Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 August 2006,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Carlos Soto (Chile), member
Michele Colucci (Italy), member
Mario Gallavotti, (Italy), member
Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member
on the claim presented by the club
Club A
as Claimant
against the club
Club B
as Respondent
regarding a training compensation dispute
in connection with the transfer of the player X.
I. Facts of the case
1. According to the player passport, issued by the Federation of the Claimant, the
player X, born on 17 June 1984, was registered with the club A as an amateur
from 1992 until 2000 (i.e. until the end of the season 99/00) and during the
season 2004/2005.
2. On 22 August 2005, the club A lodged a claim at FIFA against the club B for
payment of training compensation in the amount of EUR 60,000 based on the
alleged transfer of the player X from it to the club B with which - according to
the player passport - the player signed his first employment contract as a
Professional. According to the player passport, the respective International
Transfer Certificate (ITC) was issued for the player on 13 April 2005.
3. The Federation of the club A informs FIFA that its affiliated club belongs to
Category 4.
4. The Respondent explains that it rejects the claim of the claimant in full. It
explains that it had received the name of the player X from the licensed
players’ agent Y who had told it that the claimant had no claims of financial
nature whatsoever, including no claims for training compensation.
5. Furthermore, the Respondent states that an employment contract had been
signed between it and the player on 30 March 2005 for which the parties
agreed that it was only valid if the respondent came to an agreement with the
claimant (§ 14 of the employment contract) and that the respondent had the
right to unilaterally cancel the contract until 30 June 2005 (§ 18 of the
employment contract). The club affirms that in order to make the player fully
aware of the situation, another “agreement” was signed between the parties
by means of which the player acknowledged being aware that the
employment contract was only valid if the respondent came to an agreement
with the player’s former club. The Respondent explains that no agreement
could be found between it and the claimant and that therefore, it had used its
contractual right and had cancelled the employment contract with the player.
The latter consequently returned home and played with the claimant.
6. The Respondent summarises that the employment contract had been
concluded on a condition which had not occurred. In addition, the
Respondent explains that no transfer agreement had been concluded
between it and the Claimant. Finally, the Respondent alleges that before
signing the contract with it, the player had already played with the Claimant as
a Professional since he allegedly had a high salary.
2
7. The Claimant rejects in response the aforementioned allegations. It states that
with expenses of EUR 190,000 for in total 500 licensed players, 23 teams and 25
coaches, it would not make any player dream and that none of its players had
a fixed salary. The Claimant encloses a written statement of the Federation of
the Respondent dated 17 May 2005, confirming that the player was registered
with the Respondent as a non-amateur player.
8. Upon FIFA’s invitation to submit its comments thereto, in particular with respect
to the alleged issuance of the ITC and the aforementioned confirmation letter
from the Federation of the Respondent, the Respondent admits that an ITC had
been issued for the player and that the player had been formally registered
with the Respondent for 2 months and 17 days. Furthermore, the club reiterates
having been fooled by the player and the player’s agent by being informed
that the Claimant would have no financial claims whatsoever against it.
9. In case that FIFA would rule that a transfer had in fact been executed, the
Respondent pleads for an exemption from payment of training compensation,
due to the short period of registration of the player with it and due to the
special circumstances of the case at hand. The amount of EUR 60,000 could
not be accepted as legally grounded. Finally, the club requests that the player
X and the players’ agent Y should be questioned in the matter.
10. Being informed by FIFA that no hearing would be held in the matter at hand
but that written statements of witnesses could be submitted by the parties, the
Respondent submits a statement of the players’ agent Y by means of which he
states that the Claimant had confirmed him orally that no fees - neither transfer
compensation nor solidarity contribution - had to be paid to the Claimant.
However, he adds that the Claimant had never provided him with a written
statement even though he had requested it several times.
11. Upon FIFA’s request, the Federation of the Respondent informed FIFA that the
player concerned was registered with the Respondent from 13 April 2005 until
13 February 2006 and that on 13 February 2006, the Federation of the
Respondent had issued an International Transfer Certificate for the player
concerned for the Federation Z in favour of its affiliated club C.
