Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 9 January 2009,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member
Carlos Soto (Chile), member
Philippe Diallo (France), member
Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member
on a matter between the club,
S,
as Claimant
and the club,
F,
as Respondent
regarding a training compensation dispute related to the
transfer of the player K.
I.
Facts
1.
The player K (hereinafter: the player) was born on March 1985.
2.
The G Football Association has confirmed that the player was registered with the
club S (hereinafter: the Claimant) from 5 May 2001 to 27 July 2006 as an amateur.
The G Football Association has also indicated that the football season during this
period started at the beginning of March and ended at the end of December.
3.
On 25 July 2006 the Claimant and the club F (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed
a transfer agreement concerning the player. In particular, it was stipulated that
the Respondent will pay USD 40,000 “for the transfer of the player” from the
Claimant to the Respondent. The contract mentions that the parties must respect
FIFA and UEFA regulations with regard to the player’s transfer.
4.
According to the H Football Federation, the player was registered with the
Respondent as a professional on 16 August 2006. The H Football Federation has
further confirmed that the Respondent belongs to category 2 (UEFA: indicative
amount of EURO 60,000 per year).
5.
On 1 August 2006 the player and the Respondent signed a professional contract
running from 1 August 2006 to 30 June 2010.
6.
On 22 January 2007 the Claimant contacted FIFA to claim training compensation
from the Respondent for the player.
7.
In a fax dated 29 January 2007, the Respondent replied to the claim alleging that
the Claimant had confirmed that the compensation paid at the time of the
player’s transfer was final and that the Claimant would not request any other
payments or compensation for the player. Therefore, the Respondent considers
that it has fulfilled all its obligations towards the Claimant. However, the
Respondent has not submitted any proof in support of its allegations.
8.
In a letter dated 10 August 2007 the Claimant substantiated its complaint, seeking
EUR 314,200 in training compensation from the Respondent. The Claimant also
seeks 5% interest on this amount from July 2006.
9.
Furthermore, the Claimant replied to the Respondent’s statement by alleging that
the transfer agreement signed by the Respondent and the Claimant does not
stipulate that the payment of USD 40,000 includes training compensation for the
player. The Claimant also asserts that paragraph V of the transfer agreement
clearly states that the two parties to the contract are obliged to respect the rules
and regulations of FIFA and UEFA with regard to the player’s transfer.
10.
In a letter dated 20 August 2007, the Respondent reiterated its position and
asserted that the transfer was in line with the regulations and that the transfer
had been finalised without the need for further compensation of any kind. As
2
attached to this letter, the Respondent submitted an “annexe to the transfer
agreement” allegedly concluded by the two clubs on 25 July 2006 and bearing
both clubs’ signatures, which contains the following clause:
“[The Claimant] is confirming that they will not ask for any training
compensation or other compensations regarding the art. 20 annex 4 of the
FIFA Regulations of the Status and transfer of Players (edition July 2005).”
Furthermore, the Respondent has submitted a solemn declaration signed by the
CEO of the Claimant stating that it is not to receive any training compensation for
the player’s transfer to a European club and that it is only to receive transfer
compensation.
11.
The Claimant disputes the authenticity of these two waivers and alleges that they
are forgeries. The CEO of the Claimant also alleges that he never signed these two
documents.
12.
The Respondent has not been able to provide the original copies of these
documents and has not commented on them.
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 22 January 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 K.
3.
Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with his
new club on 16 August 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 2008), the edition 2005 of the Regulations for the Status and
Transfer of Players (hereafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
3
4.
In continuation, and entering into the substance of the matter, the members of
the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well as the
documentation contained in the file.
5.
First of all, the Chamber stated that, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations in
combination with art. 1 par. 1 and art. 2 par. 1 i) 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 a player is registered for the first time as a
professional before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
6.
Continuing, the Chamber noted that the Claimant claims EUR 314,200 in training
compensation and 5% interest on this amount from July 2006 from the
Respondent.
7.
However and in this respect, the Chamber recalled that on 25 July 2006 the
Claimant and the Respondent signed an agreement concerning the player. In
particular, it was stipulated that the Respondent will pay USD 40,000 “for the
transfer of the player” from the Claimant to the Respondent.
8.
Taking that into consideration, the Chamber stated that according to its well
established jurisprudence if two parties conclude a transfer agreement providing,
inter alia, for the respective financial obligations, i.e. the transfer compensation,
training compensation is considered as being included in the transfer
compensation. If the parties wish to stipulate the contrary to the aforementioned,
i.e. training compensation being due in addition to the agreed transfer
compensation, they need to explicitly mention it in the transfer agreement.
9.
Therefore, the Chamber, applying the above-mentioned jurisprudence, concluded
that since the Claimant did not present contrary evidence, in particular no
corresponding arrangement in the relevant transfer agreement, training
compensation is considered as included in the transfer compensation in the
present case. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that, in accordance with the
principle of burden of proof, it would have been up to the Claimant to prove that
the training compensation was not included in the relevant transfer compensation
(cf. also art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules).
10.
Consequently, the members of the Chamber unanimously decided to reject the
Claimant’s claim.
11.
Finally and for the sake of good order, the Chamber emphasized that the question
of authenticity of the two waivers submitted by the Respondent did not influence
in any way the present situation, in which the training compensation is to be
deemed as included in the transfer compensation. The fact that the waivers might
not have been signed by the relevant persons does not itself turn around the
4
principle and the burden of proof still lays on the Claimant with regard to proving
the fact that the parties wanted to exclude training compensation from the
transfer agreement concluded.
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).
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
Enclosed: CAS directives
5