Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 December 2009,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member
Jon Newman (USA), member
Philippe Diallo (France), member
Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member
on a matter between the club,
S,
as Claimant
and the club,
B,
as Respondent
I.
regarding the training compensation related to
the transfer of the player X
Facts of the case
1.
According to the information provided by The Football Association (hereinafter: The
FA), the player, X (hereinafter: the player), born on 9 September 1988, was
registered with its affiliated club, S (hereinafter: the Claimant), from 9 November
2004 until 9 November 2006 as an amateur and from 9 November 2006 until 30 June
2007 as a professional.
2.
The FA confirmed that the Claimant belonged to category I when the player was
registered with it.
3.
The sporting season in E runs from 1 July until 30 June of the following year.
4.
The player was registered with the club, B (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 23 July
2007 as a professional.
5.
The Federation G (hereinafter: the FG) confirmed that the Respondent belonged to
the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) during the season
2007/2008.
6.
On 1 October 2007, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming its proportion of training
compensation from the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant is requesting at
least EUR 180,000 and that the Respondent should pay “interest on the full amount
at 5% above bank base rate (…)”.
7.
The Claimant explained that its contract with the player was to expire on 30 June
2007 and that it made several offers to the player in order to further engage his
services.
8.
To support its arguments, the Claimant provided FIFA with a copy of a letter dated
16 May 2007, addressed to the player’s parents, by means of which it was offering
to re-engage the player’s services as from 1 July 2007 for a single year contract.
Additionally, the same letter was allegedly sent directly to the player in S. In this
respect, the Claimant attached a copy of the registered mail delivery coupon the
reference of which indicates a sending to the player’s address. Furthermore, the
Claimant also attached a copy of a correspondence allegedly sent on 21 March 2007
via fax to the player’s agent.
9.
In its reply, the Respondent stated that, in order to comply with the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Claimant should have offered
a contract to the player via registered post sixty days before the expiry of his current
contract. Therefore, since the Claimant offered a contract to the player on 16 May
2007, i.e. after the relevant time limit expired, it is not entitled to receive any
training compensation
10.
In its replica, the Claimant argued that it did offer a contract to the player within
the given deadline of the domestic Rules and Regulations applied by the Football
League and The FA. Moreover, the proposal was sent to the player at his parents’
address in H. Furthermore, the Claimant provided FIFA with a copy of an e-mail sent
2
by the alleged player’s agent dated 6 June 2007, in which the latter stated that
“they [the parents] are ready to support the following his playing career in S FC”.
11.
Additionally, the Claimant presented a copy of a correspondence dated 13
November 2007 allegedly sent by the legal representative of the Respondent which
states: “Accordingly, B has instructed us to eventually negotiate the terms and
conditions of a settlement agreement which would be mutually acceptable to both
parties.” According to the Claimant, it is contradictory that the Respondent was
willing to enter into negotiations as it also asserted that no financial obligation
existed.
12.
In its last position, the Respondent pointed out that the new employment contract
should have been proposed to the player within the given deadline of FIFA and not
the one given by The FA and the Football League. Since this argument had been
already raised by the Respondent in its previous position, and it has not been
contested by the Claimant, the Respondent stated that the Claimant acknowledged
to have offered the new contract without complying with the time limit established
by FIFA. Therefore, the Respondent stated that no training compensation is due.
13.
Subsidiary, the Respondent remarked that if the Claimant should be entitled to
receive training compensation, the relevant amount should be EUR 160,000 and not
EUR 180,000 as requested by the Claimant.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed whether it was competent to
deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, the Chamber first referred to art. 21
par. 2 and 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee
and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008). The present matter was
submitted to FIFA on 1 October 2007, thus before the aforementioned Rules
entered into force on 1 July 2008. Therefore, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
referred to art. 18 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’
Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) (edition 2005;
hereinafter: Procedural Rules) and concluded that the 2005 edition of the
Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
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 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, the club S, in connection with the transfer
of the professional player, X, to the club, B.
3
3.
Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered for the
Respondent on 23 July 2007, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be
applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed
that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players (editions 2009 and 2008), and considering that the present matter was
submitted to FIFA on 1 October 2007, the previous edition of the regulations
(edition 2005; hereinafter: the 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 Claimant requested training
compensation in connection with the registration of a professional football player
with the Respondent, a club affiliated to the FG, on 23 July 2007.
5.
Equally, the Chamber took note that the Claimant had requested training
compensation based on the fact that the player had been registered for the
Claimant for the period comprehended between 9 November 2004 (season of the
player’s 16th birthday) and 30 June 2007 (season of the player’s 18th birthday).
6.
In continuation, the Chamber recalled 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.
7.
Furthermore, the Chamber noted that art. 6 of Annex 4 of the Regulations
establishes special provisions for clubs which belong to an association inside the
territory of the EU/EEA. Since E as well as I belong to the EU, the aforementioned
article is applicable to the matter at hand.
8.
According to art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is
only payable if the former club can justify that it offered the player a contract in
writing via registered post at least 60 days before the expiry of his current contract.
9.
In this respect, the Chamber took note that the contract signed between the
Claimant and the player expired on 30 June 2007.
10.
Additionally, the Claimant allegedly negotiated with the player’s agent in March
2007. Therefore, on 21 March 2007, it allegedly sent, via fax, a correspondence to
the player’s agent, offering the player a new contract.
11.
The Chamber consequently noted that the contract offer was addressed to the
player’s agent and not to the player itself as established in art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4
of the Regulations.
4
12.
Furthermore, on 16 May 2007, the Claimant apparently sent a registered letter to
the player offering him a new contract as from July 2007. In this regard, the
Chamber could verify that the said letter is bearing the address of the player’s
parents in H, but that no copy of the said letter bearing the player’s address in E
was transmitted. However, it is to be noted that the Claimant presented two
documents evidencing the delivery, on 19 May 2007, in E, of a registered letter at
the player’s address.
13.
In this context, the Chamber noted that the Claimant’s registered letter dated 16
May 2007, i.e. 46 days prior to the expiry of the player’s current contract on 30 June
2007, and addressed to the player, was delivered to the player on 19 May 2007, i.e.
43 days prior to the expiry of the above-mentioned contract.
14.
In light of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant is not entitled to
receive any training compensation from the Respondent since it undoubtedly did
not offer the player a contract 60 days before the expiry of his current contract.
15.
Taking into account all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant’s
demand for training compensation has to be rejected.
16.
On account of the foregoing and concluding its deliberations in the present affair,
the Chamber did not deem it appropriate to enter into the substance of the other
arguments raised by the parties to the dispute.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
The claim of the Claimant, S, is rejected.
*****
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).
5
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
6