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
Carlos Soto (Chile), member
Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member
Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member
on the claim presented by the club,
G,
as Claimant
against the club,
V,
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in connection with the player F
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation K (FFK) the
player, F (hereinafter: player), born on 26 December 1989, was registered with
the club, G (hereinafter: Claimant), as from 17 November 2004 until 30 June
2010. The player passport indicated that the player was registered with the
Claimant as an amateur in the 04/05 season, as an “aspirant” in the 05/06 and
06/07 seasons and as a professional as of the 06/07 season.
2.
The football seasons in country K during the period of time the player was
registered with the Claimant started on 1 July and ended on 30 June of the
following year.
3.
The Football Federation K confirmed that the Claimant belonged to the club
category I during the period of time the player was registered with the
Claimant.
4.
In accordance with the official confirmation of the Football Federation E (FFE)
the player was registered with its affiliated club, V (hereinafter: Respondent),
on 23 August 2010.
5.
The Football Federation E also confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the
club category I at the time the player was registered with the Respondent.
6.
On 7 October 2010, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA claiming the
payment of training compensation from the Respondent on the basis that the
player, at the age of 21, had signed a professional contract with the
Respondent, i.e. the player was transferred between clubs of two different
associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23 rd birthday. In
particular, the Claimant claimed the amount of EUR 502,500 from the
Respondent.
7.
In reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent referred to the decisions passed
by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in CAS 2003/X/XXX and CAS
2006/X/XXXX, and argued that the player had completed his training at the age
of 18. In view of the foregoing, the Respondent argued that the Claimant was
merely entitled to receive the amount of EUR 232,500.
8.
In support of its argument that the player completed his training at the age of
18, the Respondent submitted a copy of the employment contract signed
between the player and the Claimant, which ran from 1 July 2007 until the end
of the 09/10 season and indicated that the player’s gross monthly salary
2/8
amounted to EUR 3,500 as well as that the player would receive bonuses upon
the fulfilment of certain conditions. In the Respondent’s view, the salary and
bonuses in the said contract proved that the player already completed his
training before the start of the 07/08 season. Also, the Respondent referred to
several newspaper articles which indicated that various clubs were interested in
signing the player as well as to the player’s “performance data” at the time the
player was registered with the Claimant, which, in the Respondent’s view,
demonstrated that the player had completed his training before the start of the
07/08 season.
9.
In its replica, the Claimant rejected the Respondent’s assertion that the player
had completed his training at the age of 18. It stressed that, during 2008 and
2009, the player was only selected for 3 out of 26 matches of the K national
under-21 team and argued that if the player would indeed have completed his
training before the start of the 07/08 season, he would have been called up
more often for the K national under-21 team. Furthermore, the Claimant
stressed that the player had only played 41,43% of the games in the 07/08
season and 53,53% of the games in the 08/09 season. Therefore, in the
Claimant’s view, it was evident that the player’s training was not completed
before the start of the 07/08 season.
10. After having been asked by FIFA to provide its comments pertaining to art. 6
par. 3 of the Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,
the Claimant stated that, despite various discussions on the prolongation of the
player’s contract, it was the player himself that had decided to leave the club on
30 June 2010.
11. In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated its previous position.
II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as
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 7
October 2010. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’
Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, edition 2008
(hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21
par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules).
3/8
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 in
combination with art. 22 lit. (d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2010) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide
on the present litigation concerning training compensation between clubs
belonging to different associations.
3.
Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with
the Respondent on 23 August 2010, 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 (editions 2009 and 2010), and considering that the
present claim was lodged on 7 October 2010, the 2009 edition of the said
regulations (hereinafter: 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. The
members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts
of the case as well as the documentation on file.
5.
First of all, the Chamber recalled that the player, born on 26 December 1989,
was registered with the Claimant as from 17 November 2004 until 30 June 2010,
as of the 06/07 season as a professional, until his move from the Claimant to the
Respondent.
6.
In continuation, the Chamber took note that the Claimant asserted that it was
entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount
of EUR 502,500, since the player was transferred to a club belonging to a
different association before the end of the season of the player’s 23 rd birthday.
7.
Equally, the Chamber took note that the Respondent partially rejected the
Claimant’s claim for the payment of training compensation, stating that the
player had completed his training at the age of 18 and that, therefore, only EUR
232,500 was due to the Claimant.
8.
In this respect, and hereby referring to the rules applicable to training
compensation, the Chamber stated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 in
combination with art. 2 par. 1 lit. ii. of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training
compensation is payable, as a general rule, for training incurred between the
ages of 12 and 21 when a professional is transferred between clubs of two
different Associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23 rd birthday.
