Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 11 March 2011,
by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge
on the claim presented by the club
O,
as Claimant
against the club
F,
as Respondent
regarding a training compensation dispute
related to the transfer of the player N
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The Football Federation P (FFP) confirmed that the player, N (hereinafter: the
player), born on 20 May 1988, was registered with its affiliated club, O
(hereinafter: the Claimant) as from 21 August 2006 until 22 August 2007 as an
amateur.
2.
Since the season 2000/2001, the sporting season in country P runs from 1 July until
30 June of the following year.
3.
The Football Federation P also confirmed that the Claimant belongs to category IV
and is a purely amateur club that participates only in amateur competitions
(indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year within UEFA) during the season when
the player was registered with said club.
4.
The Football Federation R (FFR) confirmed that the player was registered with the
club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 25 August 2007 as a professional and that
the Respondent belonged to category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per
year within UEFA) during that season.
5.
On 27 May 2008, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training
compensation from the Respondent since the player allegedly signed his first
professional contract with the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant requested
the amount of EUR 20,000 plus 5% interest per annum as from the date the
payment should have been made.
6.
On 24 September 2010, FIFA asked the Claimant to provide its comments
pertaining to art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations for the Status and
Transfer of Players, in particular, whether the Claimant offered the player a new
contract at least 60 days before the expiry of the player’s former contract with it.
7.
In this respect, the Claimant pointed out that it did not offer a contract to the
player, because the club participates in an amateur league. Also due to its lack of
financial resources, it was prevented, against its will, to offer the player a
professional contract. Finally, the Claimant argued that art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of
the above-mentioned Regulations cannot be applied in this case, since it was
impossible to offer the player a contract of “…at least of an equivalent value to
the current contract”, since the player was registered as an amateur.
8.
Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not submit any response
to FIFA with regard to the claim of the Claimant.
II.
Considerations of the DRC judge
1.
First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the
case at hand. In this respect, he first referred to art. 21 par. 1 and 2 of the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber (edition 2008). In this respect, he took note that the present
matter was submitted to FIFA on 27 May 2008, thus before the aforementioned
Rules entered into force. Consequently, the 2005 edition of the Rules Governing
the Procedures of the Players Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (DRC; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at
hand (cf. art. 18 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 and art. 22 lit. d) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010), the DRC shall
adjudicate on disputes relating to training compensation between clubs belonging
to different associations, in casu between a country P club and a country R club.
3.
In particular, and in accordance with art. 24 par. 2. ii) of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC judge confirmed that he may adjudicate in
the present dispute relating to the calculation of training compensation.
4.
Furthermore the 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, the judge referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010) and, on the other
hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged on 27 May 2008 and that the
player was registered with the Respondent on 25 August 2007. In view of the
aforementioned, the DRC judge concluded that 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.
5.
The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been
established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. He started by
acknowledging the facts of the case, as well as the documentation contained in
the file.
6.
In this respect, the judge recalled that the player, born on 20 May 1988, was
registered as an amateur with the Claimant from 21 August 2006 until 22 August
2007.
7.
In continuation, the DRC judge duly noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant is
requesting training compensation for the training and education of the player
between 21 August 2006 and 22 August 2007, i.e. the seasons comprehended
between the player’s 19th and 20th birthday, in the amount of
EUR 20,000 plus 5% interest per annum since the date the payment should have
been made. On the other hand, the DRC judge took into account that the
Respondent never took position in the dispute, despite having been asked to do so
by FIFA. Thus, the Respondent renounced to its right to defence and accepted the
allegations of the Claimant.
8.
In continuation, the judge stated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 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 a player 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.
9.
In view of the above, the DRC judge concluded that based on the documentation
at disposal it can be established that the player in question, born on 20 May 1988,
was registered as a professional with the Respondent in August 2007, i.e. before
the end of the season of his 23rd birthday, and thus, in general entitling the
Claimant to receive training compensation from the Respondent.
10.
Moreover, the DRC judge referred to art. 6 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, which
contains special provisions regarding players moving from one association to
another inside the territory of the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area
(EEA). According to par. 3 sent. 1 of the mentioned provision, training
compensation is only payable if the former club offers the player a contract or if it
can justify that it is entitled to training compensation.
11.
In view of the above, the DRC judge stated that, first and foremost, he had to
verify whether art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 of Annex 4 of the Regulations applies in the
present case as lex specialis, and if so, to determine if the Claimant had complied
with said provision in order to be entitled to training compensation and, in the
affirmative, finally, to calculate the amount of training compensation payable by
the Respondent to the Claimant, if any would be due.
12.
As far as the applicability of art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations is
concerned, the DRC judge first of all stated that, as the player moved from country
P to country R, i.e. inside the territory of the EU, art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the
Regulations is applicable. This fact does not appear to be contested by any of the
parties. Therefore, the DRC judge concluded that the aforementioned provision
applies in the case at hand as lex specialis.
