Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 19 August 2010,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Michele Colucci (Italy), member
Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member
Philippe Diallo (France), member
Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member
on the claim presented by the club,
I,
as Claimant
against the club,
L,
as Respondent
regarding a training compensation dispute
related to the transfer of the player A
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The Football Confederation I (FCI) confirmed that the player, A (hereinafter: the
player), born on 29 March 1989, was registered with its affiliated club I
(hereinafter: the Claimant), from 11 August 2005 until 23 November 2005 as an
amateur, from 24 November 2005 until 23 February 2006 as a professional as well
as from 25 April 2006 until 31 August 2007 as a professional.
2.
The sporting season in the country l follows the calendar year.
3.
The player was registered with the club, L (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 19
October 2007 as a professional.
4.
The Football Federation L (FFL) confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the
category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year within UEFA) during the
season 2007/2008.
5.
On 24 March 2009, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of
training compensation from the Respondent in the light of the aforementioned
transfer.
6.
In particular, the Claimant is requesting the amount of EUR 113,588 plus 5%
interest p.a. calculated as from the due date of payment, the reimbursement of
the advance of costs of proceedings as well as the legal fees incurred by the
proceedings at stake.
7.
In its reply, the Respondent rejected the claim lodged by the Claimant. In this
respect, the Respondent held that the training compensation requested by the
Claimant is disproportionate, since there is no evidence about the effective costs
incurred by the Claimant for the training of the player and the only evidence of
the player’s registration with the latter results of the copy of the player passport
provided by the Claimant and the Football Confederation I.
8.
Additionally, the Respondent asserted that it had signed an agreement with an
entity named XXX, which was the holder of the player’s sporting rights and who
presented the player as free of bonuses and encumbrances. The Respondent
further asserted that, on account of the above, XXX had allegedly paid the player’s
former club training compensation and/or a transfer fee so as to acquire the
player’s sporting rights and that the player was free to sign a labour contract.
Moreover, the Respondent stated that, according to said agreement, it had
allegedly subrogated its responsibility to pay training compensation that may be
claimed upon signing an employment contract with the player. Furthermore, the
Respondent pointed out that it is willing to pay training compensation to the
2
Claimant, provided it gets reimbursed by XXX, which should be included as a party
to the proceedings at hand.
9.
In reply thereto, the Claimant asserted that it is the player passport which proves
the contents of the player’s career’s history and is “assigning to the pertinent
forming clubs the legitimacy required for the ends of a training compensation and
solidarity contribution.” Consequently, no other document but the player’s
passport, which is an official document issued by the relevant football association,
had to be presented to ascertain the validity of a player’s registration with a club.
On account of the above, the Claimant deemed that it did not have to present any
further evidence to the fact that the player was registered with it during the
aforementioned periods (cf. supra I. 1).
10.
Furthermore, concerning the calculation of the amount of the training
compensation requested from the Respondent, the Claimant referred to the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, which establish the training
costs as well as the calculation of training compensation and highlighted the
objectivity of the amount it brought forward.
11.
Finally, with regard to the agreement concluded between the Respondent and
XXX, the Claimant deemed that the company XXX cannot be a party to the
proceedings in front of FIFA, neither as a creditor nor as a debtor. Therefore, the
Claimant asserted that the Respondent remains free to claim reimbursement
against XXX, but it has to do so by its own means and after having paid training
compensation to the Claimant.
12.
In spite of having been invited by FIFA to present its comments on the latest
assertions of the Claimant, the Respondent did not provide its final 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, the Chamber first referred to art. 21
par. 2 and 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: the
Procedural Rules). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 24 March 2009,
thus after the aforementioned Procedural Rules entered into force on 1 July 2008.
Therefore, the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that the 2008 edition of the
Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules, which states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine
3
its jurisdiction in the light of art. 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (edition 2009). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in connection
with art. 22 lit. d) of the aforementioned Regulations, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber shall adjudicate on disputes relating to training compensation between
clubs belonging to two 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 2009 and
2008) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the player was registered with the
Respondent on 19 October 2007 as a professional. In view of the aforementioned,
the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that the 2005 edition of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the 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.
