Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 June 2011,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman (did not take part in the deliberations)
Carlos Soto (Chile), member
Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member
Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Z,
as Claimant
against the club,
S,
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in connection with the player D
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the player passport issued by the Football Association L (FAL), the
player, D (hereinafter: the player), born on 26 March 1991, was registered with
the club, Z (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 17 August 2002 until 27
September 2007 as an amateur. The player passport also indicated that the
Claimant belonged to club category III.
2.
The football seasons in the country L started and ended as follows:
02/03; as from 13 July 2002 until 17 June 2003
03/04; as from 19 July 2003 until 8 June 2004
04/05; as from 24 July 2004 until 15 June 2005
05/06; as from 16 July 2005 until 31 May 2006
06/07; as from 15 July 2006 until 30 May 2007
07/08; as from 14 July 2007 until 31 May 2008
3.
The Football Association E (FAE) confirmed that the player was registered with
the club, S (hereinafter: the Respondent), as a professional on 26 September
2007.
4.
The Football Association E also confirmed that the Respondent belonged to club
category I at the time of the registration of the player.
5.
On 2 November 2009, the Claimant contacted FIFA requesting the start of
proceedings against the Respondent in connection with the payment of training
compensation for the player.
6.
On 16 November 2009, FIFA drew the Claimant’s attention to the two years
limitation in time to lodge a complaint in front of FIFA, as outlined in art. 25
par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
The Claimant reverted to FIFA indicating that Football Association E had only
informed them of the player’s professional status on 25 June 2009. Furthermore,
the Claimant stressed that the first submissions to FIFA were made on 24 July
2009 and 17 August 2009, i.e. within the two year time period. Thereby, it
emphasized that the status of the player was missing from the player passport
sent by the Football Association L to the Claimant and that, thus, the Claimant
did not know whether the player was registered as a professional or as an
amateur with the Respondent.
2/7
8.
In this context, the Claimant submitted the correspondence dated 24 July 2009,
which was sent by the Respondent to the Claimant, Football Association E and
FIFA and which stipulated the following:
“Dear Mr X,
Mr. D
Thank you for your fax of the 20th of July, once again I would like to request your
assistance in obtaining a copy of the player’s passport from your national
association which was requested by the Football Association E on the 25th of June
2009.
This will enable me to then provide a thorough response to your request for
compensation. I look forward to receiving this by return.
Kind regards,
Yours sincerely
Y
Football Secretary”
9.
Equally, the Claimant submitted the correspondence dated 17 August 2009,
which was sent by the Claimant to the Respondent and in which Football
Association E and FIFA were copied. Said correspondence stipulated the
following:
“Dear Mr Y,
Thank you for your response.
I am happy to provide you with the copy of the Player’s Passport confirmed by
Football Association L. Once again, the bank account that shall be credited is:
(…)
Thank you for your cooperation.
With kind regards,
A
Manager for Administration and International Matters
Club Z”
10. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim asserting
that it had signed the player as a scholar after he had previously been on trial in
November 2006 with the Respondent’s written permission. In this context, the
Respondent stressed that it had never signed a professional contract with the
player. Moreover, the Respondent asserted that the player had terminated his
contract with the Claimant with just cause and was thus a “free agent”. The
Respondent submitted a letter of the player dated 28 February 2007 (which was
addressed to the Claimant) in which the player stated that, on 26 January 2007,
he had informed the Claimant that he wished to terminate his contract with the
3/7
Claimant, since the club had not respected the terms of his contract. Therefore,
the Respondent believed that no training compensation was payable.
11. In its replica, the Claimant argued that, on 26 January 2007, the player had
unilaterally terminated his contract without just cause. Moreover, the Claimant
stated that the player had rejected an offer for a professional contract and
stressed that it was interested to retain the player for the club, as he had proven
to possess the abilities to become a great player on both national and
international level.
12. In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated that the player had validly terminated
his training contract with the Claimant and that, based on the said termination;
the Respondent was entitled to enter into a scholarship agreement with the
player. Furthermore, the Respondent asserted that it followed all the correct
steps in order to register the player and that no objection was ever raised by the
Claimant or the Football Association L following the relevant request for the
International Transfer Certificate, which request, in fact, had remained
unanswered.
II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the
DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand and
noted that the Claimant had pointed out that FIFA was informed about the
present dispute on 24 July 2009, 17 August 2009 and 2 November 2009.
