 July 1987.
2.
According to the player passport submitted by the C Football Federation (CFF), the
player was registered with the club H (hereinafter: the Claimant) as an amateur as
from 3 March 1999 until 17 September 2006.
3.
The football seasons 1998/1999 until 2004/2005 in C ran from 1 August until 31 July
whereas the football seasons 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 ran from 1 July until 30
June.
4.
On 18 August 2006, the X Football Federation (XFF) requested from the H the
International Transfer Certificate (ITC) for the player in order to register him with
its affiliated club, L (hereinafter: the Respondent). On 18 September 2006, the
relevant ITC was issued by H, and the player was registered by the XFF as a
professional with the Respondent on the same day.
5.
The Respondent was a category 1 club at the time of the player’s registration.
6.
On 16 November 2007, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the
Respondent regarding the payment of training compensation following the
player’s registration with the Respondent. The Claimant deemed that since the
player had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent, the latter
should have paid training compensation to it. As evidence that the player was a
professional while playing for the Respondent, the Claimant pointed out that after
the end of his contract with the club L, the ITC of the player which was issued, this
time by the XFF to H, mentioned that the former club of the player was the
Respondent and that the he was a non-amateur player with the said club.
7.
Consequently, the Claimant claims from the Respondent the total amount of EUR
345,000 as compensation for the training and education of the player as follows: 3
x EUR 10,000 for the period from 3 March 1999 until 3 March 2002 and 3.05 [recte:
3.5] x EUR 90,000 for the period from 3 March 2002 until 18 September 2006.
8.
In reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent acknowledged that it had
concluded a one-year trainee contract with the player on 4 August 2006, and
stated that at the end of his contract, i.e. at the end of the season 2006/2007, the
player had decided to go back to C where he signed an amateur contract with
another C club, Z (hereinafter: Z), for a duration of one year, i.e. for the season
2007/2008. After the expiry of his contract with Z, the player allegedly concluded a
contract, this time as a professional, with the Claimant, for the season 2008/2009.
2/12
9.
The Respondent did not deny the Claimant’s entitlement to training compensation
but deemed that the amount claimed by the latter is disproportionate. In this
respect, first and foremost, the Respondent stated that, contrary to the Claimant’s
calculation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber should take the amount of EUR
300,000 (i.e. 3 x 10,000 + 3 x 90,000) as a basis for the calculation of the training
compensation. Indeed, the Respondent pointed out that the player passport issued
by the H seems erroneous, since it mentions that the player was registered with the
Claimant until 17 September 2006, while the player signed the “trainee contract”
with it on 4 August 2006.
10. The Respondent subsequently affirmed that the DRC should ask itself whether the
amount of EUR 300,000 is reasonable and proportionate in view of the particular
circumstances of the present case, referring to art. 5 par. 4 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005). In this regard, the
Respondent is of the opinion that the DRC should take into account the fact that it
only benefited from the services of the player during one season (i.e. 2006/2007),
and that it was in fact the Claimant itself which had eventually benefited mostly
from the player, the latter club having allegedly signed a professional contract
with the player for the season 2008/2009, thus after a period of absence of only
two seasons, during which the Respondent had contributed to the training of the
player, having had him as a trainee for one of the two seasons.
11. Furthermore, the Respondent considered that according to X national regulations,
the player had not reached the sporting level of a professional since he had only
signed a “trainee contract” as opposed to a professional contract. In this respect,
the Respondent underlined that the player received a monthly salary of EUR 1,122
(corresponding to 85 points, each point being valued at EUR 13,20 during the
relevant season), whereas the minimum monthly salary of a player who signs his
first professional contract under national regulations is usually of EUR 2,640. The
Respondent also stated that the player had never played with the 1st team.
12. On a side note, the Respondent emphasized that it had not been compensated for
the training of the player for the season during which he was registered with it,
since, according to the H, the player, after having left the Respondent, registered
for Z under the status of amateur. In this respect, the Respondent contested the
veracity of the information provided by the H, in view of the fact that Z allegedly
plays in the second division of the C Championship. Therefore, the Respondent
requested this matter to be thoroughly checked.
3/12
13. In conclusion, the Respondent asks the Dispute Resolution Chamber to take all the
elements stated in its submission into consideration in order to reduce the training
compensation to a proportionate amount.
