Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 16 July 2009,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member
on a matter between the club
G from C
as Claimant
and the club
M from F
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in connection with
the player R.
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The player R (hereinafter: the player) was born on 4 March 1987.
2.
According to the player passport issued by the C Football Federation, the player
was registered as an amateur for the C club G (hereinafter: the Claimant) from 7
May 1997 until 29 August 2000 prior to his registration as an amateur with the
two C clubs H and N.
3.
The C football season ran, during the seasons 1997-1998 to 2000-2001, from 1
August to 31 July of the following year.
4.
According to the C Football Federation, the player was transferred from its
member club, N, to the F club, M (hereinafter: the Respondent), in early 2006.
5.
According to a statement issued by the F Football Federation, the player was
registered for M (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 1 February 2006. The F Football
Federation further indicated that the player signed a “trainee contract” with the
Respondent.
6.
The Respondent belongs to category 1.
7.
On 15 November 2007, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA, claiming training
compensation for the player, and asserted that the player had signed his first
professional contract with the Respondent.
8.
Upon receipt of the claim, the Respondent stated that it had only signed a
“trainee contract” with the player, and that he could therefore not be considered
as having signed a contract as a professional. Thus, the Respondent alleged that it
did not owe any training compensation to the Claimant.
9.
The Respondent nonetheless requested that, should the competent decision
making-body of FIFA decide otherwise, the amount of training compensation be
adjusted to a reasonable amount, in particular in view of the fact that the player
played with the club for only a short period of time.
10.
According to the “trainee contract” provided by the Respondent, which was
signed on 23 January 2006 for two seasons, the player was hired as a “trainee
player”, and the Respondent was to pay him a monthly salary of 120 points for the
first year and 180 points for the second year. According to information provided
by the F Football Federation, the value of the point was set at EUR 13 for the
season 2005-2006 and at EUR 13,20 for the season 2006-2007. Furthermore, in an
additional clause, it was agreed that the player would receive a bonus in the
amount of EUR 45,000 on 31 July 2006.
2/8
11.
After having taken due note of the relevant financial elements of the “trainee
contract” signed between the player and the respondent as provided by FIFA, the
Claimant upheld its initial claim for training compensation against the
Respondent.
12.
The Respondent declared that it did not wish to add any further remarks than
those presented in its initial position.
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 15 November 2007. Consequently, the Rules Governing
the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (edition 2005; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the
matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules, edition 2008, in
combination with 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 2 in
combination with 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 Claimant for the training and education of the
player R.
3.
Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with his
new club on 1st February 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 15
November 2007, the 2005 edition of the regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations)
is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4.
In continuation, and entering into the substance of the matter, the members of
the Chamber started by acknowledging the established facts of the case and the
arguments of the parties as well as the documents contained in the file, and in this
respect, in view of the circumstances of the present case, first of all stated that the
following questions had to be tackled:
i.
Is training compensation due by the Respondent to the Claimant?
3/8
ii.
In the affirmative, which is the exact amount of the compensation?
5.
With regard to the first of these two questions, the Chamber stated that, first and
foremost, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations in combination with art. 1
par. 1 and art. 2 of Annex 4 of the same 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 clubs of two different Associations,
before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
6.
Continuing, the Chamber took due note of the fact that the Claimant claims
training compensation for the training and education of the player, who,
according to the player passport issued by the C Football Federation, was
registered as an amateur with the Claimant from 7 May 1997 until 29 August
2000.
7.
In this context, the Chamber recalled that the player had always been registered
as an amateur with different C clubs prior to his transfer to the Respondent in
early 2006.
8.
Equally, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that, according to
information provided by the F Football Federation, the player was registered with
the Respondent on 1st February 2006. Furthermore, the F Football Federation
indicated that the player had signed a “trainee contract”.
9.
The Respondent, for its part, rejects the claim of the Claimant, pointing out that
on the basis of the “trainee contract” the player cannot be considered as a
professional.
10.
In view of the above, the Chamber pointed out that, in order to determine
whether training compensation was due by the Respondent to the Claimant, it
first had to address the issue of the status of the player upon his registration with
the Respondent.
11.
Thereupon, the Dispute Resolution Chamber proceeded to analyse the terms of
the relevant “trainee contract”. In this respect, the Chamber took note of the fact
that, under the said contract, the player was to receive a monthly salary of 120
points for the first year and of 180 points for the second year. Moreover,
according to information provided by the F Football Federation, the value of the
point was set at EUR 13 for the season 2005-2006 and at EUR 13,20 for the season
2006-2007. Furthermore, the Chamber acknowledged that, in an additional clause,
it was agreed that the player would receive a bonus in the amount of EUR 45,000
on 31 July 2006.
4/8
12.
In light of the above, the Chamber confirmed that in accordance with art. 2 par. 2
of the Regulations the player must be considered a professional player when he
was registered with the Respondent. Indeed, taking into consideration the criteria
set out in the stated art. 2 of the Regulations and the monies payable to the
player on the basis of the “trainee contract” (cf. points I.10. and II.11. above), the
player evidently received remuneration in excess of the expenses he effectively
incurred in return for his footballing activity. Equally, the second element
contained in the relevant provision, i.e. the existence of a written contract, is met
in the light of the signature of the “trainee contract” between the Respondent
and the player.
13.