12. According to the information submitted to FIFA by the Federation of the
Respondent regarding the categories of its clubs, the Respondent belongs to
Category 3.
3
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Chamber analysed whether it was competent to deal with the
matter at stake. In this respect, it referred to art. 18 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber. The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 22 August
2005, as a consequence the Chamber concluded that the revised Rules
Governing Procedures (edition 2005) on matters pending before the decision
making bodies of FIFA are applicable to the matter at hand.
2.
With regard to the competence of the Chamber, art. 3 par. 1 of the
above-mentioned Rules states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(DRC) shall examine its jurisdiction in the light of articles 22 to 24 of the
current version of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players
(edition 2005). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art.
22 (d) of the aforementioned Regulations, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber shall adjudicate on disputes between two clubs belonging to
different Associations related to training compensation.
3.
As a consequence, the DRC is the competent body to decide on the
present litigation concerning the training compensation claimed by the
Claimant for the training and education of the player X.
4.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber analyzed which edition of
the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable
as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber referred to
art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players
(edition 2005) in the modified version in accordance with the FIFA circular
no. 995 dated 23 September 2005. Furthermore, it acknowledged that the
player had been registered for his new club on 13 April 2005. Equally the
Chamber took note that the claim was lodged at FIFA on 22 August 2005.
In view of the aforementioned, the Chamber concluded that the former
FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2001,
hereafter: the Regulations) are applicable to the case at hand as to the
substance.
5.
In continuation, and entering into the substance of the matter, the
members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the documentation
contained in the file and took note of the fact that according to the
statement of the Federation of the Claimant, the player involved was
registered with the Claimant as an amateur player from 1992 until the end
of the season 1999/2000 as well as during the season 2004/2005, i.e. for
4
nine seasons between the age of 8 until 15 and at the age of 20.
Furthermore, it took note that the Claimant belongs to Category 4.
6.
Furthermore, the Chamber noted that it was uncontested that an
International Transfer Certificate (ITC) was issued for the Federation of the
Respondent by the Federation of the Claimant in favour of the
Respondent on 13 April 2005, i.e. when the player was 20 years old.
7.
The members of the DRC acknowledged further the fact that according
to the Federation of the Respondent , the Respondent belongs to
Category 3.
8.
In continuation, the Chamber drew its attention to the statement of the
Respondent that it had concluded an employment contract with the
player on 20 March 2005 but that the contract was only valid on condition
that the Respondent would find an agreement with the player’s former
club, i.e. the Claimant, regarding the transfer of the player. According to
the employment contract, the Respondent had the right to unilaterally
cancel the contract until 30 June 2005. The Chamber took note of the
allegation of the Respondent that it had cancelled the employment
contract because an agreement with the Claimant could not be found.
9.
In order to establish if a transfer of the player had actually taken place,
the Chamber referred to the undisputed facts that an ITC was issued for
the Federation of the Respondent in order to register the player with the
respondent club and that the player had in fact been registered with the
respondent club. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Federation of
the Respondent had informed FIFA that the player concerned was
registered with the Respondent from 13 April 2005 until 13 February 2006,
i.e. for 10 months, and that the player had then been transferred to the
club C. The Chamber stated that the issuance of the ITC and the
registration of the player were two indications which clearly lead to the
conclusion that the player was actually transferred to the Respondent.
The statement of the Federation of the Respondent that the ITC was
subsequently not sent back to the Federation of the Claimant but was
issued for the Federation Z in favour of its affiliated club C, was also
considered by the Chamber to be an indication that the player was
indeed transferred to the Respondent.
10.
Furthermore, the Chamber analyzed the assertion of the Respondent that,
via the licensed players’ agent Y, it had been informed by the Claimant
that the latter would not have any financial claim whatsoever against the
Respondent, neither for training compensation nor solidarity contribution.
