Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 May 2011,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman ad interim
Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member
Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member
Ivan Gazidis (England), member
Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member
on a matter between the club
A,
as Claimant
and the club
S,
as Respondent
regarding a training compensation dispute related to
the transfer of the player G
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the player passport, issued by the Football Federation B (FFB) and
rectified on 8 October 2008, the player G (hereinafter: the player), born on 27
December 1990, was not registered (“no record found”) with any club until 10
March 2004, date on which he was then registered with the club E until 4 April
2005. From 4 April until 9 May 2005, the player was then registered with the club
T, and as from 10 May 2005 until 31 December 2006 with the club, A (hereinafter:
the Claimant). The player always had amateur status in country B. However, said
player passport does not include any registration data between 1 January and 23
September 2007.
2.
The football season in country B follows the calendar year, i.e. it lasts from January
to December.
3.
On 24 September 2007, the player was registered with the club, S (hereinafter: the
Respondent) as a professional.
4.
The Football Federation P (FFP) confirmed that the Respondent belonged to
category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year), when the player was
registered with it.
5.
On 29 April 2009, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of the
training compensation from the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant requested
EUR 66,416, plus 5% interest per annum from the day on which the payment of
the training compensation became effectively due.
6.
In its reply, the Respondent alleged that the player was not registered with the
Claimant from 10 May 2005 until 31 December 2005 and from 1 January until
31 December 2006. According to the Respondent, it had asked the Football
Federation B for the player’s history before it registered the player. In this respect,
the Respondent provided a letter of the Football Federation P, informing that the
player does not appear in the records of the Football Federation B, as well as a
correspondence of the Football Federation B dated 27 August 2007, in which the
latter declared not to have any registration data about the player. According to
the Respondent, it is not responsible to pay training compensation if the Football
Federation B created a new player passport.
2
7.
In its rejoinder, the Claimant stated that the Football Federation B has no control
about the registration details of amateur players. Furthermore, the Claimant
provided FIFA with a player passport issued by the Football Federation B, as well as
with a letter of the “Association P of Football”, which is an entity connected to the
Football Federation B, confirming that the player was registered with the
Claimant. Furthermore, according to the Claimant, the Respondent should have
asked the player about his football career. In this respect, the Claimant did not
believe that a club like the Respondent does not check the career of a player
before signing a contract with him. Moreover, it explained that the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players do not contain any rule
stipulating that the new club is not obliged to pay training compensation in case it
did not know the history of the player.
8.
In its final position, the Respondent stated that the Claimant’s argument,
according to which the Football Federation B would not have any control about
the registration details of amateur players, sustained that the recent player
passport issued by the Football Federation B is not correct. The Respondent should
not be responsible for the incorrect information of the Football Federation B. In
this respect, the Respondent pointed out that a club of another country would
have no alternative than to trust the statements of a national association.
9.
According to the Respondent, the Football Federation B should be responsible for
its incorrect information. The Football Federation B allegedly tried to mislead it.
First, the Football Federation B asserted that the player was not registered with
any club from country B and, after the conclusion of the contract with the
Respondent, it stated the contrary. Finally, the Respondent made clear that it
would never have concluded the first professional contract with the player if it had
known that the player had been registered with clubs of country B.
10.
The Football Federation B informed FIFA that the name of the player could not be
found in its records, since the “Football Federation B” did not provide it with the
registration dates of the minors. Furthermore, the Football Federation B referred
to art. 2 of Annexe 5 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,
which contains that the player shall assist the new club to establish his football
career. Therefore, according to the Football Federation B, the Respondent should
have asked the player.
11.
Upon FIFA’s request to provide any documentary evidence in order to establish the
complete player’s football career, the Claimant stated that the player was in
training in country P with the Respondent until his registration with it. According
to the Claimant, this is a common procedure of clubs, in case the player is not yet
18 years old.
*****
3
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber)
analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this
respect, it referred to art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of
the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008).
The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 29 April 2009. As a consequence, the
Chamber concluded that the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures
of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand.
2.
With regard to the competence of the Chamber, art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its jurisdiction in
the light of the articles 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2010). In accordance with art. 1 par. 1 of the aforementioned
Regulations, which describes the scope of the relevant Regulations, in connection
with articles 24 par. 1 and 22 d) of said Regulations, 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, G, in connection with the first registration of
said player as a professional for the Respondent.
3.
Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered for the
Respondent on 24 September 2007, 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, it confirmed that in accordance with
art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(edition 2010, 2009 and 2008), and also considering that the present claim was
lodged in front of FIFA on 29 April 2009, the previous edition (2005) of the
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 and started by
acknowledging the facts of the case, as well as the documentation contained in
the file.
4
5.
First and foremost, the Chamber stated that, as established in art. 20 of the
Regulations in combination with art. 1 par. 1, as well as art. 2 of Annex 4 to the
Regulations, training compensation is payable, as a general rule, for training
incurred between the ages of 12 and 21 when the player concerned 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 continuation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber acknowledged that the player,
born on 27 December 1990, was, according to the Football Federation B,
registered for the Claimant from 10 May 2005 until 31 December 2006 as an
amateur.
7.