14. Upon FIFA’s request, H submitted a new copy of the relevant player passport,
which showed that the player was registered with Z, a category 4 club, as an
amateur, on 5 September 2007 and with the Claimant, a category 3 club, as a
professional, on 7 July 2008. The H also informed FIFA that the player had not
signed any employment contract with Z. In addition, the H presented a list of
matches of the C national team in which the player participated as of age category
U-15.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed whether it was competent to
deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter
was submitted to FIFA on 16 November 2007. Consequently, the Rules Governing
the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (edition 2005; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter
at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules, edition 2008, in
combination with art. 18 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in
combination with art. 22 lit. (d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2009) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on
the present litigation with an international dimension concerning the training
compensation claimed by the Claimant for the training and education of the
player S.
3.
Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with his
new club on 18 September 2006, the Chamber analysed which regulations should
be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in
accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players (edition 2009), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 15
November 2007, the 2005 edition of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of
Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
4/12
4.
In continuation, and entering into the substance of the matter, the members of
the Chamber started by acknowledging the established facts of the case and the
arguments of the parties as well as the documents contained in the file, and in this
respect, in view of the circumstances of the present case, first of all stated that the
following questions had to be tackled:
i.
Is training compensation due by the Respondent to the Claimant?
ii.
In the affirmative, which is the exact amount of the compensation?
5.
With regard to the first of these two questions, the Chamber stated that, first and
foremost, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations in combination with art. 1
par. 1 and art. 2 of Annex 4 of the same Regulations, training compensation is
payable, as a general rule, for training incurred between the ages of 12 and 21
when the player concerned is registered for the first time as a professional, or
when a professional is transferred between clubs of two different Associations,
before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
6.
Continuing, the Chamber took due note of the fact that the Claimant claims
training compensation for the training and education of the player, who,
according to the player passport issued by H, was registered as an amateur with
the Claimant as from 3 March 1999 until 18 September 2006.
7.
In this context, the Chamber recalled that the player had always been registered
as an amateur prior to his transfer to the Respondent in September 2006.
8.
Equally, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that, according to
information provided by the XFF, the player was registered with the Respondent
on 18 September 2006. Furthermore, the XFF indicated that the player had signed
a “trainee contract” with the Respondent.
9.
The Respondent, for its part, does not entirely deny the Claimant’s entitlement to
training compensation, but expresses the view that such compensation should be
reduced in view of certain particular circumstances. In this regard, the Respondent
underlined that it had only benefited from the services of the player during one
season, and that it was in fact the Claimant itself which had eventually benefited
mostly from the player, the latter club having allegedly signed a professional
contract with the player for the season 2008/2009, thus after a period of absence
of only two seasons, during which the Respondent had contributed to the training
of the player.
5/12
10.
Furthermore, the Respondent challenged the fact that the player should be
considered as a professional when being registered with it. Indeed, the
Respondent pointed out that according to X national regulations, the player had
not reached the sporting level of a professional since he had only signed a
“trainee contract” as opposed to a professional contract. In this respect, the
Respondent underlined that the player received a monthly salary of EUR 1,122
(corresponding to 85 points, each point being valued at EUR 13,20 during the
relevant season), whereas the minimum monthly salary of a player who signs his
first professional contract under national regulations is usually of EUR 2,640. The
Respondent also stated that the player had never played with the 1st team.
11.
Finally, the Respondent emphasized that it had not been compensated for the
training of the player for the season during which he was registered with it, since,
according to H, the player, after having left the Respondent, registered for Z
under the status of amateur. In this respect, the Respondent contested the veracity
of the information provided by H, in view of the fact that Z allegedly plays in the
second division of the C Championship.
12.
In view of the above, first and foremost, the Chamber pointed out that, in order
to determine whether training compensation was due by the Respondent to the
Claimant, it first had to address the issue of the status of the player upon his
registration with the Respondent.
13.
Thereupon, the Dispute Resolution Chamber proceeded to analyse the terms of
the relevant “trainee contract”, a copy of which had been made available by the
Respondent. In this respect, the Chamber took note of the fact that, according to
the said “trainee contract”, the player earned a monthly salary of 85 points.
