Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 13 December 2013,
on the claim presented by the club,
Club M, from country R
represented by the Football Federation of country R
as Claimant
against the club,
Club F, from country P
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in
connection with the player Q
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The Football Association of country R (FFR) confirmed that the player Q, born on 19
July 1989, was registered with its affiliated club M (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from
1 July 2008 until 2 December 2010 as a professional.
2.
Equally, according to the player passport issued by the FFR, the player was registered
as an amateur with the club K from country R on 7 February 2011. According to the
information contained in TMS, the player was de-registered with said club on 6
October 2011. According to the ITC issued by the FFR in favour of the Football
Federation of country P, the player was “formerly a member of club K”.
3.
The football season in country Rran as follows:
- season 2008/2009: as from 1 August 2008 until 25 May 2009;
- season 2009/2010: as from 4 August 2009 until 22 May 2010; and
- season 2010/2011: as from 5 August 2010 until 24 May 2011.
4.
On 15 January 2012, the player was registered with the club F from country P
(hereinafter: the Respondent), as a professional player.
5.
According to the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Respondent belonged to the
category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) during the season when the
player was registered with it.
6.
On 11 February 2013, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training
compensation from the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant is requesting the
amount of EUR 60,000.
7.
On 14 August 2013, the Respondent stated that, pursuant to art. 14 of the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), no
training compensation was due to the Claimant since, in accordance with a decision of
the FFR Players’ Status Committee, the employment contract was terminated due to
the “[Claimant]’s fault” on 2 December 2010.
8.
On 28 August 2013, the Claimant reiterated its claim, by stating that the player spent
more than two years with it before the season of his 21st birthday.
9.
As to the termination of the employment contract, the Claimant provided FIFA with
both the original and the translation of the relevant decision, passed by the FFR
Players’ Status Committee, and assessed that the contract was terminated “for sport
reasons without any consequences for [the Claimant]”.
10.
In this respect, the translated explanation of the aforementioned decision reads as
follows:
Training compensation in connection with the player Q
(Club M, from country R / Club F, from country P)
2
“The request of the player is accepted (…) This Committee received a request
to terminate the contract to the prejudice of [the Claimant] from East city of
E along with expressed wish to waive financial debt claims resulting from the
professional contract. (…) Considering the case and with intention to finally
resolve status of the player (…), this Committee, as a competent body, has
passed decision that professional contract (…) is being terminated based on
sport reasons without any consequence to [the Claimant]”.
11.
On 15 October 2013, the Respondent reiterated in full its argument. In particular, it
asserted that “art. 14 par. 4 of the Regulations” foresees, amongst others, sporting
reasons as a cause for the early termination of the contract.
12.
In addition, the Respondent stated that it is of the opinion that the expression
“without consequences” does not imply that the Claimant still has the right to claim
training compensation from the Respondent.
13.
Lastly, the Respondent underlined that the termination “was caused by the fault of
the [Claimant] as they had player Q debt”.
*****
II.
Considerations of the DRC judge
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber judge (hereinafter: DRC 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 11 February 2013. Consequently, the
2012 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 par. 2 and 3 of the 2012 edition of the Procedural
Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. (d) of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), he is competent
to deal with the matter at stake relating to training compensation between clubs
belonging to different associations.
3.
Furthermore, the DRC 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 2010 and 2012), and considering that
Training compensation in connection with the player Q
(Club M, from country R / Club F, from country P)
3
the player was registered with the Respondent on 15 January 2012, the 2010 edition
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations)
is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been
established, he entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, the DRC judge
started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well as the documentation on file.
5.
First of all, the DRC judge acknowledged that it is undisputed between the parties
that the FFR Players’ Status Committee declared the early termination of the
employment contract between the Claimant and the player on 2 December 2010.
6.
In continuation, the DRC judge took note that the Claimant maintained that it is
entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR
60,000, indicating that the player was transferred as a professional from the Claimant
to the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.
7.
Likewise, the DRC judge took note of the Claimant’s argument that, in accordance
with the decision of the FFR Players’ Status Committee dated 2 December 2010, there
would not be “any consequences for the Claimant”.
8.
The DRC judge went on to consider the Claimant’s submissions in this respect. By
doing so, he took due note that the Claimant interpreted the wording of the abovementioned decision in the sense that there would be no other consequence, apart
from the early termination of the employment relationship between the Claimant and
the player and, hence, the Claimant is of the opinion that it would still be entitled to
receive training compensation since the player was registered with the Claimant for
more than two years before the season of his 21st birthday.
