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
A, X,
as Claimant
against the club
B, Y
as Respondent
regarding a training compensation dispute
in connection with the transfer of the player C.
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to written statements of the X Football Association, the player C,
born on 29 October 1982, was registered with the X club A, the Claimant, as an
amateur player from 1 April 1997 to 7 February 2002 and from 1 June 2002 to 6
August 2004.
2.
Furthermore, the aforementioned statements establish that the player C was
registered with the X club D as an amateur player from 7 February 2002 to 31
May 2002 and from 6 August 2004 to 31 August 2004, on a loan basis.
3.
Finally, the X Football Association confirms that its affiliate was a Professional
club from 1994 to 2001 and a Semi-Professional club from 2002 to 2004.
4.
The player was transferred from the claimant club to the Y club B, the
Respondent, on 31 August 2004.
5.
On 12 July 2005, the Claimant turned to FIFA claiming from the Respondent the
amount of USD 405,000 as training compensation due to the fact that the
player in question signed his first contract as a professional football player with
the respondent club on 31 August 2004. The Claimant derives the claimed
amount from the employment contract concluded between the respondent
club and the player C on 31 August 2004. According to the Claimant, the
aforementioned employment contract establishes the right in its favour to
receive from the respondent club the total amount of USD 405,000 as
compensation for the player in question. In this respect, the Claimant presented
a copy of the said employment contract.
6.
Art. 3.1.B of the above-mentioned employment contract stipulates the following
compensation in favour of the claimant club:
- USD 80,000, payable until 31 December 2004,
- USD 62,500, payable until 31 July 2005,
- USD 62,500, payable until 31 December 2005,
- USD 100,000, payable until 31 July 2006 and
- USD 100,000, payable until 31 December 2006.
7.
The Claimant explains that the Respondent and the player prematurely
terminated the above-mentioned employment contract, which was concluded
for three years, on 21 October 2004. The claimant club further maintains that it
only would have accepted the anticipated termination of the employment
contract and therewith given up the claim for training compensation for the
player in question, if the Respondent would have returned the relevant
International Transfer Certificate (ITC) for the player C. In this respect, the
Claimant presented a copy of a letter dated 8 October 2004 addressed to the
respondent club, by means of which it explained the aforementioned. The
Claimant concludes that since the said ITC had not been issued, the
2
Respondent caused it a damage. As a consequence, the Claimant claims the
above-mentioned amount of USD 405,000 as compensation for the training and
education of the player in question.
8.
The Respondent reasoned that it was of the opinion that the X club D was the
club from which the player was transferred to it. It further maintained that since
the player passport had never been sent to it, it did not know with which club
the player was registered prior to 6 August 2004. As a result, the Respondent
affirmed that it could not have known that there was any claim regarding
training compensation from the part of the claimant club.
9.
Furthermore, the Respondent added that the player did not sign his first
employment contract with it.
10.
Equally, the Respondent contested the Claimant’s allegation, according to
which the Y Football Association would not have returned the relevant ITC. In
this respect, the Respondent presented a copy of the ITC, which shows the
transfer of the player in question from the Claimant to Y issued by the X Football
Association on 31 August 2004 and a copy of the player’s ITC, showing the
transfer of the player back to X (Note: the certificate is valid as from 29
November 2004, but dated 11 January 2005). The Respondent added that the
player was transferred to the X club E.
11.
Furthermore, the respondent club maintained that since the Claimant is not a
party to the employment contract signed between the Respondent and the
player, it can not derive any rights from it. Notwithstanding the aforementioned,
the club added that the agreed compensation of USD 405,000 was not related
to the training and education of the player, but concluded in accordance with
art. 22 of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition
2001).
12.
On account of the above-mentioned, the respondent club asked for the
present claim to be rejected.
13.
In reply hereto, the Claimant contested the respondent club’s allegations. It
maintained that it was indicated in the relevant ITC that the Claimant was the
last club with which the player C was registered. Moreover, it explained that it is
the responsibility of the club that contracts a player to check the player’s
situation with regard to his status (amateur or professional) before it signs an
employment contract with him.
14.
With regard to the Respondent’s allegation, according to which the agreed
compensation would be related to art. 22 of the above-mentioned Regulations,
the Claimant objected that this cannot be correct, since the relevant provision
refers to contractual disputes and the player did not conclude in X any
employment contract prior to his transfer to Y.
3
15.
Finally, the Claimant maintained that if the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) is
of the opinion that the training compensation has to be calculated according
to Circular No. 826, than the claimed amount for training compensation would
be EUR 170,000 according to the following calculation:
- Season 1997 (A: category 3):
- Season 1998 (A: category 3):
- Season 1999 (A: category 3):
- Season 2000 (A: category 3):
- Season 2001 (A: category 3):
- ½ Season 2002 (A: category 4):
- Season 2003 (A: category 4):
- ½ Season 2004 (A: category 4):
EUR 30,000
EUR 30,000
EUR 30,000
EUR 30,000
EUR 30,000
EUR 5,000
EUR 10,000
EUR 5,000
16.
Finally, the Claimant underlined that in case the DRC is of the opinion that
training compensation would be higher than the above-mentioned calculation,
it would accept to fix the claimed amount to the sum of EUR 170,000 or USD
205,000.
17.
The Respondent adhered to its position, since it allegedly did not receive the
player passport.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) 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 12 July 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 abovementioned 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 and education of the player D.
