Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 12 June 2012,
by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge
on the claim presented by the club,
X,
as Claimant
against the club,
Z FC,
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in connection with the player A
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The Football Association of M (FAM) confirmed that the player, A (hereinafter: the
player), born on 8 May 1988, was registered with its affiliated clubs, FC Y, as from
20 April 2001 until 3 August 2007 and X (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 8
August 2007 until 4 August 2010. The Football Association of M further confirmed
that the player was registered with both clubs as an amateur.
2.
The football seasons in country M during the period of the time the player was
registered with the Claimant ran as follows:
Season 2007/2008
Season 2008/2009
Season 2009/2010
from 10 August 2007 to 24 May 2008
from 9 August 2008 to 30 May 2009
from 7 August 2009 to 29 May 2010
3.
The Football Federation I, confirmed that the player was registered with its
affiliated club, Z (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 13 September 2010 and that the
player had signed a contract with the Respondent.
4.
According to the Transfer Matching System (TMS) the Respondent belonged to the
club category II at the time the player was registered with the Respondent.
5.
On 5 September 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting the
payment of training compensation from the Respondent, since the player was
registered for the first time as a professional with the Respondent in September
2010. In particular, the Claimant requests training compensation in the amount of
USD 80,000 plus 5% annual interest starting from 14 October 2010 till completion
of payment plus legal fees.
6.
In its response, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim for training
compensation, arguing that the player is responsible for the payment of training
compensation. In this respect, the Respondent stated that after terminating the
contract with the player, the latter had received an amount to pay to his previous
club and “solve this problem amicably”. Additionally, the Respondent submitted a
statement dated 2 October 2010 signed by the player which, inter alia, stated that:
“I (…) herewith warrant and guarantee to Z, (…) that I shall be personally liable
and held responsible for all/any TRAINING COMPENSATION as per FIFA regulations
should the same appear before this club concerning clubs demanding such for the
training and education that took place between my age 12 up to my current age.
My obligation to pay TRAINING COMPENSATION is absolute should the same
appear before this club despite the fact that Z should be liable as per the FIFA
regulations. Bearing mind this fact, should for any reason whatsoever Z be
2
instructed by FIFA to pay any/all training compensation (…) it is my responsibility
to reimburse this club(…)”
Therefore, the Respondent is of the opinion that it is not liable to pay training
compensation to the Claimant and indicates that the Claimant should direct its
claim for training compensation against the player.
II.
Considerations of the DRC judge
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge analysed whether he was
competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the
present matter was submitted to FIFA on 5 September 2011. Consequently, 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 (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and par. 3 of the
Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules and
confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 lit. ii. in combination
with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition
2010) the DRC judge is competent to deal with the matter at stake relating to
training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations.
3.
Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to
the substance of the matter. In this respect, he 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 5
September 2011 as well as that the player was registered with the Respondent on
13 September 2010, the 2009 edition of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
4.
The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been
established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. The DRC
judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as
the documentation on file.
5.
First of all, the DRC judge recalled that the player, born on 8 May 1988, was
registered with the Claimant as from 8 August 2007 until 4 August 2010 as an
3
amateur as well as that the player was registered by the Football Federation of I
with the Respondent on 13 September 2010.
6.
Moreover, the DRC judge took note that the Claimant asserted that it is entitled
to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of USD
80,000, on the basis that the player was registered for the first time as a
professional with the Respondent.
7.
Furthermore, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of the
Claimant, arguing that the player is responsible for the payment of training
compensation. Moreover, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent referred to a
statement dated 2 October 2010 signed by the player which stated that “I (…)
herewith warrant and guarantee to Z, (…) that I shall be personally liable and held
responsible for all/any TRAINING COMPENSATION as per FIFA regulations should
the same appear before this club concerning clubs demanding such for the
training and education that took place between my age 12 up to my current age.
My obligation to pay TRAINING COMPENSATION is absolute should the same
appear before this club despite the fact that Z should be liable as per the FIFA
regulations. Bearing mind this fact, should for any reason whatsoever Z be
instructed by FIFA to pay any/all training compensation (…) it is my responsibility
to reimburse this club(…)”
8.
