Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 March 2008,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Mick McGuire (England), member
Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member
Essa M. Saleh Al-Housani (United Arab Emirates), member
on the claim presented by the club,
X,
as “Claimant”
against the club,
Y,
as “Respondent”
regarding training compensation in connection with the player Z.
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The player, Z, was born on 13 January 1986.
2.
The player was contractually bound to X as from 15 January 2004 until 1 December
2005. In accordance with the relevant employment contract and its appendix, inter alia,
he was entitled to receive a monthly salary of EUR 1,700 and a signing-on fee of EUR
20,000.
3.
According to the … Football Federation the player was registered with X as from 14
May 2004 until 18 January 2006.
4.
X has been allocated club category 3.
5.
The x football season runs from 1 January until 31 December.
6.
In January 2006, the player moved from X to Y.
7.
The player, Z, was registered with Y club as a professional on 10 January 2006.
8.
Y has been allocated club category 3.
9.
On 1 June 2006, X lodged a claim for training compensation against Y in front of FIFA.
10.
According to Y, on 29 September 2005, prior to the expiry of the player’s employment
contract, it offered the player a new contract with better financial terms for the 2006
and 2007 seasons. A copy of the contract proposal including its appendix was
presented, which includes, inter alia, a monthly payment of EUR 3,400 in favour of the
player composed of EUR 2,600 for salary, EUR 400 for lodging, EUR 400 for TV,
telephone, food.
11.
Y also presented a copy of a written statement dated 29 September 2005 and allegedly
signed by the player, whereby the player allegedly acknowledges receipt of the
contract proposal from X for the years 2006 and 2007.
12.
Therefore, and taking into consideration the player’s age, X maintains being entitled to
receive from Y training compensation for the player, Z.
13.
Y, for its part, rejects this claim maintaining that the player never signed a contract
proposal and that this fact was confirmed by the agent of the player when Z signed on
with Y.
2
14.
According to Y, the signatures of the player on the documents presented by the
Claimant are questionable and the player denies having received any of the documents
presented by X. Furthermore, a comparison of the signatures on the various documents
allegedly shows that they are very different.
15.
X points out that the player refused to accept the contract proposal since he considered
the offered compensation not good enough.
16.
X further asserts that the signatures are of the player and that the alleged confirmation
by the player’s agent is not relevant and can have no legal impact on this matter.
17.
In its final position, Y reiterates its position once more pointing out that the player
firmly denies having received any contract proposal dated 29 September 2005 from X
and that the player contests the validity of the signature on the relevant document.
18.
On 14 September 2007, after careful study of the documentation at their disposal, the
members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that they could not yet pass a
formal decision and requested the FIFA administration to obtain the following
documentation:
o the original of the above-mentioned document dated 29 September 2005 ; and
o the personal and written statement of the player, Z, on the allegations of X
with respect to a contract offer.
19.
Subsequently, at FIFA’s request, X presented the said document dated 29 September
2005 and the player, Z, has personally presented a signed and handwritten declaration
dated 24 January 2008 in which he denies having received a contract proposal from X
and in which he attests that the signature on the “receipt” dated 29 September 2005 is
not his.
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 1 June 2006. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’
Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (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 Z.
3
3.
Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with his new
club on 10 January 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), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 1 June 2006, the previous version of the
regulations (edition 2005; hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
4.
In continuation, and entering into the substance of the matter, the members of the
Chamber started by acknowledging that the Claimant, X, maintains being entitled to
receive training compensation from Y for the training and education of the player, Z,
taking into account inter alia that it offered the player an employment contract prior
to the expiry of the employment contract that was in force at that time. The
Respondent, Y, for its part, rejects such claim alleging that the player denies having
received any contract proposal and that the signatures on the various documents
presented by the Claimant in this respect are questionable. Moreover, according to the
Respondent, the player contests the validity of the signature on the relevant document
which purportedly is his.
5.
Taking into account the conflicting positions of the parties concerned with respect to
the question as to whether or not X has offered a new contract to the player, and such
offer being of utmost importance in the case at hand in the light of article 6 par. 3 of
Annex 4 of the Regulations dealing with special provisions for EU/EEA member states,
the members of the Chamber firstly focussed on the question as to whether X indeed
must be considered to have offered a new contract to the player prior to the expiry of
the employment contract that was in force between Z and X at that time.
6.