5
The Chamber noted that the Respondent had allegedly obtained this
waiver only verbally and not in writing wherefore the Respondent could
not provide FIFA with any relevant written statement of the Claimant. The
Chamber added that it had noted that the Respondent had submitted a
written statement of the players’ agent Y by means of which he
confirmed that Mr V from the Claimant had verbally assured him that no
fees would have to be paid to the claimant club. In this respect, the
Chamber stated that Y could, as the agent of the Respondent, not be
considered as an impartial witness and that the respondent could not
substantiate its allegation. Therefore, the Chamber considered the
allegation of the respondent to be ungrounded and therefore it has to be
rejected due to the lack of probative force of the remitted statement.
11.
The Chamber added that the fact that no transfer agreement was
concluded between the two parties does not corroborate the
respondent’s arguments as according to the player passport, the player
concerned was registered with the claimant club as an amateur
wherefore a transfer agreement is redundant, due to the per se non
existing contractual link between amateur players and their clubs. As
explained at a later stage, the allegation of the respondent that the
player was registered with the Claimant already as a professional player is
found by the Chamber to be a not substantiated allegation which has to
be rejected.
12.
As a consequence of the above, the Chamber concluded that the
player was transferred to the respondent at the age of 20.
13.
In this respect, the Chamber took note of the respondent’s allegation that
before signing the contract with it, the player had already played at the
claimant club as a professional player since he allegedly had a high
salary. The Chamber noted that the allegation was contested by the
Claimant and that the Respondent had not provided FIFA with any
evidence in support of its allegation and that it therefore has to be
rejected.
14.
Subsequently, the Chamber maintained that as established in Chapter VII
of the Regulations, training compensation for a player’s training and
education is payable by the new club either when the player signs his first
contract as a Professional or each time a player changes from one club
to another up to the time his training and education is complete.
15.
In accordance with art. 5.1. of the Regulations governing the Application
of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the
6
Application Regulations), the training period to be taken into account for
the calculation of the training compensation starts at the beginning of the
season of the player’s 12th birthday and finishes at the end of the season
of the player’s 21st birthday.
16.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the claimant club is entitled
to receive training compensation for the seasons 1996/19997, 1997/1998,
1998/1999, 1999/2000 and 2004/2005 , i.e. at the player’s age of 12 to 15
and at the age of 20.
17.
In this respect, and taking into consideration that the player was
transferred within the EU/EEU area and that he was transferred from a
lower (category 4) to a higher category (category 3), the Chamber
considered that art. 7 par. 4a) of the Application Regulations applies
which stipulates that the calculation of the training compensation shall be
the average of the training costs for the two categories.
18.
In continuation, the Chamber referred to the FIFA circular no. 959 dated
16 March 2005 according to which category 3 and 4 in Europe
correspond to a yearly compensation of EUR 30,000 respectively EUR
10,000. In addition, the Chamber referred to art. 7 par. 2 of the
aforementioned Regulations according to which the amount for players
aged 12 to 15 shall be based on the training and education costs for
Category 4.
19.
Based on all the foregoing considerations, the Chamber upheld the claim
of the claimant club for training compensation for the training and
education of the player X in the amount of EUR 60,000.
20.
In conclusion to the above, the DRC decided that the respondent has to
pay the amount of EUR 60,000 to the claimant.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant is accepted.
2.
The Respondent has to pay the amount of EUR 60,000 to the Claimant.
3.
The amount due to the Claimant has to be paid by the Respondent within
the next 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision.
7
4.
In the event that the debt of the Respondent is not paid within the stated
deadline, an interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiry of the
aforementioned deadline.
5.
If the sum of EUR 60,000 is not paid within the aforementioned deadline,
the present matter shall be submitted to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee,
so that the necessary disciplinary sanctions may be imposed.
6.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent directly and
immediately of the account number to which the remittance is to be
made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment
received.
7.
According to art. 60 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:
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:
Urs Linsi
General Secretary
8
Enclosed: CAS directives
9