In this context, the Chamber considered it opportune to stress that a player’s
remuneration as per the criteria set out in above-mentioned art. 2 of the
Regulations constitutes the decisive factor in the determination of the status of
the player and that the legal nature or the designation or classification of the
contract is of no relevance in this regard. This has been confirmed by the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in its decision CAS 2006/A/1177, whereby the Panel also
emphasised that the definition contained in the mentioned provision is the only
ground to establish a player’s status. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber
pointed out that according to the said decision the classification of a player made
by the association of his club is not decisive to determine the status of a player.
And, finally, that the remuneration in question may well fall short of a living
wage, but as long as it exceeds the expenses effectively incurred by the player, the
criterion of article 2 of the Regulations is met.
14.
Having stated the aforementioned and given that the player had always been
registered as an amateur prior to his registration with the Respondent, the
Chamber concluded that the player in fact was registered as a professional for the
first time with the Respondent. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
recalled the provisions set out under art. 20 of the Regulations and art. 2 and art.
3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations regarding training compensation, and ruled that
the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant.
15.
In continuation, and turning its attention to the second question, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber first of all acknowledged that the Respondent had, on a
subsidiary note, requested the Chamber to consider a possible reduction of the
amount of training compensation payable to the Claimant. In particular, the
Respondent alleged that the player had remained registered with it for only a
short period of time.
16.
In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, according to art. 5 par. 4 of Annex 4 of
the Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber may review disputes concerning
the amount of training compensation payable and shall have discretion to adjust
5/8
this amount if it is clearly disproportionate to the case under review. In this
regard, the members of the Chamber were, however, eager to emphasize that
such possibility allowed by the Regulations would, in any case, have to be analysed
on a case-by-case basis.
17.
In this context, the Chamber pointed out that, according to art. 20 of the
Regulations and art. 2 of Annex 4 of the same Regulations, the player’s first
registration as a professional is, in itself, sufficient to trigger the right of training
clubs to claim training compensation. Moreover, as pointed out by the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in the case CAS 2006/A/1189 J v/ T & F Football
Federation, the Regulations do not set out any minimum length of the contractual
relationship between the player and the club where he signs his first professional
contract when considering the amount of training compensation due in a
particular case.
18.
Regardless of the aforementioned consideration, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
underlined that the Respondent had not specified for which precise period of time
the player had in fact remained registered with it nor had it substantiated its
request with any pertinent documentary evidence in accordance with art. 12 par. 3
of the Procedural Rules, which stipulates that any party deriving a right from an
alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof.
19.
Consequently, the Chamber had no alternative but to conclude that the provisions
of art. 5 par. 4 of Annex 4 of the Regulations could not be applied in the present
case and, therefore, decided that the amount of training compensation payable by
the Respondent to the Claimant could not be adjusted.
20.
In continuation, and having fully established the Claimant’s entitlement to
training compensation, the Chamber proceeded to the calculation of the relevant
amount of training compensation. In this respect, it acknowledged the fact that
the player in question had been registered with the Claimant as from 7 May 1997
until 29 August 2000, and that the C football season ran, during the relevant
seasons, from 1 August to 31 July of the following year.
21.
In view of the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed important to recall the
applicable provisions of the Regulations, and in particular art. 1 par. 1 of Annex 4,
which provides that “A player’s training and education takes place between the
ages of 12 and 23” and art. 3 par. 1 of Annex 4, which stipulates that when a
player is registered as a professional for the first time, training compensation is
payable to every club that has contributed to the player’s training, starting from
the season in which he had his 12th birthday. Applying these provisions to the case
at hand, the Chamber affirmed that the Claimant was only entitled to training
compensation for the training and education which occurred from the season of
the player’s 12th birthday, and consequently ruled that the starting point of the
6/8
calculation of the training compensation due to the Claimant was in fact the
season 1998-1999.
22.
Thus, the Chamber held that the Claimant was entitled to receive training
compensation for the training and education of the player for the seasons 19981999, 1999-2000 and for one month of the season 2000-2001.
23.
Having established the time frame of the player’s training and education by the
Claimant in view of the latter’s entitlement to training compensation, the
Chamber then paid particular attention to the amount of training compensation
due for each season.
24.
In this respect, the Dispute Resolution Chamber deemed fundamental to recall the
specific provisions of art. 5 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, according to
which, “To ensure that training compensation for very young players is not set at
unreasonably high levels, the training costs for players for the seasons between
their 12th and 15th birthdays (i.e. four seasons) shall be based on the training and
education costs of category 4 clubs”.
25.
In view of the above, the Chamber decided that the training costs in the case at
hand were indeed to be based on the training and education costs of a category 4
club.
26.
In this respect, the Chamber recalled that according to FIFA circular letter no. 959
dated 16 March 2005, the indicative amount per season for a category 4 club
within UEFA was of EUR 10,000.
27.
Therefore, in view of the applicable provisions and of the facts of the present case,
and having proceeded to the relevant calculation in view of the dates of
registration of the player with the Claimant, the members of the Chamber decided
that the amount of training compensation due by the Respondent to the Claimant
is of EUR 20,833.
28.
In view of all of the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber unanimously decided
that the claim of the Claimant should be accepted.
*****
7/8
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, G, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, M, must pay the amount of EUR 20,833 to the Claimant, G,
within 30 days as of notification of the present decision.
3.
If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, an
interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiring of the fixed time limit and
the present matter shall be submitted upon the party’s request to FIFA’s
Disciplinary Committee so that the necessary disciplinary sanctions may be
imposed.
4.
The Claimant, G, is directed to inform the Respondent, M, 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
8/8