Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 April 2006,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Carlos Soto (Chile), member
Philippe Piat (France), member
Jean-Marie Philips (Belgium), member
Wilfried Straub (Germany), member
on the claim presented by
the club, A, X
as Claimant
against
the club, B, Y
as Respondent
regarding a training compensation dispute related to the
./…
transfer of the player Z
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The Xn player Z, born on 20 September 1982, was registered as an amat..player
with the Xn club .. from 20 September 1994 until 11 September 1998, that is for 4
seasons between the ages of 12 and 15. The player was then registered as a nonamat..for 5½ seasons between the ages of 15 and 21 with A from 11 September
1998 until 3 February 2004. On this latter date, the player and the club mutually
rescinded the contract they signed for the period as from 4 February 2003 until 31
July 2006.
2.
The player subsequently was transferred from A to B on 9 February 2004 and
signed a non-amat..contract valid from 27 January 2004 until 27 January 2005.
3.
According to the classification of clubs outlined in FIFA circular no. 826 dated 31
October 2002, the club A belonged in the seasons 1998/99, 1999/00, 2000/01 and
2001/02 to category 3 (indicative amount ..30’000.00), in the seasons 2002/2003
and 2003/2004 to category 4 (indicative amount ..10’000.00).
4.
The club B belonged to category 3 (indicative amount ..30’000.00).
5.
On 3 September 2004, the club A lodged a formal claim in front of FIFA and
requested the payment of ..132’500.00 from B regarding the training
compensation for the mentioned player.
6.
In reply to the claim, B referred to an agreement dated 20 January 2004 and
signed by the player Z, his manager, licensed players’ agent Mr U and a
representative of B. In this agreement it was concluded that the player and his
manager would fully take at charge any compensation for training and education
of the player which may be claimed by the player’s former club, A. For this reason,
B refused any payment regarding training compensation.
7.
Furthermore, B submitted a copy of a letter dated 15 November 2004 and signed
by the player by means of which he declared that his former club, A, owed him
..20’000.00 based on their previous employment contract. As he got the
opportunity to change the club, he signed the agreement dated 20 January 2004,
based on which none of the parties would have further claims against each other.
8.
In this context, B also submitted a declaration, issued on 15 November 2004 by the
player’s manager, Mr U, wherein the latter maintained that the player renounced
to his indubitable claim against A and that he, the manager, paid to the former
president of A .. 10’000.00 and ..1’000.00 for all the potential future claims which
Training Compensation for the player Z
(A, X / B, Y)
2
the club A could have towards the player Z. Furthermore, he declared that at that
time, it was confirmed and agreed that the club, A, will not have any claims based
on the transfer of the player to B. However, no further documentary evidences
were submitted in order to corroborate this statements.
9.
Moreover, B pointed out that an insolvency procedure has been initiated on A and
hence only the bankruptcy executive is authorized to claim on behalf of the club.
10.
The club A explained in its reply that the agreement allegedly signed on 20
January 2004 does not concern its right to claim for training compensation since it
was neither a party to this agreement nor did it give its consent. In this respect, A
pointed out that this agreement was in fact edited after the club A had passed its
demand for training compensation to B, i.e. 13 May 2005. According to A, the
parties to the contract putted the date 20 January 2004 on the agreement while in
article 3 of the said agreement, they referred to the claim of A.
11.
Regarding the alleged insolvency procedure, the club A provided FIFA with an
official confirmation by the commercial court in .., stating that until 8 February
2005 no bankruptcy procedure was instituted against the Football club A.
12.
Furthermore, A rejected the player’s allegation that the club had any debts
towards him. The club emphasized that if there were any debts it would have
been indicated in the minutes when it cancelled the employment contract with
the player. In this regard, the club A provided FIFA with the withdrawal form
dated 26 January 2004, which the player had received on the same date, wherein
it is clearly stated that the club would ask for reimbursement of costs invested in
the player’s progress.
13.
Finally and with regard to the declaration of the player’s manager, A denounced
the manager’s reference to the deceased former president of A and rejected his
further statements.
14.
