Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 August 2006,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Jean-Marie Philips (Belgium), member
Zola Malvern Percival Majavu (South Africa), member
Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member
Mick McGuire (England), member
on the claim presented by
the club, A, country X,
as Claimant
against
the club, B, country Y,
as Respondent
regarding training compensation for the player C
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the confirmation of the Federation of the country X the player C
(hereinafter: the player), born on 14 January 1983, was registered for the club A
from the country X (hereinafter: the Claimant), from 22 October 1999 until 16
August 2001, the seasons of his 17th to his 18th birthday.
2.
In July/August 2005 the player signed his first professional contract with the club B
from the country Y (hereinafter: the Respondent), for which he was registered on
30 August 2005.
3.
Subsequently, the player concluded a covenant with the Respondent accepting to
assume completely the responsibility for possible claims related to transfer
payments or training compensation. Furthermore, the said covenant contains a
clause which stipulates that neither the player nor the training clubs are entitled
to demand payment from the Respondent related to the aforementioned issues.
Finally, it was agreed by the two parties concerned that no legal action would be
taken against the Respondent.
4.
On 5 December 2005, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting the
payment of training compensation as described in art. 20 and annex 4 of the FIFA
Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005) for the training
and education of the player.
5.
In its response to the claim, the Respondent refers to the aforementioned
covenant denying any responsibility to pay the demanded training compensation.
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 5 December
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 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber is the competent body to
decide on the present litigation concerning the training compensation claimed by
the Claimant for the training of the player C.
Training compensation for the player Kemel Akar, Turkey
(Türkiyemspor Berlin, Germany / Club Aydinspor, Turkey)
2
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 the
first time as a professional on 30 August 2005. Equally, the Chamber took note
that the claim was lodged at FIFA on 5 December 2005. In view of the
aforementioned, the Chamber concluded that the current FIFA Regulations for the
Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005, 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 acknowledged that on the one hand the Claimant requested training
compensation based on the number of years of training and education of the
player with the Claimant and that, on the other hand, the Respondent invoked
that it is not responsible for paying the requested training compensation on the
basis of the aforementioned covenant (cf. point I.3.).
6.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the argument put
forward by the Respondent is a covenant, according to which the Respondent and
the player agree that the latter completely assumes the responsibility for possible
claims related to transfer payments and training compensation, that neither the
player nor the training clubs are entitled to demand payments from the
Respondent related to the aforementioned issues and that no legal action would
be taken against the Respondent.
7.
The deciding body went on to examine the relevant covenant, on the basis of
which the Respondent refused to pay training compensation. In this respect, the
Chamber noted in particular that the covenant was not signed by the Claimant.
Therefore, it was emphasised by the members of the Chamber that the Claimant
was no party to the relevant covenant and that such covenant cannot be legally
binding on the Claimant.
8.
As a consequence, the members of the Chamber unanimously concluded that the
argumentation of the Respondent cannot be supported since the covenant
concluded between the Respondent and the player is not relevant to the present
dispute between the Claimant and the Respondent and, thus, cannot in any sense
deprive the Claimant of its entitlement to receive training compensation.
9.
In continuation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber referred to art. 20 in
combination with art. 1 par. 1 of annex 4 of the Regulations, and emphasised that,
Training compensation for the player Kemel Akar, Turkey
(Türkiyemspor Berlin, Germany / Club Aydinspor, Turkey)
3
as a general rule, training compensation is payable to the player’s training club(s),
for training incurred up to the age of 21, when a player signs his first contract as a
professional up to the age of 23. In this respect, it was noted that at the time the
player signed his first professional contract with the Respondent, the player was
22 years old.
10.
As a result of the above, after having duly considered all the documentation on
file, the members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber unanimously reached the
conclusion that the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation for the
training and education of the player as established in annex 4 of the Regulations.
11.
After having established the Respondent’s obligation to compensate the Claimant
for the training and education of the player in question, the Chamber went on to
deliberate on the proper calculation of this compensation, affirming that the
amount due shall be calculated in accordance with the parameters provided for by
the Regulations and the FIFA circular no. 959 dated 16 March 2005.
12.
In accordance with art. 3 par. 1 and art. 5 par. 2 of annex 4 of the Regulations, the
training period to be taken into account starts at the beginning of the season of
the player’s 12th birthday and finishes at the end the season of the player’s 21st
birthday.
13.
In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that, according to the confirmation of
the Federation of the country X, the player, born on 14 January 1983, was
registered for the Claimant as from 22 October 1999 until 16 August 2001, i.e. the
seasons of his 17th to his 19th birthday.
14.
In light of the above, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to
training compensation for the period of 1 season and 9 months.
15.
For the sake of good order, the Chamber stressed that art. 6 of annex 4 of the
Regulations concerning special provisions for the EU/EEA does not apply to the
present matter since the case at hand does no involve two clubs inside the
territory of the EU/EEA.
16.
In continuation, the Chamber stated that in accordance with art. 5 par. 1 of annex
4 of the Regulations, as a general rule, in order to calculate the training
compensation due to the player’s former club(s), it is necessary to take the costs
that would have been incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself.
In this respect, in order to clarify the sense of the aforementioned clause, the
Chamber referred to art. 5 par. 2 of annex 4 of the Regulations, according to
which the first time a player registers as a professional the training compensation
payable is calculated by taking the training costs of the new club multiplied by the
Training compensation for the player Kemel Akar, Turkey
(Türkiyemspor Berlin, Germany / Club Aydinspor, Turkey)
4
number of years of training in principle from the season of the player’s 12th
birthday to the season of his 21st birthday.
17.
Then, the Chamber observed that in accordance with the FIFA circular no. 959
dated 16 March 2005, which regards the training costs and categorisation of the
clubs, the Respondent belongs to category IV and, thus, the corresponding
indicative amount for a category IV club belonging to the UEFA is EUR 10’000.
18.
Consequently, in application of art. 5 par. 2 of annex 4 of the Regulations, the
indicative amount mentioned in the previous point of the present decision must
be multiplied by the number of years that the player was trained and educated by
the Claimant. In this regard, the Chamber referred to the point II.14. of the
present decision, according to which the total relevant period of time to be taken
into consideration corresponds to 1 season and 9 months.
19.
On account of all the foregoing considerations, the Chamber concluded that the
Respondent has to pay the amount of EUR 17’500 to the Claimant as training
compensation for the training of the player C.
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, A, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, B, shall pay the amount of EUR 17’500 to the Claimant, A, within
30 days following the date of the notification of the present decision.
3.
In the event that the above-mentioned amount is not paid within the stated
deadline, an interest rate of 5% p.a. will apply as of expiry of the fixed time limit
and the present matter shall be submitted to the FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee, so
that the necessary disciplinary sanctions may be imposed.
4.
The Claimant, A, is instructed to inform the Respondent, B, immediately of the
account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute
Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
5.
According to art. 61 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
Training compensation for the player Kemel Akar, Turkey
(Türkiyemspor Berlin, Germany / Club Aydinspor, Turkey)
5
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:
Château de Béthusy
Avenue de Beaumont 2
CH-1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
[email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Urs Linsi
General Secretary
Encl.
CAS directives
Training compensation for the player Kemel Akar, Turkey
(Türkiyemspor Berlin, Germany / Club Aydinspor, Turkey)
6