Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 22 July 2010,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member
Jon Newman (USA), member
Ivan Gazidis (England), member
Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member
on the claim presented by the club,
F,
as Claimant
against the club,
Z,
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in connection with the
player A
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The Football Federation L (FFL) confirmed that the player, A (hereinafter: player), born
on 13 January 1988, was registered with its affiliated club, F (hereinafter: F or Claimant),
as a professional as from 16 February 2007.
2.
The football season in country L lasts from 1 March until 28 February of the following
year.
3.
Furthermore, the Football Federation L confirmed that F belonged to the category IV
when the player was registered with F.
4.
The Football Federation H (FFH) confirmed that Z belonged to the category II and that it
registered the player as a professional with the club, Z (hereinafter: Z or Respondent)
on 8 May 2009.
5.
On 3 July 2009, F lodged a claim in front of FIFA for the payment of training
compensation amounting to EUR 120,000 in connection with the transfer of the player
from the Claimant to the Respondent.
6.
In its reply, the Respondent rejected F’s claim for training compensation since F acted in
breach of the employment contract with the player without just cause. Z explained that
F withdrew from the country L top divison and no longer offered the player the
opportunity to train and play with F. Therefore, according to Z, F is not entitled to
receive any compensation for having trained the player.
7.
In its replica, F rejected the argumentation of Z insisting that the pertinent employment
contract was in fact breached by the player, since the latter left F without giving any
explanation and signed an employment contract with Z on 19 February 2009 when still
being contractually bound to Z. Therefore, according to F, the player was in breach of
contract and thus F is entitled to receive training compensation from Z for the training
and education of the player.
8.
In spite of having been invited to do so, Z did not submit any final position in this
matter.
9.
At its meeting on 22 July 2010, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the player
had terminated his employment contract with F without just cause on 19 February 2009.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or
DRC) 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 3 July 2009. 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).
2.
Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2008 and 2009) the Dispute Resolution
Chamber is competent to decide on the present litigation relating to training
compensation between clubs belonging to different associations.
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 as a
professional on 8 May 2009. In view of the aforementioned, the Chamber concluded
that the 2008 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 Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, the
members of the Chamber started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the
documents contained in the file.
5.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber noted that the player, born on 13 January
1988, was registered for the Claimant as from 16 February 2007 as a professional.
6.
In continuation, the Chamber acknowledged the registration of the player with the
Respondent on 8 May 2009 as a professional.
7.
Furthermore, the Chamber took note that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to
receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 120,000 in
connection with the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent.
8.
Equally, the Chamber took note that the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim for
the payment of training compensation, since the latter allegedly breached the
employment contract with the player without just cause by withdrawing from country L
top division and not providing any training opportunity for the player.
9.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the Chamber’s
decision in the employment-related dispute between F, the player and Z for breach of
contract and inducement to breach of contract, which was decided upon in the same
meeting of Dispute Resolution Chamber. According to said decision, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber established that the player had acted in breach of his employment
contract with F without just cause.
10.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent’s arguments with regard to the
alleged breach of contract by the Claimant no the basis of which the Claimant would
not be entitled to receive training compensation had to be rejected.
11.
In continuation, the Chamber stated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4, in
combination with art. 2 par. 1 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
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.
12.
On account of the above-mentioned facts and considerations, the Chamber decided that
Z is liable to pay training compensation to F in accordance with art. 20 of the
Regulations as well as art. 2 par. 1 ii) of and art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
In fact, the player moved as a professional between clubs of two different associations
before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. Equally, the DRC recalled that the
obligation to pay training compensation is without prejudice to any obligation to pay
compensation for breach of contract (cf. article 1 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations).
13.
At this point, and for the sake of good order, the Chamber pointed out that although
the present case involves clubs both of which are affiliated to an association inside the
territory of the EU/ EEA, art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations shall not apply to
the specific case at hand, because, as established by the Chamber, the player terminated
his employment contract with F without just cause.
14.
Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber referred
to the FIFA circular no. 1185 dated 22 April 2009 which provides details for the
calculation of training compensation, and recalled that the player was born on 13
January 1988 and that he had undisputedly been registered with F as of 16 February
2007 until he was registered by the Football Federation H with the Respondent on 8
May 2009.
15.
In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that the amount of training compensation is
calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of training that the player spent
with F.
16.
Furthermore, the Chamber emphasised that for players moving from one association to
another association inside the territory of the EU/EEA a special provision exists, i.e. art. 6
par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber noted that F
belonged to the category IV (i.e. indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year) when the
player was registered with it. Z belonged to the category II (i.e. indicative amount of
EUR 60,000 per year) during the season 2008/2009 when the player was registered with
the latter.
17.
In this connection, the DRC recalled that art. 6 par. 1 lit. a) of Annexe 4 stipulates that
the calculation of training compensation for players moving within the territory of the
EU/EEA shall be based on the average training costs of the two clubs. Therefore, the
DRC concluded that, in the case at hand, the calculation of the training compensation
shall be based on the average amount of EUR 35,000 per year.
18.
Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations the Chamber
decided to partially accept F’s claim for training compensation and decided that F is
entitled to receive training compensation from Z amounting to EUR 75,832.
19.
On account of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent, Z, is liable to pay
training compensation in the amount of EUR 75,832 to the Claimant, F.
20.
In continuation, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules,
according to which in 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.
21.
In this respect, the Chamber reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is partially
accepted. Therefore, the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in
front of FIFA.
22.
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.
23.
The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings
amounts to EUR 120,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Therefore, the Chamber
concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF
20,000 (cf. table in Annexe A).
24.
Considering that the case at hand did not show particular factual difficulty and that it
did not involve legal complexity, the Chamber determined the final amount of costs of
the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 2,500.
25.
In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the amount of CHF 2,500 has to
be paid by the Respondent to cover the costs of the present proceedings.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, F, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Z, has to pay the amount of EUR 75,832 to the Claimant within 30 days
as from the date of notification of this decision.
3.
If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the above-mentioned deadline, interest at
the rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiry of the stipulated time limit and the
present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for its
consideration and 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 2,500 is to be paid by
the Respondent, Z, 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
6.
The Claimant, F, is directed to inform the Respondent, Z, 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.
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