In its final statement, the club B referred again to the agreement signed on 20
January 2004 between the player, his manager and a representative of B and
refused to pay any training compensation.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Chamber analysed whether it was competent to deal with the
matter at stake. In this respect, it referred to art. 18 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules
Training Compensation for the player Z
(A, X / B, Y)
3
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber. The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 3 September
2004, as a consequence the Chamber concluded that the previous Procedural Rules
(edition 2001) on matters pending before the decision making bodies of FIFA are
applicable on the matter at hand.
2.
With regard to the competence of the Chamber, art. 42 par. 1 lit. (b) (iv) of the
FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2001) establishes
that, disputes concerning training compensation, will be decided by the Dispute
Resolution Chamber.
3.
As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is the competent body to
decide on the present litigation concerning the training compensation claimed by
the Claimant for the training and education of the player Z.
4.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber analyzed which edition of the
Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 26 par. 1 and
2 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005) in the
modified version in accordance with the FIFA circular no. 995 dated 23 September
2005. Furthermore, it acknowledged that the player had been registered for his
new club on 9 February 2004. Equally the Chamber took note that the claim was
lodged at FIFA on 3 September 2004. In view of the aforementioned, the Chamber
concluded that the former FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players
(edition 2001, hereafter: the Regulations) are applicable on the case at hand as to
the substance.
5.
In continuation, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber
acknowledged that on the one hand, the Claimant requested training
compensation based on the number of years the player spent training with the
Claimant and, on the other hand, by raising different objections, the Respondent
invoked that the Claimant is not entitled to receive any training compensation.
6.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the main
argument put forward by the Respondent is the agreement dated 20 January
2004, according to which the player Mr Z and his agent, licensed players’ agent Mr
U, allegedly agreed to fully take at charge any compensation for training and
education of the aforementioned player which may be claimed by the Claimant.
7.
The deciding body then went on to examine the relevant agreement on the basis
of which the Respondent refused payment of the claimed amount for training
compensation. In this respect, the Chamber noted that this agreement, inter alia
but vitally important, does not bear the signature of the Claimant. Therefore, the
Training Compensation for the player Z
(A, X / B, Y)
4
members unanimously concluded that the argumentation of the Respondent
cannot be backed since any possible financial settlement concluded between the
player in question, his agent and the Respondent cannot in any sense abolish the
Claimant’s entitlement to receive training compensation. In this respect, it was
emphasized by the members that the Claimant was not a party to the relevant
agreement. Moreover, the Chamber pointed out that, if at all, the Claimant would
have had the intention to renounce to its right for training compensation from
the Respondent by way of an agreement, the latter would need its written
consent, and it would need at least to bear its written signature, which, as
explained above, was not the case.
8.
In this connection, the members of the Chamber went on to deliberate the two
declarations dated 15 November 2004 and issued by the player Z and his manager
respectively, according to which it was allegedly agreed with the Claimant that it
will not have any further rights to demand for training compensation.
9.
In this respect, the Chamber mentioned that it cannot uphold the statements of
the Respondent to that regard, since the latter did not provide any written
evidences which could corroborate its statements to that regard. Moreover, it was
underlined by the Chamber that it was never established through the submissions
provided by the Respondent that the Claimant did waive its right for training
compensation by either a written agreement or by any other action.
10.
The deciding body finally added that the Respondent, while signing the
agreement with the player and his manager, would have to turn back to the
aforementioned parties in order to have the said agreement fulfilled.
11.
Subsequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber expressed itself concerning the
allegation of the Respondent that an insolvency procedure has been initiated
against the Claimant and that therefore, if at all, only the bankruptcy executive is
authorized to claim on behalf of the Claimant.
12.
The members noted that the Claimant provided an official confirmation issued by
the commercial court in.., based on which it is established that until 8 February
2005, no bankruptcy procedure was instituted against the Claimant.
13.
Therefore, the members stated that the objection of the Respondent has to be
rejected as unfounded.
14.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber then referred to art. 13 of the Regulations and
emphasized that, as a general rule, training compensation is payable up to the
player’s age of 23. In this respect, it was noted that at the time of his move to B,
the player Z was 21 ½ years old.
Training Compensation for the player Z
(A, X / B, Y)
5
15.
As a result of all the above, and after having duly considered all the
documentation provided by both parties, the members unanimously reached the
conclusion that the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation for the
training and education of the player Z as established in Chapter VII of the
Regulations.
16.
