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
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member
Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member
on the claim presented by the club,
A from J
represented by the Mr M, Lawyer,
as Claimant
against the club,
Z from N
as Respondent
regarding a dispute for training compensation in connection with
the transfer of the player G.
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The player G (hereinafter: the player) was born on 15 July 1985.
2.
According to the official confirmation of the J Football Federation, the player was
registered with the club U, as of July 2000, first as an amateur, and since the
season 2004/2005 as a professional with two loans to J clubs during the 2004/2005
and 2005/2006 season.
3.
According to the official confirmation of the J Football Federation and the loan
agreement dated 29 July 2006, the player was loaned from U to and registered
with the club, A (hereinafter: the Claimant), from 1 August 2006 until the end of
June 2007 as a professional player.
4.
The sporting season in J starts on 1 July and ends on 30 June.
5.
According to a written confirmation of the J Football Federation as well as the
International Transfer Certificate (ITC), the player was transferred from U to the N
club, Z (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 2 August 2007.
6.
According to the N Football Association, the player was registered with the club Z
on 6 August 2007 as a professional player.
7.
According to the J Football Federation, the Claimant A, is a category 2 club
(indicative amount: EUR 60’000).
8.
According to the N Football Association, the Respondent Z, is a category 1 club
(indicative amount: EUR 90’000).
9.
On 21 November 2007, the Claimant lodged a complaint against the Respondent
in front of FIFA, by means of which it claimed payment of training compensation
in the amount of EUR 75’000 plus interest from 21 August 2007 for the player in
question for the full season 2006/2007.
10.
Furthermore, the Claimant pointed out that after expiry of the loan period with it,
the player was registered with the club U only for 21 days, i.e. from 1 July 2007
until 21 July, and stated that a sport activity cannot be started in such a short
period of time. In conclusion, the Claimant considered itself to be “the previous
and the last team effectively involved in the player’s training, and thus the only
one entitled to receive training compensation.”
11.
Furthermore, the Claimant claimed that U, for which the player was registered
after the end of the loan to it, for one month, before being transferred to the
2
Respondent, could not be considered to be the club involved in the real and
concrete training of the player.
12.
In its response, the Respondent claimed that only the last club for which the player
was registered is entitled to training compensation.
13.
In consequence, the Respondent deems that the Claimant is not entitled to
training compensation because U was the last club for which the player was
registered before the transfer.
14.
In support of its position, the Respondent cited jurisprudence by the CAS, referring
to CAS 2007 / A / 1320 and 1321, in which CAS reasoned as follows:
“When FIFA Circular Letter No 826 states that for any subsequent transfer
up to the age of 23 training compensation will only be owed to the
previous club of the player for the time he was effectively trained by that
club, it is evident that it exclusively refers to the segment of time (a)
during which the player was contractually bound to the previous club and
(b) which is immediately preceding the segment of time for which he is
registered with the new club. As a matter of fact, in case of an
international transfer, a club, which wants to employ a player, must be
able to rely safely on the applicable regulations.”
15.
Furthermore, the Respondent pointed out that the transfer compensation paid to
U in the amount of EUR 7’000’000 was supposed to cover any eventual training
compensation.
16.
Moreover, the Respondent argued that according to art. 1 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations, training compensation is only payable for training incurred up to the
age of 21. As the player turned 21 before being transferred on loan, the
Respondent is of the opinion that the player completed his training before the
transfer to the Claimant. In support of this position, the Respondent referred to
the fact that the player already joined the national team U-20 and U-21. In
particular, the player joined the J U-20 squad during the World Youth
Championship in the N in 2005.
17.
As a proof that the player terminated his training before the age of 21, the
Respondent furthermore mentioned that EUR 7’000’000 is not an appropriate
amount to pay for a player who has still not finished his training period.
18.
In its replica, the Claimant contested the arguments put forward by the
Respondent and upheld its arguments, adding that the jurisprudence of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber affirmed that clubs registering players on a loan basis
are entitled to receive training compensation even if the player returned to his
previous club for a few days before his international transfer to another club.
3
19.
In this regard, the Claimant cited a decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
dated 23 March 2006, referring to a similar loan-situation in J and a subsequent
international transfer to B. In the aforementioned case, the Chamber deemed that
the J club was entitled to receive training compensation, even if the player was
registered for 23 days for another J club before the transfer.
20.
Furthermore, the Claimant is of the opinion that “the season of the player’s 21
birthday” and not his birthday has to be taken into account with regard to the
end of the player’s training period.
21.
In support of this position, the Claimant claimed that the season 2006/2007 was
“fundamental for the growth of Mr. G”, mentioning that before the 2006/2007
season, the player scored only 5 goals in four seasons, while when on loan with
the J loan club, he allegedly had a big sportive success, playing 38 matches in J
Serie B and scoring 10 goals. Thus, the Claimant claimed that the player completed
his training not before the loan period with it but rather after the said period.
22.
In its duplica, the Respondent adhered to its former reply.
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 21 November 2007. Consequently, the Rules Governing
the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (edition 2005; 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
Claimant for the training and education of the player G.
3.
Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with his
new club on 6 August 2007, 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), the edition 2005 of the Regulations for the Status and
4
Transfer of Players (hereafter: 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 facts of the case as well as the
documentation contained in the file. In this respect, in view of the circumstances
of the present case, the Chamber deemed that the following two issues had to be
addressed in particular:
I.
II.
Does the international transfer of the player in question cause a
liability to pay training compensation?
In the affirmative, what would the amount of training compensation
be?
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 par. 1 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,
whether during or at the end of his contract, before the end of the season of the
player’s 23rd birthday.
6.