4
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 C had been
registered for the first time as a professional on 31 August 2004. Equally the
Chamber took note that the claim was lodged at FIFA on 12 July 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, in accordance with the confirmation of the X
Football Association, the player involved was registered with the claimant club
as from 1 April 1997 to 7 February 2002 and from 1 June 2002 to 6 August 2004,
that is, for seven sporting seasons between the ages of 14 and 21.
6.
Furthermore, the DRC took note of the fact that the X Football Association
confirmed that the claimant club was a professional club from 1994 to 2001,
which corresponds to the FIFA club category 3 and a semi-professional club
from 2002 to 2004, which corresponds to the FIFA club category 4, both in
accordance with the FIFA circular no. 959 dated 16 March 2005.
7.
In addition, the members of the DRC acknowledged the X Football
Association’s confirmation according to which the player was registered in X
always under the status of an amateur player.
8.
Moreover, the DRC took due note of the fact that the player in question was
transferred at the age of 21 to the respondent club on 31 August 2004, where
he undisputedly signed an employment contract with the respondent as a
professional player.
9.
In continuation, the Chamber turned its attention to the Claimant’s requests for
training compensation. As regards the claimed amount of USD 405,000 derived
from the employment contract concluded between the Respondent and the
player C, the DRC took note of the fact that the claimant club was not a party
to this contract, nor co-signed the said contract. Consequently, and in
accordance with the general principle of law, that a party cannot derive any
rights from a contract of which it was not a contracting party, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber decided to reject this claim of the Claimant.
10.
Subsequently, the members of the DRC turned their attention to the
Respondent’s allegations, according to which it allegedly was neither informed
upon the player’s last club prior to his transfer, nor informed upon an existing
5
claim regarding training compensation, nor provided with the player passport.
In this respect, the members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber stated that first
and foremost, they cannot accept such objections, because both the
employment contract and the relevant ITC issued by the X Football Association
indicate the claimant club as the last club of the player. Consequently, it is
proven that the respondent club was aware of the fact that the player’s last
club prior to his international transfer was the claimant club.
11.
Furthermore, and notwithstanding the aforementioned, the Chamber
emphasised that it cannot accept such objections either, because it belongs to
the due diligence of each club, which contracts an under 23 years old player,
to clarify if it is about to sign with the player his first professional contract or a
subsequent professional contract and, if, therefore, training compensation is
possibly due to the player’s former club(s) or not.
12.
In the light of the above-stated considerations, the Chamber decided
unanimously that these allegations have to be rejected as they have proven to
be unfounded.
13.
In light of the above, and taking into consideration the fact that the player
signed his first professional contract with the Respondent at the age of 21, the
Chamber considered that the Claimant is entitled to receive training
compensation for the period of time that the player C was trained and
educated with it, that is, from 1 April 1997 to 7 February 2002 and from 1 June
2002 to 6 August 2004 between the ages of 14 and 21, as confirmed by the X
Football Association.
14.
In this regard, the Chamber referred to art. 7 par. 1 of the Regulations governing
the Application of the Regulations (hereafter: the Application Regulations),
according to which the compensation for training and education shall be
obtained by multiplying the amount corresponding to the category of the
training club for which the player was registered by the number of years of
training from 12 to 21.
15.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the period of effective training to
be taken into account for the training compensation due to the Claimant
corresponds to the period of time from 1 April 1997 until the end of the sporting
season 2003, i.e. up to the age of 21 of the player in question. Therefore, the
Chamber decided that the sporting season 2004 cannot be taken into
account.
16.
Furthermore, and taking into account the fact that the player did not transfer
within the EU/EEA, the Chamber considered that in the present case art. 7 par.
3 of the Application Regulations applies, which stipulates that, as a general
principle, compensation for training is based on the training and education
costs of the country in which the new club is located.
6
17.
In this regard, the Chamber outlined that according to the X Football
Association the claimant club was a category 3 club from 1994 to 2001 and a
category 4 club from 2002 to 2004 (cf. above-mentioned point II.6).
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 the
yearly compensation amount of EUR 30,000, respectively EUR 10,000.
19.
Finally, the members of the DRC referred to art. 7 par. 2 of the Application
Regulations, which stipulates that to ensure that training compensation for very
young players is not set at unreasonably high levels, the amount for players
aged 12 to 15 shall be based on the training and education costs for category
4. In this respect, the Chamber hold up that according to the aforementioned
provision the club category 4 applies for the sporting season 1997 in the case at
hand.
20.
As a result, the Chamber concluded that in the present case the Claimant is
entitled to receive from the Respondent the following training compensation:
- for ¾ of the sporting season 1997: EUR 7,500, that is between the ages of 14
and 15 of the player C;
- for the sporting seasons 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001: EUR 30,000 each, that is
between the ages of 15 and 19 of the player C,
- for the 8 months of the sporting season 2002: the amount of EUR 6,666,that is
between the ages of 19 and 20 of the player C and
- for the sporting season 2003: EUR 10,000, that is between the ages of 20 and
21 of the player C.
21.
In conclusion to the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the
Respondent has to pay the amount of EUR 144,666 to the Claimant.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent has to pay the amount of EUR 144,166 to the Claimant.
3.
The amount due to the Claimant has to be paid by the Respondent within 30
days as from the date of notification of this decision.
4.
If the aforementioned amount is not paid within the stated deadline, an interest
rate of 5% per year shall apply, as from expiry of the stated deadline.
7
5.
In the event that the Respondent does not comply with the present decision,
the matter shall be submitted to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee, so that the
necessary disciplinary sanctions may be imposed.
6.
Any further claims of the claimant club are rejected.
7.
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.
8.
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 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
Enclosed: CAS directives
8