After having established the Respondent’s obligation to compensate the Claimant
for the training of the player in question, the members went on to deliberate on
the proper calculation of this compensation, affirming that the amount due shall
be calculated in accordance with the parameters provided for by the Regulations
and the FIFA Circular no. 826.
17.
In accordance with art. 5 par 1 of the Regulations governing the Application of
the Regulations (hereinafter: Application Regulations), the training period to be
taken into account for the calculation of the training compensation, starts at the
beginning of the season of the player’s 12th birthday and finishes at the end of the
season of the player’s 21st birthday.
18.
In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that, according to the relevant player
passport, the player Z, born on 20 September 1982, was registered with the
Claimant as non-amat..from the season 1998/1999 until the season 2003/2004.
19.
In light of the above, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to
training compensation for the period of 5 and a half seasons (season 98/99, season
99/00, season 00/01, season 01/02, season 02/03 and half of the season 03/04).
20.
For the sake of good order, the Chamber emphasised that art. 5 par. 5 of the FIFA
Regulations governing the Application of the FIFA Regulations must not be taken
into account in the present matter, since the case at hand does not involve two
clubs in the EU/EEA.
21.
In continuation, the members stated that in accordance with art. 7 par 3 of the
Application Regulations, as a general principle, compensation for training is based
on the training and education costs of the country in which the new club is
located. In this respect, and in order to clarify the sense of the mentioned clause,
the Chamber referred to the point 2b(i) of the FIFA circular no. 769 dated 24 of
August of 2001 and stated that, for the transfer of a player from a country outside
the EU or the EEA to a country outside the EU or the EEA, whenever training
compensation is owed, the compensation should be calculated based on the costs
of the country of the new club applying the category of the club which effectively
has formed and educated the player. Article 7 par. 1 of the Application
Regulations confirms the mentioned principle ("the compensation for training and
education shall be obtained by multiplying the amount corresponding to the
Training Compensation for the player Z
(A, X / B, Y)
6
category of the training club for which the player was registered by the number of
years of training from 12 to 21” [it is us who emphasize]).
22.
Then the Chamber observed that in accordance with the FIFA circular no. 826
dated 31 October 2002, which regards the categorisation of clubs, the Claimant
belonged in the seasons 1998/1999, 1999/2000, 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 to
category 3, thus the corresponding indicative amount for a third category club in
Europe is ..30’000.00. Furthermore, it was noted that in the seasons 2002/2003 and
2003/2004, the Claimant belonged to category 4, thus the corresponding indicative
amount for a fourth category club in Europe is ..10’000.00.
23.
Consequently, in application of art. 7 par. 1 and 7 par. 3 of the Application
Regulations, the indicative amounts mentioned in the previous point must be
multiplied by the number of years the player spent training with the Claimant. The
total relevant period of time to be taken into consideration equates to 5 and half
seasons between the ages of 15 and 21.
24.
Based on all the foregoing considerations, the Chamber concluded that the
Respondent has to pay the amount of ..135’000.00 to the Claimant as training
compensation for the training and education of the player Z.
25.
Nevertheless, the Chamber noted that the Claimant is claiming the amount of
..132’500.00.
26.
Therefore, and taking into account the legal principle “Ne eat iudex ultra petitum
partium” in accordance with which in a civil process the deciding body is bound to
the claimant’s claim, it was established that the Dispute Resolution Chamber can
therefore not differ from the requested in its award.
27.
As a consequence, and in application of the aforementioned principle, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber decided that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the
amount of ..132’500.00.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim lodged by the Claimant, A, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, B, shall pay the amount of ..132’500.00 to the Claimant, A, within
30 days following the date of the communication of the present decision.
3.
In the event that the due amount is not paid within the stated deadline, an
interest rate of 5% p.a. will apply.
Training Compensation for the player Z
(A, X / B, Y)
7
4.
In the event that the above-mentioned amount is not paid within the stated
deadline, the present matter shall be submitted to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee,
so that the necessary disciplinary sanctions may be imposed.
5.
The Claimant, A, is instructed to inform the Respondent, B, 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.
6.
According to art. 60 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:
Avenue de Beaumont 2
CH-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:
Urs Linsi
General Secretary
Encl.
CAS directives
Training Compensation for the player Z
(A, X / B, Y)
8