Furthermore, according to the Respondent’s statement, the 85 points earned by
the player corresponded to a monthly salary of EUR 1,122, each point being valued
at EUR 13.20.
14.
In light of the above, the Chamber confirmed that in accordance with art. 2 par. 2
of the Regulations the player must be considered a professional player when he
was registered with the Respondent. Indeed, taking into consideration the criteria
set out in the stated art. 2 of the Regulations and the monies payable to the
player on the basis of the “trainee contract” (cf. points I.11. and II.10. above), the
player evidently received remuneration in excess of the expenses he effectively
incurred in return for his footballing activity. Equally, the second element
contained in the relevant provision, i.e. the existence of a written contract, is met
in the light of the signature of the “trainee contract” between the Respondent
and the player.
6/12
15.
In this context, the Chamber considered it opportune to stress that a player’s
remuneration as per the criteria set out in above-mentioned art. 2 of the
Regulations constitutes the decisive factor in the determination of the status of
the player and that the legal nature or the designation or classification of the
contract is of no relevance in this regard. This has been confirmed by the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in its decision CAS 2006/A/1177, whereby the Panel also
emphasised that the definition contained in the mentioned provision is the only
ground to establish a player’s status. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber
pointed out that according to the said decision the classification of a player made
by the association of his club is not decisive to determine the status of a player.
And, finally, that the remuneration in question may well fall short of a living
wage, but as long as it exceeds the expenses effectively incurred by the player, the
criterion of article 2 of the Regulations is met.
16.
Having stated the aforementioned, and given that the player had always been
registered as an amateur prior to his registration with the Respondent, the
Chamber concluded that the player in fact was registered as a professional for the
first time with the Respondent. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
recalled the provisions set out under art. 20 of the Regulations and art. 2 and art.
3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations regarding training compensation, and ruled that
the Respondent is undoubtedly liable to pay training compensation to the
Claimant.
17.
In continuation, and turning its attention to the second question, and having fully
established the Claimant’s entitlement to training compensation, the Chamber
proceeded to the calculation of the relevant amount of training compensation. In
this respect, it acknowledged the fact that the player in question had been
registered with the Claimant as an amateur as from 3 March 1999 until 17
September 2006, and that the C football season ran, during the football seasons
1998/1999 until 2004/2005, as from 1 August until 31 July, whereas the football
seasons 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 ran as from 1 July until 30 June.
18.
Having recalled the relevant facts mentioned above, the members of the Chamber
reverted to the Respondent’s argument that the player passport issued by H
seemed erroneous in view of the fact that it mentioned that the player was
registered with the Claimant until 17 September 2006, whereas the player signed
his “trainee contract” with the Respondent on 4 August 2006. In this regard the
Chamber could not back such position pointing out that from the documentation
on file it can be clearly established that the player had remained registered with
the Claimant until 17 September 2006 and then registered with the Respondent
on 18 September 2006 only.
7/12
19.
Thus, the Chamber held that the Claimant was entitled to receive training
compensation for the training and education of the player for five months of the
season 1998/1999, for the entire seasons 1999/2000, 2000/2001, 2001/2002,
2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006, and finally for three months of
the season 2006/2007.
20.
Having established the time frame of the player’s training and education by the
Claimant in view of the latter’s entitlement to training compensation, the
Chamber then paid particular attention to the amount of training compensation
due for each season.
21.
In this respect, the Dispute Resolution Chamber deemed fundamental to recall the
specific provisions of art. 5 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, according to
which, “To ensure that training compensation for very young players is not set at
unreasonably high levels, the training costs for players for the seasons between
their 12th and 15th birthdays (i.e. four seasons) shall be based on the training and
education costs of category 4 clubs”.
22.
In view of the above, the Chamber decided that the training costs for the
1998/1999, 1999/2000, 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 seasons, i.e. the season of the
player’s 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th birthdays, respectively, were indeed to be based on
the training and education costs of a category 4 club.
23.
In this respect, the Chamber recalled that according to FIFA circular letter no. 1031
dated 4 April 2006, the indicative amount per season for a category 4 club within
XXX was of EUR 10,000.
24.
In continuation and turning their attention to the 2002/2003 season and the
following seasons, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 5 par. 1 of Annex
4 of the Regulations, which states that “As a general rule, to calculate the training
compensation due to a player’s former club(s), it is necessary to take the costs that
would have been incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself”.