Subsequently, the Chamber proceeded with an examination of the contract proposal
dated 29 September 2005 and of the “receipt” of the same date that were presented
by the Claimant in this respect. The relevant contract proposal does not bear the
player’s signature, which is in line with the argument put forward by Y which stated
that no contract proposal was signed by the player. However, in order for the abovementioned article 6 par. 3 to find application, it is not significant that such offer or
proposal be signed by the other party. The said article merely refers to the fact that the
former club must offer the player a contract. In support of its position that it did offer
the player a new contract, X has presented a “receipt”, which bears the same date as
the contract proposal and the alleged signature of the player as well as a signature of a
witness (no name indicated). The “receipt” reads as follows: “I hereby acknowledge
that I have received a contractproposal with X for the years 2006 and 2007.”
7.
According to the Respondent, the player denied having received any of these
documents and a comparison of the signatures on the various documents shows that
they are very different. In fact, so the Respondent, the player has contested the validity
of the signature on the relevant document which purportedly is his.
4
8.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber took due note of the player’s personal and
signed declaration dated 24 January 2008 in which he denies having received a contract
proposal from X and in which he attests that the signature on the “receipt” dated 29
September 2005 is not his. The Chamber also noted from the file that a similar
declaration by the player dated 21 November 2007 had been presented via the
Respondent.
9.
With respect to claims pertaining to falsification, the members of the Chamber deemed
it important to highlight that it is beyond the Chamber’s competence to determine as
to whether a document or signature has been falsified or tampered with. In fact, such
matters would fall within the competence of a penal court.
10.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of a party invoking arguments of
falsification, the Chamber, as a standard procedure, asks that the original of the
disputed document be made available.
11.
X, at FIFA’s request, presented the original version of the above-mentioned “receipt”.
Although, as stated above, it falls within the competence of a penal court to establish
the authenticity of a document, after a comparison of the signature on the “receipt”
with the player’s signature on his declaration of 24 January 2008, the Chamber was of
the opinion that essential parts of the player’s signature on these documents are
identical.
12.
However, as established in point II.9 above, the Chamber reiterated that it is not
competent to establish the authenticity of (part of) a document.
13.
On account of the above considerations, the Chamber decided to reject the arguments
put forward by Y and established that X had indeed offered a new contract to the
player, Z, on 29 September 2005, i.e. prior to the expiry of the employment contract
that was in force between X and Z at that time until 1 December 2005.
14.
Furthermore, after having studied the relevant documentation presented by X, the
Chamber acknowledged that the value of the offer made by X to Z exceeded the value
of the employment contract that was in force until 1 December 2005.
15.
The conditions set out in article 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations having been
complied with by X, the Chamber turned its attention to article 20 and articles 1, 2 and
3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations according to which training compensation shall be
paid to the player’s former club on each transfer of a professional between clubs of
two different associations until the end of the season of his 23rd birthday for the time
the professional was effectively trained by that club up to the age of 21, unless it is
evident that a player has already terminated his training period before the age of 21.
5
16.
On account of all of the above, the Chamber came to the conclusion that in accordance
with article 20 and article 2 and article 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations X is entitled to
receive training compensation from Y for the training of the player, Z.
17.
The Chamber then turned to article 5 paras. 1 and 2 of Annex 4 of the Regulations as
well as FIFA circular nr. 959 dated 16 March 2005 which provide details on the
calculation of training compensation. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that
article 6 par. 1 is not applicable since the player moved between clubs of the same
category, i.e. category 3.
18.
The members of the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 13 January 1986 and
that he was registered with X as from 14 May 2004 until 18 January 2006 according to
the .. Football Federation. The Chamber took into account that the x football season
ran until 31 December 2005. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that the amount
payable is calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of training that the
player spent with the Claimant. Furthermore, Y has been allocated club category 3,
which equals training costs in the amount of EUR 30,000 per season (UEFA).
19.
Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned elements, X is entitled to
receive training compensation from Y to the amount of EUR 50,000.
20.
Therefore, the Chamber decided that Y is liable to pay to X training compensation in
the amount of EUR 50,000 relating to the player, Z.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, X, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Y, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 50,000 within 30
days as from the date of notification of the present decision.
3.
If the amount due is not paid by Y within the aforementioned time limit, 5% interest
p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the said time limit and the matter shall be submitted to
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and decision.
4.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent directly and immediately of the
account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute
Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
5.
According to article 61 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
6
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:
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
7