In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber recalled that the player, born on
29 March 1989, was registered for the Claimant as from 11 August 2005 until 23
November 2005 as an amateur, from 24 November 2005 until 23 February 2006
and from 25 April 2006 until 31 August 2007 as a professional.
6.
Furthermore, the Chamber duly noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant is
requesting, inter alia, training compensation for the training and education of the
player incurred between 11 August 2005 until 23 February 2006 and between 25
April 2006 until 31 August 2007, i.e. the seasons comprehended between the
player’s 15th and 17th birthday, in an amount of EUR 113,558, plus 5% of interest
per year as from 19 November 2007 until the date of effective payment.
7.
On the other hand, the Chamber took due note that the Respondent argued that
the requested amount is clearly disproportionate, because the Claimant did not
provide any proof of the effective costs incurred for the training of the player.
Also, the Respondent holds that it has no financial obligation to pay training
compensation to the Claimant, since XXX, holding the sporting rights of the
player, is responsible to pay training compensation.
8.
In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that the Football Federation L
confirmed that the Respondent belonged to category II at the time the player was
registered for it on 19 October 2007. Moreover, the Chamber took into account
4
that the indicative training costs for a category II club and member of a national
association affiliated to the Union des Associations Européennes de Football
(UEFA) amount to EUR 60’000 per season (cf. FIFA Circular nr. 1085 dated 11 April
2007).
9.
Furthermore, the Chamber stated that, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations
in combination with art. 1 par. 1 of Annex 4 and art. 2 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 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.
10.
In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that based on the documents at
disposal, it can be established that the professional player in question, born on 29
March 1989, was registered with the Claimant from 11 August 2005 until 23
November 2005 as an amateur, from 24 November 2005 until 23 February 2006
and from 25 April 2006 until 31 August 2007 as a professional and transferred to
the Respondent in October 2007, i.e. before the end of the season of the player’s
23rd birthday.
11.
In continuation, the Chamber took note of the Respondent’s argumentation that
an agreement was signed with the sports company XXX, which appears to be the
holder of the sporting rights of the player. Also, that the Respondent is not willing
to pay, since XXX shall be responsible and liable for any compensation to be paid
to any club or third party.
12.
In this respect, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to recall that according to the
wording of art. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, only a club can register a player
and therefore a transfer of a player can only take place between two clubs.
13.
Furthermore, for the sake of completeness, the Chamber referred once more to
art. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that it is the responsibility of
the club with which the player is registered to pay training compensation to every
club with which the player has previously been registered (in accordance with the
player’s career history as provided in the player passport) and has contributed to
his training starting from the season of his 12th birthday. In this sense, a club which
pays another club training compensation shall remit it directly to the beneficiary
club and shall not make any remittance, neither partially nor wholly, to a third
party.
14.
In continuation of the aforementioned, the Chamber also referred to art. 6 par. 1
of the Procedural Rules, according to which only members of FIFA, clubs, players,
5
coaches or licensed match and players’ agents can be parties in proceedings of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the matter
between the Respondent and the company XXX is not of the jurisdiction of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber and decided to reject the Respondent’s request that
XXX should be involved in the present proceeding.
15.
On account of all the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the agreement
between XXX and the Respondent was not to be considered as a training
compensation related agreement and that the Claimant was entitled to receive
training compensation from the Respondent.
16.
As a result and considering the aforementioned points II. 6 and 9, the Chamber
referred to art. 3 par. 1 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the
amount of training compensation payable is calculated on a pro rata basis
according to the period of training that the player spent with a club, which can be
established in accordance with the player’s career history as provided in the player
passport, in the sense of art. 7 of the Regulations, containing the club(s) with
which the player has been registered since the season of his 12th birthday.
17.