In this context and hereby referring to the rules applicable to training
compensation, the DRC judge stated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe
4 in combination with art. 2 par. 1 lit i. 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 player is registered for the first time as a professional before
the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
9.
Moreover, the DRC judge recalled that in accordance with art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe
4 of the Regulations, on registering a professional for the first time, the club with
which the player is registered is responsible to pay training compensation within
30 days of registration to every club with which the player has been previously
registered and that has contributed to his training starting from the season of his
12th birthday. In this regard, the DRC judge emphasized that, in strict application
of the rules pertaining to training compensation, it is thus the new club of the
player who is responsible for the payment of training compensation to the
previous clubs of the player that have in fact trained the player. The DRC judge
found it vital to underline that the obligation of the new club towards the
previous club(s) in relation to the payment of training compensation cannot be
transferred to a player by means of private agreement. In other words, the DRC
judge considered that the agreement that the Respondent had concluded with
the player in the present matter could not set aside the relevant provisions
4
regarding training compensation contained in the Regulations, which, amongst
other, establish that on registering a professional for the first time, the club with
which the player is registered is responsible for paying training compensation
within 30 days of registration to every club with which the player has been
previously registered and that has contributed to his training starting from the
season of his 12th birthday.
10.
Therefore, and since it was undisputed that the player was registered for the first
time as a professional with the Respondent before the end of the season of his
23rd birthday, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training
compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and art. 2 par. 1 lit. i. in
conjunction with art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
11.
Turning his attention to the calculation of training compensation, the DRC judge
referred to the FIFA circular no. 1223 dated 29 April 2010 which provides details
for the calculation of training compensation as well as to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of
Annexe 4 to the Regulations, which stipulates that, as a general rule, to calculate
the training compensation due to a player’s former club, it is necessary to take the
costs that would have been incurred by the new club if it had trained the player
itself.
12.
In this respect, the DRC judge duly noted that, according to the documentation on
file, it could be established that the player had been registered with the
Respondent on 13 September 2010, that the Respondent belonged to the club
category II (indicative amount of USD 40,000 per year) and that the player, born
on 8 May 1988, was registered with the Claimant as from 8 August 2007 until 4
August 2010.
13.
As a result, taking into consideration all the above, the DRC judge decided that
the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of USD 80,000 to the Claimant for the
training and education of the player.
14.
Moreover, taking into account the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of
Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent has to
pay interest at 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of
the 31st day of the registration of the player with the Respondent, i.e. as from 14
October 2010 until the date of effective payment.
15.
As to the Claimant’s request for legal fees, the DRC judge decided to reject such
request in accordance with art. 18. par. 4 of the Procedural Rules.
16.
Lastly, the DRC judge 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
5
before the DRC relating to disputes regarding training compensation and the
solidarity mechanism, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25’000 are levied. The
relevant provision further states that the costs are to be borne in consideration of
the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and that, in accordance with
Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on
the basis of the amount in dispute.
17.
In respect of the above, the DRC judge held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is USD 80,000 related to the claim of the
Claimant. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the maximum amount of
costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the
Procedural Rules).
18.
Taking into account that the Claimant is the successful party in the proceeding,
the DRC judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current
proceedings in front of FIFA.
19.
As a result, and considering that the case at hand did not compose any complex
factual or legal issues, the Chamber determined that the amount of CHF 6,000 has
to be paid by the Respondent to cover the costs of the present proceedings.
III.
Decision of the DRC judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club X, is partially accepted.
6
2.
The Respondent, Z. FC, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date
of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 80,000 plus 5% interest p.a.
due as from 14 October 2010 until the date of effective payment.
3.
In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the
stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s
Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
4.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
5.
The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 6,000 is to be
paid by the Respondent within 30 days of notification of the present decision, as
follows:
5.1.
The amount of CHF 4,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with
reference to case no.:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
5.2.
6.
The amount of CHF 2,000 to the Claimant.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the
account number to which the remittances are to be made and to notify the DRC
judge of every payment received.
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to article 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,
7
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 DRC judge:
Markus Kattner
Deputy Secretary General
Encl. CAS Directives
8