Furthermore, the Chamber duly noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant is
requesting training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of
EUR 66,416 plus 5% interest per annum from the day on which the payment of
the training compensation was effectively due, and, on the other hand, that the
Respondent contested the Claimant’s entitlement to receive any training
compensation, arguing that the Football Federation B had confirmed that the
player was not registered in country B before the Respondent concluded the
employment contract with the player.
8.
In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of Annex 4 to the
Regulations, according to which the club, for which the player was registered for
the first time as a professional, is responsible for paying training compensation in
accordance with the players’ career history as provided for in the player passport.
9.
In continuation, the DRC also reminded of art. 5 par. 1 of the Regulations, which
stipulates that professional, as well as amateur players, must be registered with an
association to play for a club. In particular, the Chamber noted that said article
clearly points out that it is the responsibility of an association to register the
player. In the same line, the Chamber underlined that according to art. 7 of the
Regulations, an association has to provide its affiliated club registering a player
with a player passport indicating the complete player’s football career as from the
season of his 12th birthday.
10.
Furthermore, the Chamber took into account that the Respondent had asked the
Claimant’s association, i.e. the Football Federation B, via its own association, i.e.
the Football Federation P, for the player passport.
11.
Taking into account the above, the DRC deemed important to underline that the
Respondent absolutely complied with art. 3 par. 1 of Annex 4 of the Regulations
5
by asking the responsible entities, i.e. the Football Federation B and the Football
Federation P, in order to know the player’s career history.
12.
Reverting to the facts of the present case, the Chamber emphasised that on
27 August 2007, the Football Federation B had sent a letter to the Football
Federation P, confirming that it did not have any registration details regarding the
player. However, relying on this statement, the Respondent registered the player
as a professional on 24 September 2007.
13.
In view of the aforementioned, the DRC noted that the question if the
Respondent could rely on the Football Federations B’s confirmation is
fundamental to decide on the Claimant’s right to receive training compensation,
especially with a view to the Respondent’s decision to register the player as a
professional, since he was not registered before in country B.
14.
To that regard, the Chamber pointed out again that the Respondent proceeded as
foreseen in the Regulations by turning to its association in order to find out the
player’s history.
15.
In continuation, the DRC turned to the Claimant’s argument that the Respondent
should have asked the player about his football career.
16.
Following the argumentation of the Claimant, the Chamber noted that art. 2
par. 2 of Annex 5 to the Regulations stipulates for the solidarity mechanism in fact
that the player shall assist the new club in distributing the solidarity contribution
to the player’s former clubs.
17.
On this basis, the DRC referred to its previous decisions in which it had underlined
that a club registering a player cannot base its information regarding the player’s
career history on the player’s statement only, but has to turn to the respective
association.
18.
Taking into account the foregoing, the Chamber unanimously concluded that it
had no alternative but to follow its previous decisions stating that the associations
are the pertinent contact in order to receive correct information about the career
of a player. Therefore, it decided that the Respondent could rely on the Football
Federation B’s confirmation.
19.
In view of the aforementioned and also with regard to the legal certainty, the
DRC concluded that it was not acceptable for a club, which takes a player under
contract based on the confirmation of the previous association and trusting that it
would not have to pay training compensation, to be subsequently obliged to pay
training compensation.
6
20.
In continuation, the Chamber referred to the player passport issued by the
Football Federation B, which is the basis of the Claimant’s claim and noted that
said passport was rectified on 8 October 2008, i.e. one year after the registration
of the player for the Respondent.
21.
Taking into account all of the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasised
that based on the documentation at the time when the player was registered at
the Football Federation P, the Respondent had no reason to pay training
compensation. Consequently, the Chamber unanimously decided that the
Respondent could not be obliged to do so later, based on changed documents
issued by the same association.
22.
Therefore, the DRC decided to reject the Claimant’s claim.
23.
In continuation, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules,
according to which in the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Chamber
relating to disputes regarding training compensation costs in the maximum
amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the
parties’ degree of success in the proceedings.
24.
In this respect, the DRC reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is rejected.
Therefore, the Claimant has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front
of FIFA.
25.
According to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are
to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute.
26.
The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings
amounts to EUR 66,416 related to the claim of the Claimant. Therefore, the
Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings
corresponds to CHF 10,000 (cf. table in Annexe A).
27.
Considering that the case at hand allowed to be dealt with following a reasonable
procedure, that the present case did not show particular factual difficulty and that
it did not involve specific legal complexity, the Chamber determined the final
amount of costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 5,000.
28.
In this respect, the DRC took into account that the Claimant had paid the advance
of costs in the amount of CHF 2,000 in accordance with art. 17 of the Procedural
Rules.
7
29.
In view of all the above, and bearing in mind that the claim of the Claimant is
rejected, the Chamber concluded that the additional amount of CHF 3,000 has to
be paid by the Claimant to cover the costs of the present proceedings. Thereof,
the amount of CHF 3,000 has to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA.
*****
8
II.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, A, is rejected.
2.
The final amount of costs of the proceedings amounts to CHF 5,000, of which CHF
2,000 have already been paid by the Claimant, A. Consequently, the amount of
CHF 3,000 is to be paid by the Claimant, A, within 30 days of notification of the
present decision to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no.
xxx XX-XXXXX:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
*****
9
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
Encl. CAS directives
10