Moreover, par. 2 of the same article provides that, “Accordingly, the first time a
player registers as a professional, the training compensation payable is calculated
by taking the training costs of the new club multiplied by the number of years of
training (…)”.
25.
In this respect, the Chamber, recalled that the Respondent was a category 1 club,
as a result of which the indicative amount per season was of EUR 90,000 (cf. FIFA
circular letter no. 1031 dated 4 April 2006).
8/12
26.
Therefore, in view of the applicable provisions and of the facts of the present case,
and having proceeded to the relevant calculation in view of the dates of
registration of the player with the Claimant, the members of the Chamber
concluded that the claimed amount of EUR 345,000 would be payable by the
Respondent to the Claimant as training compensation.
27.
However, the Dispute Resolution Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent
had, on a subsidiary note, requested the Chamber to consider a possible reduction
of the amount of training compensation payable to the Claimant. In particular,
the Respondent alleged that the player had remained registered with it for only
one season, that he had never played in the 1st team and that the Claimant had, in
fact, benefited from the player’s services more than itself, the Claimant having
allegedly signed a professional contract with the player for the season 2008/2009.
The Respondent underlined that it had not received any training compensation
following the player’s registration with the club Z.
28.
In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, according to art. 5 par. 4 of Annex 4 of
the Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber may review disputes concerning
the amount of training compensation payable and shall have discretion to adjust
this amount if it is clearly disproportionate to the case under review. In this
regard, the members of the Chamber were, however, eager to emphasize that
such possibility allowed by the Regulations would, in any case, have to be analysed
on a case-by-case basis.
29.
In this context, and reverting to the Respondent’s arguments (cf. point II. 27.
above), the Chamber pointed out that, according to art. 20 of the Regulations and
art. 2 of Annex 4 of the same Regulations, and as pointed out by the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in the case CAS 2006/A/1189 Y FC & X Football
Federation, the player’s first registration as a professional before the end of the
season of his 23rd birthday is, in itself, sufficient to trigger the right of training
clubs to claim training compensation. Moreover, in the aforementioned case, in
which the CAS also dealt with a request to reduce the amount of training
compensation, the CAS highlighted that the Regulations do not set out any
minimum length of the contractual relationship between the player and the club
where he signs his first professional contract. In addition, the argument of the
alleged return of the player to the club that had trained him was considered
legally irrelevant.
30.
Regardless of the aforementioned consideration, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
established that the duration of the player’s stay with the Respondent, i.e. one
season, could not be considered as particularly short in view of the player’s young
age at the time of his registration with the Respondent. Equally, the fact that the
9/12
player never played in the 1st team could not be taken into account as a strong
argument in favour of reducing the amount of training compensation. Finally,
regarding the fact that the Respondent had not received training compensation
from the club Z, the Chamber emphasized that the CFF had clearly stated that the
player had been registered with the said club as an amateur and that he had not
signed an employment contract with it. In any case, the Chamber was eager to
point out that this had no connection with the Claimant’s entitlement to training
compensation and must be considered irrelevant.
31.
At this point, the Chamber also deemed it fit to point out that the Respondent
could have taken the precaution, prior to signing the employment contract with
the player in question and his subsequent registration as a professional, to verify
as to whether such acts would entail the payment of training compensation in
accordance with the Regulations and, in the affirmative, whether it would
consider such compensation as convenient (cf. CAS 2006/A/1189 Y FC & XFootball
Federation).
32.
On account of these considerations and in the absence of convincing arguments
and documentation in support of the Respondent’s request to adjust the amount,
the Chamber had no alternative but to decide that the amount of training
compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant could not be adjusted.
33.
In view of all of the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the
Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the claimed amount of EUR 345,000
and thus unanimously decided that the claim of the Claimant should be accepted.
*****
10/12
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, H, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, L, has to pay the amount of EUR 345,000 to the Claimant, H,
within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision.
3.
If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline,
interest at the rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiry of the stipulated time
limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s
Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and decision.
4.
The Claimant, H, is directed to inform the Respondent, L, immediately and directly
of the account number to which the remittance is to be made, and to notify the
Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
*****
11/12
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 63 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Encl. CAS directives
12/12