2.
In this respect, and, at this point, regardless of the question as to which of the
above-mentioned correspondences should be considered as the formal petition
lodged in front of FIFA, the Chamber noted that all three correspondences were
submitted after 1 July 2008. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter
at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules).
3.
Subsequently, the DRC referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in conjunction with art. 22 lit.
d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010) the
DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake relating to training
compensation between clubs belonging to different associations.
4/7
4.
Furthermore, 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 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
players (editions 2008, 2009 and 2010), and considering that the player was
registered with the Respondent as a professional on 26 September 2007, the
Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005, hereinafter:
Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
5.
Having established the above, the Chamber unanimously stated that first and
foremost, it is crucial to clarify the date of the submission of the formal petition
to FIFA, in order to establish whether the claim was brought to FIFA in due time.
In this context, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations, which,
in completion to the general procedural terms outlined in the Procedural Rules,
clearly establishes that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any
dispute if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the
dispute arose and that the application of this time limit shall be examined ex
officio in each individual case.
6.
In this context, the DRC duly noted that the player was registered with the
Respondent on 26 September 2007 and acknowledged that FIFA had received
correspondence from the Claimant on 2 November 2009, in which the Claimant
stated that it “(…) would hereby like to start the proceedings to receive the
training compensation for the football player D, born 26.03.1991, currently
registered with the club S (…)”.
7.
Equally, the Chamber duly noted that, after the Claimant had been notified that
its claim appeared to be time-barred, the Claimant underlined that Football
Association E had informed it of the professional status of the player on 25 June
2009 only and that the first submissions to FIFA were made on 24 July 2009 and
17 August 2009, i.e. within the two year time period.
8.
Turning its attention to the submissions dated 24 July 2009 and 17 August 2009,
the DRC analysed their content and considered that it was evident that the said
submissions were merely to be considered as correspondence exchanged
between the Claimant and the Respondent in relation to the issuance of the
player’s player passport. The said correspondences did neither contain a motion
or claim nor a request for FIFA’s intervention at that particular time. In fact, FIFA
was only in copy of the Claimant’s correspondence dated 17 August 2009 and
the correspondence of 24 July 2009 was sent to FIFA by the Respondent, not the
Claimant. In this respect, the members of the Chamber concluded that
correspondence exchanged between parties relating to the issuance of a
5/7
player’s player passport obviously cannot be considered as the submission of a
formal complaint in the sense of art. 9 of the Procedural Rules.
9.
The Chamber was comforted in its conclusion after a thorough examination of
the Claimant’s submission dated 2 November 2009, in which the Claimant, inter
alia, informed FIFA that it “would hereby like to start the proceedings to receive
the training compensation”. The Chamber was eager to emphasize that this
explicit request of the Claimant implied that prior to 2 November 2009 the
Claimant was aware that no proceedings regarding the payment for training
compensation had been opened against the Respondent nor had the opening
of such proceedings been requested by the Claimant.
10. As to the argument of the Claimant that Football Association E had informed
the Claimant of the professional status of the player on 25 June 2009 only, the
DRC stressed that it is the Claimant’s responsibility to follow the player’s
sporting career in case it intends to claim for any payment on the basis of the
player’s transfer to another club. More importantly, the members of the
Chamber underlined that, taking into consideration that the player was
registered with the Respondent on 26 September 2007, the Claimant had
sufficient time at its disposal to lodge a complaint in front of FIFA, as, on 25
June 2009, the two years period had not elapsed yet. Thus, the fact that
Football Association E had only informed the Claimant of the professional status
of the player on 25 June 2009, cannot be considered a legitimate justification
for the lateness of the Claimant’s claim.
11. In conclusion, the Chamber concurred that the Claimant’s claim against the
Respondent for the payment of training compensation was lodged in front of
FIFA on 2 November 2009, while the event giving rise to the dispute arose on 26
September 2007 i.e. the date on which the player was registered as a
professional with the Respondent. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that
the Claimant had brought its claim against the Respondent after the
aforementioned two-year period of time (cf. point II./5. above) had elapsed.
12. In view of all the above, the Chamber found that the Claimant’s claim for the
payment of training compensation must be declared barred by the statute of
limitations in application of art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations.
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
The claim of the Claimant, Z, is inadmissible.
6/7
*****
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
7/7