4/8
9.
Moreover, the Chamber referred, in particular, to art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations, which contains special provisions regarding players moving from
one Association to another Association inside the territory of the European
Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA). More specifically, the Chamber
turned its attention to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 which stipulates, inter alia, that
the former club must offer the player a contract in writing via registered post at
least 60 days before the expiry of his current contract.
10. In view of the above, the Chamber stated that, first and foremost, it had to
verify whether art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies in the
present case as lex specialis, and, in the affirmative, to determine if the Claimant
had complied with the said provision in order to be entitled to training
compensation.
11. As far as the applicability of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations is
concerned, the Chamber stated that, as the player moved from a club in the
country K to a club in the country E, i.e. moved from one Association to another
Association inside the territory of the EU, the said article is applicable.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the aforementioned provision applies in
the case at hand as lex specialis.
12. On account of the aforesaid, the Chamber analysed whether or not the
Claimant had complied with the prerequisites of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations in order to be entitled to training compensation. In this context, the
Chamber recalled that the player was already contractually bound and
registered as a professional with the Claimant prior to his move to the
Respondent.
13. In this sense, the Chamber emphasized that, in accordance with art. 6 par. 3
sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, if the former club does not offer the
player a contract, no training compensation is payable unless the former club
can justify that it is entitled to such compensation. The former club must offer
the player a contract in writing via registered mail at least 60 days before the
expiry of his current contract (cf. art. 6 par. 3 sent. 2 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations).
14. In this context, the members of the Chamber pointed out that the Claimant
merely stated that despite various discussions on the prolongation of the
player’s contract, it was the player himself that had decided to leave the
Claimant on 30 June 2010. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Claimant
had, thus, not brought forward any argument that it had, in fact, offered the
player a contract in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 sent. 2 and sent. 3 of Annexe 4
5/8
of the Regulations, nor was there any documentary evidence of file that the
Claimant had done so (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules).
15. As a consequence, the Chamber, and hereby underlining that the Claimant had
not offered the player, who was already a professional player when registered
with the Claimant, a new contract, decided that the aforementioned
considerations could lead to no other conclusion than that the Claimant had not
complied with the prerequisites of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
In view of the foregoing, the Chamber determined that the Claimant is not
entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent for the training
and education of the player.
16. Furthermore, and for the sake of good order, the Chamber pointed out that the
Claimant had not made any efforts to justify that it would be entitled to
training compensation in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 in fine of Annexe
4 of the Regulations, which, according to the well-established jurisprudence of
the Chamber, is limited to very exceptional circumstances. In this respect, the
Chamber deemed it important to underline that the Claimant had not brought
forward the occurrence of a very exceptional circumstance which, in the case at
hand, had stopped the Claimant from offering the player a contract i.e. the
Chamber had no reason to believe that very exceptional circumstances had
prevented the Claimant from offering the player a contract 60 days before the
expiry of his employment contract. In this context, the Chamber reiterated that
the only statement of the Claimant with regard to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of
the Regulations was that, despite various alleged discussions on the
prolongation of the player’s contract, it was the player himself that had decided
to leave the club on 30 June 2010. The Chamber stated that, evidently, this
could not be considered as a justification in the sense of art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 of
Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
17. Finally, and taking into account the above, the members of the Chamber did
not deem it necessary to enter into the substance of the other arguments
brought up by the parties to the present dispute, since the prerequisites in order
for the Claimant to be entitled to training compensation were not complied
with.
18. In view of all the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber rejected the
Claimant’s claim for training compensation.
19. Lastly, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in conjunction
with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings
before the DRC relating to disputes regarding training compensation and the
solidarity mechanism, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25’000 are levied. It
6/8
is further stipulated that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the
parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and, in accordance with Annex A
of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the
basis of the amount in dispute.
20. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 502,500 related to the claim of
the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount
of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000 (cf. table in Annex A).
21. As a result, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been
rejected, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant has to bear the costs of the
current proceedings in front of FIFA.
22. Considering that the case at hand did not compose any complex factual or legal
issues, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the
amount of CHF 6,000.
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, G, is rejected.
2.
The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 6,000 is to
be paid by the Claimant to FIFA, CHF 5,000 of which have already been paid as
advance of costs. Consequently, the amount of CHF 1,000 is to be paid by the
Claimant 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
*****
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
7/8
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
Enclosed: CAS directives
8/8