Turning its attention to the calculation of the amount of training compensation,
the Chamber referred to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, which
stipulate that, as a general rule, it is necessary to take into consideration the costs
that would have been incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself
and thus, it is calculated based on the training costs of the new club multiplied by
the number of years of training with the former club.
18.
In this respect, the Chamber concluded that the effective period of training to be
considered in the matter at stake corresponds to the information contained in the
player passport received from the association of the Claimant, i.e. the Football
Confederation I, which displays that the player was registered with the Claimant
for five months of the season 2005, ten months of the season 2006 and eight
months of the season 2007 in the country I, and that the aforementioned seasons
correspond to the seasons of the player’s 16th, 17th and 18th birthdays.
19.
Furthermore, the Chamber took due note that according to the information
provided by the Football Federation L, the Respondent belonged to category II
during the season 2007/2008 (cf. supra II. 8). Moreover, the Chamber took into
account that the indicative training costs for a category II club and member of a
national association affiliated to the UEFA amount to EUR 60’000 per season.
20.
In continuation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber recalled that the Respondent
considered that the requested amount of training compensation was clearly
6
disproportionate in respect to the costs incurred by the Claimant for the training
of the player (cf. supra I. 7).
21.
In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 5 par. 4 of Annex 4 of the
Regulations, according to which “The Dispute Resolution Chamber may review
disputes concerning the amount of Training Compensation payable and shall have
discretion to adjust this amount if it is clearly disproportionate to the case under
review”.
22.
Equally, and with regard to the foregoing, the Chamber referred to the content of
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. In this context, the
Chamber pointed out that the Respondent had not provided FIFA with any
substantial documentary evidence establishing that the amount claimed by the
Claimant was clearly disproportionate. Consequently, the Chamber deemed it had
no reason to deviate from the indicative amounts stipulated in the
aforementioned FIFA Circular (cf. supra II. 19).
23.
In view of the foregoing, the Chamber decided that any further arguments of the
Respondent are not relevant to the present dispute and that the claim of the
Claimant is accepted.
24.
Furthermore, the Chamber emphasized that according to art. 3 par. 2 of Annex 4
of the Regulations, the deadline for payment of training compensation is 30 days
following the registration of the professional with the new association.
25.
Consequently, and taking into account all the above-mentioned elements and in
particular the amount claimed by the Claimant (cf. supra I. 6), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber decided that the Claimant was entitled to receive training
compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 113,558, plus 5% of
interest per year as from 19 November 2007 until the date of effective payment.
26.
In continuation, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules,
according to which in the 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.
27.
In this respect, the Chamber reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is accepted.
Therefore, the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in
front of FIFA.
7
28.
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.
29.
The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings
amounts to EUR 113,558 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 of the Procedural Rules).
30.
Considering that the case at hand did not show particular factual difficulty, but,
on the other hand, a certain legal complexity, the Chamber determined the final
amount of costs of the current proceedings in the amount of CHF 15,000.
31.
In this respect, the Chamber took into account that the Claimant had paid the
advance of costs in the amount of CHF 4,000 in accordance with art. 17 of the
Procedural Rules.
32.
In view of all the above, and bearing in mind that the claim of the Claimant was
accepted, the Chamber concluded that the amount of CHF 15,000 has to be paid
by the Respondent to cover the costs of the present proceedings. Thereof, the
amount of CHF 11,000 has to be paid by the Respondent to FIFA and the amount
of CHF 4,000 to the Claimant.
*****
8
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, I, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, L, has to pay to the Claimant, I, the amount of EUR 113,588, plus
5% interest per year as from 19 November 2007 until the date of effective
payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision.
3.
If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the aforementioned
deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s
Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
4.
The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 15,000 are to
be paid by the Respondent, L, within 30 days of notification of the present
decision as follows:
4.1
The amount of CHF 11,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with
reference to case no. XX-XXXXX:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
4.2
5.
The amount of CHF 4,000 to the Claimant, I.
The Claimant, I, is directed to inform the Respondent, L, 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.
*****
9
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
10