9.
Moreover, the DRC judge took note of the Respondent’s allegation in this respect. In
particular, he underlined that the Respondent stated that the Regulations foresee
sporting reasons as a cause for the early termination of the employment relationship.
10.
Finally, the DRC noted that the Respondent, in its final submission, reiterated its
aforementioned statements and added that the player’s contract with the Claimant
had been terminated due to the fact that the club had debts towards the player.
11.
After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, taking into consideration all
the aforementioned arguments, the DRC judge observed that the parties, in
particular, disputed whether training compensation was due despite the early
termination of the employment contract between the Claimant and the player.
12.
In light of the foregoing, the DRC judge highlighted that the following issues needed
to be analysed in the present matter:
Training compensation in connection with the player Q
(Club M, from country R / Club F, from country P)
4
a) When is, in general, training compensation due?;
b) Does the early termination of the employment relationship between the
Claimant and the player as decided upon by the FFR Players’ Status
Committee affect the right of the Claimant to receive training compensation?
13.
When addressing the first issue, the DRC judge referred to the rules applicable to
training compensation and stated that, as established in art. 20 and art. 1 par. 1 of
Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 par. 1 lit. ii. 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 transferred between clubs of two different
associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday, either during or
at the end of the player’s contract.
14.
Equally, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 sent. 2 of the Regulations, which
stipulates that if a player re-registers as a professional within 30 months of being
reinstated as an amateur, his new club shall pay training compensation in accordance
with art. 20 of the Regulations.
15.
In this respect, the DRC judge considered that the player was registered with both the
Claimant and the Respondent as a professional and that the player was being reregistered as a professional with the Respondent within 30 months of being reinstated
as an amateur with club K. Hence, the DRC judge emphasised that the present
situation falls under the above-mentioned provisions.
16.
On account of the above, the DRC judge decided that the Claimant would, in
principle, be entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent, in
accordance with art. 2, art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
17.
In continuation, the DRC judge analysed whether the early termination of the
employment contract affected the right of the Claimant to receive training
compensation.
18.
In doing so, the DRC judge made reference to art. 2 par. 2 lit. i. of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations, which provides that training compensation is not due if the former club
terminated the player’s contract without just cause.
19.
In this regard, the DRC judge referred to the circumstances of the case and to the
wording of the decision passed by the FFR Players’ Status Committee. In particular, the
DRC judge noted that the player requested the FFR Players’ Status Committee to
declare that the employment relationship between him and the Claimant was
terminated. Equally, the DRC judge stressed that the player expressly waived his right
to receive any “financial debt claims”. Lastly, the DRC judge underscored that the FFR
Players’ Status Committee indeed declared the employment relationship between the
Training compensation in connection with the player Q
(Club M, from country R / Club F, from country P)
5
player and the Claimant terminated “to the prejudice of [the Claimant]” and “without
any consequence for [the Claimant]”.
20.
With those considerations in mind, the DRC judge concluded that it could be
established that the Claimant had not fulfilled its contractual obligations towards the
player, reason for which the player had requested to be released from the contract,
which request was subsequently granted by the FFR Players’ Status Committee. In view
of the foregoing and with reference to art. 2 par. 2 lit. i. of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations, the DRC judge decided to reject the claim of the Claimant.
21.
Lastly, the DRC 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 judge relating to disputes regarding training compensation, 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
that, in accordance with Annex A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings
are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute.
22.
In respect of the above, the DRC 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, he concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the
proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000 (cf. table in Annex A).
23.
As a result, considering the particularities of the present matter and the fact that the
present case did show some particular factual difficulties, the DRC judge determined
the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 10,000, which shall be
borne by the Claimant.
*****
III.
Decision of the DRC judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant, club M, is rejected.
2.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 10,000 are to be paid by the
Claimant to FIFA, CHF 2,000 of which have already been paid as advance of costs at the
start of the present proceedings. Consequently, the additional amount of CHF 8,000 is
to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA within 30 days of notification of the present
decision, to the following bank account with reference to case no. XXXXXXXXXX:
*****
Training compensation in connection with the player Q
(Club M, from country R / Club F, from country P)
6
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 67 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 DRC judge:
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Enclosed: CAS directives
Training compensation in connection with the player Q
(Club M, from country R / Club F, from country P)
7