Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 May 2010,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Gerardo Movilla (Spain), member
David Mayebi (Cameroon), member
Thilina Panditharathne (Sri Lanka), member
Essa M. Al-Housani (United Arab Emirates), member
on the claim presented by the club,
D,
as Claimant
against the club,
K,
as Respondent
regarding a training compensation dispute
related to the transfer of the player M
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The Football Federation C (hereinafter: FFC) confirmed that the player, M
(hereinafter: the player), born on 14 May 1986, was registered with its affiliated
club D (hereinafter: the Claimant) as from 6 May 1996 until 26 March 2004 as an
amateur.
2.
In the middle of the season 2003/2004 the player was transferred, on a loan basis,
to the club A as an amateur, where he played until the end of the season
2004/2005. Thereafter, the player attended several test trainings with different
clubs during the season 2005/2006.
3.
The Football Federation X (hereinafter: FFX) confirmed that the player was
registered with its affiliated club, U as from 2 October 2006 until 5 February 2008
as an amateur.
4.
The football season in the country C runs from March until February of the
following year.
5.
The player was registered with the club K (hereinafter: the Respondent) on
5 February 2008 as a professional.
6.
The Football Federation T (hereinafter: FFT) confirmed that the Respondent
belonged to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year within
UEFA) during the season 2007/2008 when the player was registered with the said
club.
7.
On 8 May 2008, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training
compensation from the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant is requesting the
amount of EUR 205,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from the date the payment should
have been made.
8.
In its reply, the Respondent explained that the Claimant was not entitled to
receive any training compensation. Furthermore, the Respondent provided a copy
of a letter dated 15 June 2009 apparently issued by the FFC, which states that the
Claimant has not been affiliated to the FFC for approximately five years.
Nevertheless, the Respondent also provided a copy of the player’s passport of the
player M issued by the FFC, which confirms that, the player was registered with the
Claimant.
2
9.
Having received different player’s passports issued by the FFC, but transmitted to
FIFA either by the Claimant or by the Respondent, FIFA contacted the FFC in order
to receive an official player’s passport as well as to confirm whether the Claimant
was affiliated to the FFC.
10.
On 3 September 2009, the FFC provided FIFA with an official player’s passport of
the captioned player and confirmed that the Claimant was currently affiliated to
the FFC as well as at the time when the Claimant lodged its claim in front of FIFA
and that the said club was indeed regularly participating in the youth
championship.
11.
Finally, the Respondent maintained its previous position and stated that it is in
doubt about the authenticity of the documents contained on file.
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, the Chamber 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; hereinafter: the
Rules). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 8 May 2008, thus before the
aforementioned Rules entered into force on 1 July 2008. Therefore, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber concluded that the 2005 edition of the Rules is applicable to
the matter at hand (cf. art. 18 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules; edition 2005).
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Rules,
which states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its jurisdiction in
the light of art. 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(editions 2008 and 2009). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with
art. 22 lit. d) of the aforementioned Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
is competent to decide on the present litigation concerning the training
compensation between clubs belonging to different associations for the training
and education of the player M.
3.
Furthermore, the Chamber 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 Chamber referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2008 and
2009) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the player was registered for the
Respondent on 5 February 2008 as a professional. In view of the aforementioned,
the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that the 2005 edition of the
3
Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (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. In this respect,
the members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case as
well as the documentation contained in the file.
5.
First and foremost, the Chamber stated that, as established in art. 20 of the
Regulations in combination with art. 1 par. 1 and art. 2 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations, training compensation is payable, as a general rule, for training
incurred between the age of 12 and 21 when a player 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.
6.
In view of the above, the Chamber recalled that based on the documents at
disposal, the player, born on 14 May 1986, was registered for the Claimant as from
6 May 1996 until 26 March 2004 as an amateur, i.e. the seasons comprehended
between the player’s 10th and 18th birthday, and that the C football season ran,
during the relevant seasons, from March until February of the following year.
Furthermore, the Chamber duly noted that the player was transferred to the club
A as an amateur, where he stayed on loan until the end of the season 2004/2005.
Equally, the Chamber remarked that according to a statement of the FFX, the
player was registered with its affiliated club, U, as an amateur as from 2 October
2006 until 5 February 2008.
7.
In continuation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber duly noted that, on the one
hand, the Claimant is requesting, inter alia, training compensation for the training
and education of the player from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 205,000,
and, on the other hand, that the Respondent contested the Claimant’s entitlement
to receive any training compensation.
8.
Moreover, in view of the Respondent’s assertion, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
emphasized that with regard to the payment of the training compensation, and in
line with the contents of art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the relevant
fact to be taken into account is either the first registration of the player as a
professional, or the transfer of a professional between clubs of two different
associations whether during or at the end of his contract, both before the end of
the season of his 23rd birthday.
