Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 31 July 2008,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member
on the claim presented by the club
N,
as Claimant
against the club,
A,
as Respondent
regarding a training compensation dispute related to the
transfer of the player M.
./...
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to a written statement of the Football Association of S, the player M,
born on 25 September 1984, was registered as professional player with the club N
from 2 August 1999 to 25 July 2006.
2.
The player was transferred by the club N to the club A and, according to the S
Football Association, was registered as a professional with the mentioned club on
26 July 2006. A compensation of EUR 790,000 was agreed upon.
3.
In accordance with FIFA Circular No. 959 dated 16 March 2005, which deals with
the categorisation of clubs, and written confirmations from the relevant
associations, the club N is a category 3 club and the club A is a category 2 club.
4.
On 13 September 2006, N contacted FIFA to claim training compensation in the
amount of EUR 395,000 from the club A for the training and education of the said
player.
5.
A rejected club N’s claim stating that that it had signed an agreement with club N
during the player’s transfer whereby the parties agreed on transfer compensation
amounting to EUR 790,000. The first instalment of EUR 490,000 had already been
paid whereas the second instalment for EUR 300,000 would be due on 30 April
2007. It constituted the total amount in accordance with the transfer agreement.
In other words, this amount (EUR 790,000) covered all payments due to club N,
including the training compensation now demanded. Furthermore, club A
asserted that club N’s calculation of the training compensation was wrong. S clubs
were not classified in any higher category than the third. Club A argued that the
corresponding amount due per year was no more than EUR 30,000. S’s top clubs
were in category two (EUR 60,000 per year). As the average value was based on
both amounts, no more than EUR 45,000 was due per year. Club N had based its
demand on the amount of EUR 60,000 per year.
6.
N responded to A’s allegations by confirming that it had received the first
instalment of the transfer compensation. It stated it was confident it would also
receive the second instalment on time. According to club N, the transfer
compensation agreed upon constituted only compensation for the premature
termination of the valid employment contract between the player and club N. The
contract was valid until the end of the 2007 season.
7.
N also submits that no provision of the Regulations or any other document
provides for the solidarity contribution and/or the training compensation being
settled by way of the transfer compensation.
2
8.
Club A reiterated its request to reject the claim as the transfer compensation
agreed upon already included the training compensation for the player.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution 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 13 September 2006. Consequently, the 2005 edition of
the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the
matter at hand (cf. art. 18 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules).
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 and art. 22
lit. (d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2008) the
Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on the present litigation with
an international dimension concerning the training compensation claimed by the
club N for the training and education of the player M. In this regard, and
considering the composition of the Dispute Resolution Chamber at the present
meeting, the Chamber confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 of the said
Regulations, it was entitled to adjudicate in the presence of three members.
3.
Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with his
new club on 26 July 2006, 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 (edition 2008), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 13
September 2006, the previous version of the regulations (edition 2005;
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 facts of the case as well as the
documentation contained in the file.
5.
First of all, the Chamber stated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 of Annex 4 in
combination with art. 2 par. 1 lit. ii) of Annex 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 23rd birthday.
3
6.
The Chamber recalled that the player was born on 25 September 1984 and
registered with the club N as from 2 August 1999 to 25 July 2006. Moreover, the
player was transferred by the club N to club A on the occasion of which the parties
signed a transfer agreement in accordance with which a compensation of EUR
790,000 was agreed upon.
7.
Furthermore, the Chamber stated that N claims training compensation amounting
to EUR 395,000 from club A in connection with the aforementioned transfer of the
player for the training period from 2 August 1999 to 25 July 2006.
8.
In view of the above, the Chamber stated that as a general rule, if two parties
conclude a transfer agreement providing inter alia for the respective financial
obligations, i.e. the transfer compensation, training compensation is considered as
included in the transfer compensation. If the parties wish to stipulate the contrary
to the aforementioned, i.e. training compensation being due in addition to the
agreed transfer compensation, they need to explicitly mention it in the transfer
agreement.
9.
Therefore, the Chamber, applying the above-mentioned general rule, concluded
that since N did not present contradictory evidence, in particular no corresponding
arrangement in the relevant transfer agreement, training compensation is
considered as included in the transfer compensation in the present case. In this
respect, and considering the general principle as set out in point II. 8. above, the
Chamber pointed out that, in accordance with the principle of burden of proof, it
would have been up to the S club to prove that the training compensation was
not included in the relevant transfer compensation (cf. also art. 12 par. 3 of the
Procedural Rules).
10.
Consequently, the members of the Chamber unanimously decided to reject the
present claim.
11.
In addition to the above-mentioned conclusion, the Chamber stated that it had to
reject the present claim also in accordance with art. 6 of Annex 4 of the
Regulations for the following reasons.
12.
The Chamber emphasized that art. 6 of Annex 4 of the Regulations contains
special provisions regarding players moving from one Association to another
inside the territory of the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA).
Having stated this, the Chamber turned its attention in particular to the third
paragraph of the said provision.
4
13.
In this respect, the Chamber stated that, first and foremost, it had to verify
whether art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 of Annex 4 of the Regulations applies in the present
case as lex specialis, and if so, to determine if the club N had complied with the
said provision in order to be fundamentally entitled to training compensation.
14.
As far as the applicability of art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations is
concerned, the Chamber first of all stated that, as the player moved from A to B in
July 2006, i.e. between two EU countries, art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the
Regulations is applicable. This fact does not appear to be contested by any of the
parties. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the aforementioned provision
applies in the case at hand as lex specialis.
15.
On account of the aforesaid, the Chamber analysed if club N had complied with
the prerequisites of art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations in order to be
entitled to training compensation.
16.
In this sense, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1
of Annex 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.
17.
To that regard, the Chamber pointed out that the club N does not even claim to
have offered the player a contract.
18.
On account of the aforesaid, the members of the Chamber furthermore
acknowledged that N did not provide evidence that it offered a contract to the
player.
19.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the condition of offering the player a
contract, which is set in the Regulations, is not fulfilled. Moreover, the Chamber
concurred that, irrespectively of the considerations II. 8. to II. 10. above, the club N
has failed to justify that it is entitled to training compensation.
20.
On account of all the foregoing considerations, the Chamber decided that the club
N is not entitled to receive training compensation from club A for the training and
education of the player M.
5
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim lodged by the Claimant, club N, is rejected.
*****
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
Enclosed: CAS directives
6