Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 5 December 2008,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member
Gerardo Movilla (Spain), member
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member
Caio Cesar Vieira Rocha (Brazil), member
on the claim presented by the club
A,
as Claimant
against the club
S,
as Respondent
regarding a dispute for training compensation in connection with
the player S.
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The Football Association of A confirmed that the player, S, born on 11 September
1987, was registered with its affiliated club A (hereafter: the Claimant) as from 8
March 2005 until 7 February 2007 as an amateur.
2.
The football season in A for U-20 amateur players lasts from January to December.
3.
On 8 February 2007, the player was registered with the G club SV (hereafter: the
Respondent) as a professional player.
4.
The Football Federation of G confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the
category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) during the season
2006/2007.
5.
On 14 June 2007, 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 (as from the season of the player’s 18th birthday until the
season of the player’s 19th birthday).
6.
On 23 November 2007, the Respondent contested the amount claimed by the
Claimant and deemed that the Dispute Resolution Chamber should adjust the
relevant amount since it is clearly disproportionate. In particular, the G club
maintained that only during the season 2006/2007 it had belonged to the category
III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) in the sense of art. 4 Annexe 4 of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereafter: the Regulations).
Moreover, the Respondent affirmed that the player only played 622 Minutes
during the season 2006/2007 and that by the end of the season 2007/2008 he
returned to S. Finally, the G club maintained that being the player also an I citizen,
EU-law applies and in accordance with a decision of a G court from the year 2005
the provisions relating to training compensation are null and void.
7.
On 2 April 2008, the Claimant referred to its previous correspondence and added
that neither did the Respondent corroborate any of its allegations, nor would any
of the arguments put forward by the Respondent interfere with its rights as per
the Regulations, to be properly compensated as training clubs.
8.
On 11 September 2008, the Respondent again referred to its previous position and
added that according to the Respondent’s tax advisers it had been investing per
year and per player the amount of EUR 620 (season 2003/2004), the amount of
EUR 812,50 (season 2004/2005)and the amount of EUR 737,50 (season 2005/2006).
Thus, if at all it would pay training compensation amounting to EUR 1,000 per
year, i.e. the amount of EUR 2,000 to the Claimant.
Both, the Claimant and the Respondent referred to their previous statements.
9.
2
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 14 June 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. 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 art. 22
lit. (d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2008) 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 8 February 2007, 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 2008), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 14
June 2007, the previous version of the regulations (edition 2005; hereinafter:
Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The members
of the Chamber started by acknowledging that the player born on 11 September
1987, was registered with the Claimant as from 8 March 2005 until 7 February
2007 as an amateur and that the football season in A for U-20 amateur players
lasts from January to December.
5.
The Chamber duly noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant is requesting
training compensation for the training and education of the player concerned
from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 60,000. On the other hand, the
Chamber took into account that the Respondent contested the amount claimed by
the Claimant and deemed that the Dispute Resolution Chamber should adjust the
relevant amount since it is clearly disproportionate.
6.
In particular, the Respondent pointed out that it only belonged to the category III
in the sense of art. 4 Annexe 4 of the Regulations during the season 2006/2007,
that the player only played 622 Minutes during the season 2006/2007 and that
being the player also an I citizen EU-law applies, and in accordance with a decision
of a G court from the year 2005 the provisions relating to training compensation
are null and void. Finally, the Respondent explained that per year and per player
it had been investing the amount EUR 620 (season 2003/2004), the amount of
EUR 812,50 (season 2004/2005)and the amount of EUR 737,50 (season
3
2005/2006). Thus, if at all it would pay training compensation amounting to EUR
1,000 per year, i.e. the amount of EUR 2,000 to the Claimant.
7.
Thereafter, the Chamber acknowledged that it is uncontested by the parties and
confirmed the Football Federation of G that the player was registered with the
Respondent as a professional on 8 February 2007 and that the Respondent
belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) during the
season 2006/2007.
8.
Continuing, the Chamber stated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 of Annex 4 in
combination with art. 2 of Annex 4 of the 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 two clubs of two different
Associations, before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
9.
In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that based on the documents at
disposal it can be established that the player in question, was registered for the
first time as a professional with the Respondent before the end of the season of
the player’s 23rd birthday.
10.
As a result, and considering the above point II. 4. as well as art. 3 par. 1 of the
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 Chamber concluded that the effective period of time to
be considered at the matter at stake corresponds to 23 months, the months of
March until December of the season 2005, the entire season 2006 and the month
of January of the season 2007.
11.
Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber
referred to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of the Annex 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 and thus it is calculated
based on the training costs of the new club multiplied by the number of years of
training with the former club.
12.
In this respect, the Chamber took due note that according to the information at
disposal by the time the player was registered as a professional with the
Respondent, i.e. in the season 2006/2007, the latter belonged to category 3
(indicative amount within UEFA EUR 30,000 per year).
13.
Yet, the Chamber considered that the Respondent deems that for the present
dispute the amount of training compensation is clearly disproportionate and
should therefore be adjusted. In this respect, the Chamber referred to the legal
principle of the burden of proof, according to which any party claiming a right on
the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the
Procedural Rules).
4
14.
In this context, the Chamber emphasized that the Respondent neither provided
any documentary evidence at all with regard that the player apparently only
played 622 Minutes during the season 2006/2007 nor that the player is also an I
citizen.
15.
For the sake of good order, the Chamber mentioned that the decision of a G court
to which the Respondent referred, which states that the provisions relating to
training compensation are null and void, refers to the rules of training
compensation contained in the regulations of the Football Federation of G.
Equally, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to reiterate that according to the
established jurisprudence and the applicable Regulations training compensation is
due in case a player signs his first employment contract, thus irrespective of the
period of time a player actually renders his services to the new club and/or appears
in matches.
16.
Thereafter, the Chamber emphasized that the G Football Federation confirmed
that the Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000
per year) during the season 2006/2007. Moreover, the Chamber considered that
the documents submitted by the Respondent, produced by its tax advisers refer to
the season 2004/2005 until 2005/2006. Yet, the present matter refers to the season
2006/2007, when the player signed his first employment and according to the
remitted information the Respondent belonged to the category III.
17.
Thus, the Chamber deemed that the documents remitted by the Respondent
cannot be considered as concrete evidence to corroborate that the training costs
payable by the Respondent are clearly disproportionate because the player signed
his first employment contract during the season 2006/2007.
18.
In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant is entitled to
receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 57,500.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, SV, has to pay to the Claimant, A, the amount of EUR 57,500
within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision.
3.
Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, A, are rejected.
4.
If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, an
interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiring of the fixed time limit and
the present matter shall be submitted upon the parties’ request to FIFA’s
Disciplinary Committee so that the necessary disciplinary sanctions may be
imposed.
5
5.
The Claimant, A, is directed to inform the Respondent, SV, 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.
*****
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:
Markus Kattner
Deputy Secretary General
Encl.
CAS directives
6