9.
In this regard, the Chamber took due note that the Respondent, in order to
underline its position, provided FIFA on 27 July 2009 with a document apparently
4
issued by the FFC dated 15 June 2009, according to which the Claimant has not
been affiliated to the FFC for approximately five years. Moreover, the Respondent
enclosed to its correspondence a player’s passport which contradicted the player’s
passport provided by the Claimant, even though both player’s passports seemed to
have been issued by the FFC.
10.
In view of the above, the Chamber noted that FIFA contacted the FFC in order to
receive an official player’s passport of the captioned player as well as an official
confirmation as to whether the Claimant was affiliated to the FFC at the time
when it lodged its claim.
11.
In this regard, the members of the Chamber duly noted that the FFC provided FIFA
on 3 September 2009 with an official player’s passport and confirmed that the
Claimant was duly affiliated to its association when it lodged its claim.
Additionally, the FFC also pointed out that the Claimant was regularly
participating in the youth championship during the seasons 2007/2008 and
2008/2009.
12.
On account of the foregoing and on the basis of the latest official documents at
their disposal, the members of the Chamber concluded that the Claimant was duly
affiliated to the FFC and was consequently in a position to claim training
compensation for the education and training of the player.
13.
In view of the above, and given that the player had always been registered as an
amateur prior to his registration with the Respondent (cf. supra I. points 2. and 3.),
the Chamber concluded that the player was registered as a professional for the
first time with the Respondent on 5 February 2008. In this regard, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber recalled the provisions set out in art. 20 of the Regulations
and art. 2 and art. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations regarding training
compensation, and considered that the Respondent is liable to pay training
compensation to the Claimant.
14.
In continuation, after having fully established the Claimant’s entitlement to
training compensation, the Chamber proceeded to the calculation of the relevant
amount of training compensation to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant.
In this respect, it acknowledged the fact that the player in question was born on
14 May 1986 and had been registered with the Claimant as from 6 May 1996 until
26 March 2004, and that the C football season ran, during the relevant seasons,
from March to February of the following year.
15.
As a result and considering art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 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 Dispute Resolution
5
Chamber concluded that the effective period of time to be considered in the
matter at stake corresponds to the period comprehended between 6 May 1996
until 26 March 2004, i.e. during the entire seasons 1998 until 2003 and three
months of the season 2004, which corresponds to the seasons of the player’s 12th
to 18th birthdays.
16.
Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber deemed fundamental to recall the specific provisions of art. 5
par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, according to which, “To ensure that
training compensation for very young players is not set at unreasonably high
levels, the training costs for players for the seasons between their 12th and 15th
birthdays (i.e. four seasons) shall be based on the training and education costs of
category 4 clubs”.
17.
In view of the above, the Chamber ruled that the training costs for the seasons
1998 until 2001, i.e. the seasons of the player’s 12th to 15th birthdays, were to be
based on the training and education costs of a category IV club.
18.
In this respect, the Chamber recalled that according to FIFA circular letter no. 959
dated 16 March 2005, the indicative amount per season for a category IV club
within the Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) was of
EUR 10,000.
19.
In continuation and turning their attention to the seasons 2002 until 2004, the
Chamber referred to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of Annexe 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. Therefore, the
compensation to be paid is to be calculated based on the training costs of the new
club multiplied by the number of years of training with the former club.
20.
The Chamber acknowledged that the FFT confirmed that the Respondent was a
category II club at the time when the player was registered as a professional, i.e.
on 5 February 2008. Consequently, the Chamber took into account that the
indicative training costs for a category II club and member of a national
association affiliated to the UEFA amount to EUR 60,000.
21.
Equally, the Chamber emphasized that according to art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of
the Regulations, the deadline for payment of training compensation is 30 days
following the registration of the professional with the new association.
22.
In view of the applicable provisions and of the facts of the present case, and
having proceeded to the relevant calculation in view of the dates of registration of
the player with the Claimant, the members of the Chamber came to the conclusion
6
that the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation from the
Respondent in an amount of EUR 175,000 plus 5% interest per year on the said
amount as from 7 March 2008 until the effective date of payment.
23.
Thus, in view of all of the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the
claim of the Claimant, with regard to the amount of training compensation to be
paid by the Respondent, is partially accepted.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, D, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, K, has to pay to the Claimant, D, the amount of EUR 175,000 plus
5% interest per year on the said amount as from 7 March 2008 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 aforementioned
deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s
Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
4.
The Claimant, D, is directed to inform the Respondent, K, immediately and directly
of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the
Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
5.
Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, D, are rejected.
*****
7
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
__________________________________
Markus Kattner
Deputy Secretary General
Enclosed: CAS directives
8