Continuing, the Chamber took into account, that the player had previously been
registered with the J club U as an amateur since July 2000 and, continuously, since
the season 2004/2005, as a professional, and that subsequently he had been
loaned to the Claimant, the J club A, from 1 August 2006 until the end of June
2007. Thereafter, the player returned to the club U for which he was registered
until 6 August 2007, when he was internationally transferred to the Respondent,
the N club, Z, for the alleged amount of EUR 7,000,000.
7.
Equally, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that, according to
information provided by the N Football Association, the player was registered with
the Respondent on 6 August 2007 as a professional.
8.
Furthermore, 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 J Football Federation, was
registered with the said club from 1 August 2006 to 30 June 2007. In this regard,
the Chamber noted that the Claimant claimed EUR 75,000 as training
compensation plus interest since 21 August 2007.
9.
As a next step, and turning their attention to the Respondent’s argumentation,
the members of the Chamber noted that the Respondent denies being liable to
5
pay any training compensation to the Claimant maintaining that the player was
transferred to it from U, which was his last club of registration. In this regard, the
Respondent pointed out that only the last club for which the player had been
registered is entitled to training compensation. Furthermore, the Chamber took
note of the Respondent’s statement that the transfer compensation in the amount
of EUR 7,000,000 was supposed to cover any eventual training compensation and
that, finally, the player had already ended his training prior to the period he was
with the Claimant.
10.
In view of the aforementioned positions put forward by the Respondent, the
members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that, first of all, the
transfer agreement concluded between U and the Respondent allegedly
stipulating the payment of compensation of EUR 7,000,000 does not affect the
Claimant’s entitlement to training compensation in accordance with the
Regulations. The Chamber stated that the relevant transfer agreement is not
binding for the Claimant, as it is not a contractual party to such agreement.
11.
Furthermore, and taking into account art. 3 par. 1 of the Annex 4 of the
Regulations, the Chamber pointed out that in the case of subsequent transfers of
a professional player, training compensation will only be owed to the player’s
former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club.
12.
In this regard, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the player had
been registered with the Claimant until the end of June 2007 for nearly one
season and subsequently had been transferred internationally on 6 August 2007 to
the Respondent after having been registered with U for a bit more than one
month.
13.
With regard to the Claimant’s contribution to the player’s training and education,
the Chamber unanimously concurred that the Claimant had considerately
contributed to the player’s training, as the player played in the J Serie B on
numerous occasions and reached good personal results, when he was on loan with
the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber acknowledged that the player’s training
and education had not been ended prior to the period he was with the Claimant.
14.
However, and in relation to the contribution of U to the player’s training, the
Chamber emphasised that a serious training could not be established during one
month only, i.e. during the period when the player was with U. In particular, the
Chamber took into account that U had the player back with the intention to
transfer him to another club. Therefore, the Chamber determined that the main
focus of U was not on the player’s training and education but on his transfer to
the Respondent.
6
15.
In view of the above, the members of the Chamber concurred that the Claimant
had to be considered as the last club, in which the player had de facto been
trained.
16.
Taking into account the Respondent’s position regarding the age limit up to which
training can be taken into consideration, the Chamber took note that the player
was born on 15 July 1985. Furthermore, the Chamber confirmed that the relevant J
sporting season starts on 1 July and ends on 30 June and that the player was
loaned to the Claimant from 1 August 2006 until end of June 2007. Therefore, the
Chamber concluded that the player’s training provided by the Claimant incurred
during the season of his 21st birthday. In this respect, the Chamber emphasised
that training compensation is payable for training incurred up to the season of the
player’s 21st birthday.
17.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent’s argumentation cannot
be backed at all and thus had to be rejected.
18.
In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that, the Claimant being the last
club involved in the player’s effective training and education according to art. 3
par. 1 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, was entitled to receive training
compensation.
19.
The Chamber then turned to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of Annex 4 of the Regulations as
well as FIFA Circular Nr. 1085, dated 11 April 2007, which provide details on the
calculation of training compensation.
20.
The members of the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 15 July 1985
and that he was registered with the Claimant as from 1 August 2006 until 30 June
2007, according to the player passport issued by the J Football Federation. In this
respect, the Chamber pointed out that the amount payable is calculated on a pro
rata basis according to the period of training that the player spent with the
Claimant. Furthermore, the Chamber pointed out that, in accordance with art. 6
par. 1 lit. a of Annex 4 of the Regulations, if a player moves from a lower to a
higher category club, the calculation shall be based on the average training costs
of the two clubs. In this regard, the Chamber took note of the fact that according
to confirmations by the relevant associations, the Claimant is a club allocated in
category 2, which equals to training costs in the amount of EUR 60,000 per season
(UEFA), whereas the Respondent is allocated in category 1, which equals training
costs in the amount of EUR 90,000 per season (UEFA). Consequently, taking into
account the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber concluded that the
average training costs for eleven months amount up to EUR 68,750.
7
21.
Finally, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at a rate of 5% on
the outstanding amount of training compensation as of 6 September 2007, the
date on which the payment of training compensation according to art. 3 par. 1 of
Annex 4 of the Regulations fell due.
22.
Therefore, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the
Claimant training compensation amounting to EUR 68,750 plus 5% interest as of 6
September 2007.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Z, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 68,750 plus 5%
interest per annum calculated as of 6 September 2007, within 30 days as from
the date of notification of this decision.
3.
Any further request of the Claimant is rejected.
4.
If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, the
present matter shall be submitted upon the parties’ request to FIFA’s Disciplinary
Committee so that the necessary disciplinary sanctions may be imposed.
5.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent 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:
8
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:
Markus Kattner
Deputy Secretary General
Encl.
CAS directives
9