13.
In this sense, the DRC judge emphasised once again that in accordance with art. 6
par. 3 sent. 1 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, if the former club does not offer the
player a contract, no training compensation is payable unless the former club can
justify that it is entitled to such compensation.
14.
To that regard, the DRC judge acknowledged that it is uncontested that no
professional contract was offered to the player by the Claimant prior to his
transfer to the Respondent.
15.
In this context, the DRC judge turned its attention to the Claimant’s argument,
according to which the above-mentioned provision does not apply in casu, since
the Claimant participated in an amateur league and due to its lack of financial
resources, it was prevented to offer the player a contract. Furthermore, the DRC
judge noted that, according to the Claimant, the player was registered as an
amateur and therefore, it was not in a position to offer him a contract of “at least
of an equivalent value to the current contract” as requested by art. 6 par. 2 of
Annex 4 of the Regulations.
16.
Considering the position of the Claimant, the DRC judge referred to the decision
CAS XXXX/X/XXXX club H/club E taken by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
on 7 February 2007, by means of which it confirmed the existing jurisprudence of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) as far as the applicability of art. 6 par. 3 of
Annex 4 of the Regulations is concerned. In particular, the CAS corroborated that
the first sentence of art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations does cover both
amateur and professional players (cf. point 8.8 of the aforementioned decision). In
fact, according to the Chamber’s jurisprudence and as confirmed by the CAS in the
relevant decision, the second and third sentence of the provision in question,
however, do only apply “to situations when a professional contract is already in
existence, setting out certain requirements which the training club must meet in
order to retain a right to compensation if a player moves to another club” (cf.
point 8.9 of the aforementioned CAS decision).
17.
Subsequently, the DRC judge specified that according to the jurisprudence of the
DRC, art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, i.e. the obligation to offer
a professional contract to the player, does not apply to purely amateur clubs,
which are per se not in a position to do so, but does definitively apply to clubs,
which have amateur and professional players.
18.
In this respect, the DRC judge recalled that the Football Federation P confirmed
that the Claimant belongs to category IV and is a purely amateur club.
19.
Consequently, and taking into account all the above-mentioned elements, the
DRC judge concluded that since the Claimant was a purely amateur club, the
exception to the exception stipulated in the last part of the first sentence of art. 6
par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand. As a
result, the Claimant did not have to meet the prerequisites of the abovementioned art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, i.e. to offer a
contract to the player, in order to be entitled to training compensation.
20.
On account of the foregoing, the DRC judge decided that the Claimant was
entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent.
21.
As a result and considering the aforementioned points II. 6. and 8, as well as art. 3
par. 1 of Annex 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 DRC judge concluded that the effective period of time to
be considered in the matter at stake corresponds to the period comprehended
between 21 August 2006 and 22 August 2007.
22.
Turning his attention to the calculation of training compensation, the DRC judge
referred to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of 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.
23.
In this respect, the DRC judge took due note that according to the information
provided by the Football Federation R, the Respondent belonged to category III
during the season 2006/2007 (indicative amount within UEFA of
EUR 30,000 per year).
24.
Equally, the DRC judge referred again to art. 6 of Annex 4 of the Regulations
which also contains special provisions concerning the calculation of training
compensation. In particular, the DRC judge recalled that the Football Federation P
confirmed that the Claimant belongs to category IV (indicative amount within
UEFA of EUR 10,000 per year) and stated that, in accordance with art. 6 par. 1 a) of
Annex 4 of the Regulations, the calculation of training compensation shall be
based on the average of the training costs of the two clubs.
25.
Moreover, and with regard to the Claimant’s request to receive 5% interest, the
DRC judge emphasized that according to art. 3 par. 2 of Annex 4 of the
Regulations, the deadline for payment of training compensation is 30 days
following the registration of the professional with the new association.
26.
Consequently and taking into account all the above-mentioned elements, the DRC
judge decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation from
the Respondent in the amount of EUR 20,000, plus 5% interest per annum on the
said amount as from 25 September 2007 until the effective date of payment.
27.
In this respect, the DRC judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is
accepted.
III.
Decision of the DRC judge
1.
The
2.
The Respondent, F, has to pay to the Claimant, O, the amount of EUR 20’000 plus
interest of 5% p.a. on the said amount as from 25 September 2007 until the date
of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this
decision.
3.
If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the above-mentioned
deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s
Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a formal decision.
4.
The Claimant, O, is directed to inform the Respondent, F, immediately and directly
of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the
Dispute Resolution Chamber judge of every payment received.
claim
of
the
*****
Claimant,
O,
is
accepted.
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 DRC judge
________________________________
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Encl.
CAS directives