Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 August 2007,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Michele Colucci (Italy), member
Mick Mc Guire (England), member
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member
Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Club A, X
as Claimant
against the club,
Club B, Y
as Respondent
regarding a training compensation dispute related to the
transfer of the player C.
./…
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to a written statement of the X Football Federation, the player C
(hereinafter: the player), born on 29 July 1987, was registered as an amateur
player for club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), from 10 November 1998 to 17 August
2006.
2.
On 1 August 2006, the player and club B (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed a
professional contract valid from 1 August 2006 until 30 June 2010. The Y Football
Federation confirmed that the player was registered for the Respondent on 21
August 2006.
3.
The X Football Federation also informed that up to and including the 1999/2000
season, its football season started on 1 August and ended on 31 July. As of the
2000/01 season, the season began on 1 July and ended on 30 June of the following
year. Equally, the two respective federations confirmed that as far as the
categorisation of their affiliates is concerned, both clubs are category 2 clubs.
4.
Both clubs took into account and acknowledged that the indicative training costs
for UEFA category 2 clubs amount to EUR 60,000. Furthermore, it is recognised
that for those seasons in which category 4 needs to be applied, the amount of
yearly training costs corresponds to EUR 10’000.
5.
On 27 October 2006, the Claimant asked FIFA for assistance and claimed training
compensation from the Respondent for the training and education of the player.
6.
First of all, the Claimant alleges, that it met all of the stipulations specified in the
applicable regulations, most notably by offering the player a professional contract
for the 2006/07 and 2007/08 seasons, in writing and via registered mail, at least 60
days before the expiry of his amateur contract (offer received by the player on 27
April 2006), proposing a salary of EUR 19,000 for the first season and EUR 21,000
for the second season (cf. letter dated 26 April 2006).
7.
Secondly, the Claimant asserts that it trained the player for a total of eight
seasons, from 1998 to 2006, and is therefore claiming compensation amounting to
EUR 280,000 for eight seasons, with the first four (1998/99, 1999/2000, 2000/01,
2001/02) to be calculated at EUR 10,000 (category 4) and the final four (2002/03,
2003/04, 2004/05, 2005/06) at EUR 60,000 on the basis of a category 2 club. The
Claimant submitted detailed calculations in this regard. Furthermore, the Claimant
is asking also for default interest of 5% per annum applicable as of 30 days after
the date of registration of the player.
8.
Taking into account that the 1998/99 season had started on 1 August 1998 and
ended on 31 July 1999, the Claimant deems that the player celebrated his 12th
anniversary on 29 July 1999 and therefore during the football season 1998/99.
Consequently, he celebrated his 13th birthday in the 1999/2000 season. In the
Training Compensation for the player C
(Club A, X / Club B, Y)
2
2000/01 season, the starting and end dates of the football season in X were
modified and this season was already terminated on 30 June 2001, this specific
season 2000/01 being reduced to eleven months. As a consequence of this reduced
season, the player celebrated his 13th anniversary in the 1999/2000 season (29 July
2000), but he did not celebrate his 14th birthday in the 2000/01 season because of
the season having been reduced by one month, July 2001, i.e. exactly the month of
his birthday.
9.
The Claimant explains that this reduction of the duration of the season 2000/01
results in the fact that between the seasons of the player’s 12th and his 15th
anniversary, not only four, but five seasons had elapsed. By citing art. 5 par. 3 of
annex 4 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of players (hereinafter: the
Regulations), the Claimant interprets the dispositions of the said paragraph for the
case at hand by considering that the training costs have to be based upon the
costs of a category 4 club for the first four seasons. According to the Claimant, it is
for this reason that the calculation of the training compensation has to be made
by taking into account the first four seasons of training at a rate of EUR 10’000
and the following four seasons at EUR 60’000, what results in the total claimed
amount of EUR 280’000.
10.
The Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim by explaining that it had offered the
player a much better contract than the Claimant. Consequently, the Respondent
alleges that it is not obliged to pay any training compensation to the Claimant. To
corroborate this position, the Respondent submitted a copy of the contract
between the Respondent and the player (in Italian, no translation) to FIFA, which
confirmed that the player was earning a net salary of EUR 40,000 for the 2006/07
season, EUR 50,000 for the 2007/08 season, EUR 60,000 for the 2008/09 season and
EUR 70,000 for the 2009/10 season.
11.
Secondly, and subsidiarily, the Respondent claims that the Claimant’s calculations
were incorrect, and noted that the only method of calculation in line with the
applicable regulations was the method that takes into account the four seasons
between the player’s 12th and 15th birthdays, with each season at EUR 10,000, and
the three seasons between the player’s 16th and 18th birthdays, with each season at
EUR 60,000. This method would result in a total sum of training compensation of
EUR 220,000 and not EUR 280,000.
12.
The Respondent alleges that art. 5 of annex 4 of the Regulations has to be
interpreted as follows: Before the age of 16, a training compensation can only be
paid for four seasons. By taking into account a fifth season, one season too much
would be considered, increasing in a unjustified manner the training costs by EUR
60,000. According to the Respondent, in the case at stake, the only calculation
modality compatible with the Regulations is the one taking into account four
seasons between the 12th and the 15th anniversary of the player, each at EUR
10,000 (category 4); and the three seasons between the 16th and 18th birthday at
Training Compensation for the player C
(Club A, X / Club B, Y)
3
EUR 60,000 each; all of it cumulating to an amount of training compensation of
EUR 220,000.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution 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 27
October 2006, 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 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.
4.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber analysed 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 their
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 for the Respondent on 21 August 2006. Equally the
Chamber took note that the claim was lodged at FIFA on 27 October 2006. In view
of the aforementioned, the Chamber concluded that the current version of the
FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005, hereinafter:
the Regulations) is 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 facts of the case as well as the
documentation contained in the file.
6.
In this respect, the Chamber first of all duly noted that the Respondent contests
the Claimant’s entitlement to receive any training compensation arguing that the
Respondent offered the player much better contractual conditions than the
Claimant did.
Training Compensation for the player C
(Club A, X / Club B, Y)
4
7.
Continuing, the Chamber stated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 of annex 4 in
combination with 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 before
the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
8.
Moreover, the Chamber referred in particular also to art. 6 of annex 4 of the
Regulations, which contains special provisions regarding players moving from one
Association to another inside the territory of the European Union (EU)/European
Economic Area (EEA).
9.
In view of the above, the Chamber stated that, first and foremost, it had to verify
whether art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 of annex 4 of the Regulations applies in the present
case as lex specialis, and if so, to determine if the Claimant had complied with the
said provision in order to be fundamentally entitled to training compensation.
Should this be the case, the deciding authority would have to calculate the
amount of training compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant, if
any.
10.
As far as the applicability of art. 6 par. 3 of annex 4 of the Regulations is
concerned, the Chamber first of all stated that, as the player moved from X to Y,
i.e. between two EU countries, art. 6 par. 3 of annex 4 of the Regulations is
applicable. This fact does not appear to be contested by any of the parties.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the aforementioned provision applies in
the case at hand as lex specialis.
11.
In continuation, the Chamber analysed if the Claimant had complied with the
prerequisites of art. 6 par. 3 of annex 4 of the Regulations in order to be entitled
to training compensation.
12.
In this sense, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1
of annex 4 of the Regulations, if the former club does not offer the player a
contract, no training compensation is payable unless the former club can justify
that it is entitled to such compensation.
13.
To that regard, the Chamber pointed out that the Respondent, by alleging that it
offered the player much better contractual conditions than the Claimant, implicitly
admits that the Claimant offered the player a professional contract. The Chamber
also acknowledged that the Respondent did not maintain that any of the
conditions set in art. 6 par. 3 of annex 4 of the Regulations were not met by the
Claimant. Equally, it was noted that the contractual offer made by the Claimant to
the player by means of a letter dated 26 April 2006 was reasonable and
appropriate. Finally, the deciding authority stressed that the Regulations do not
oblige a training club to offer the player better contractual conditions than those
possibly put forward by another club. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that
Training Compensation for the player C
(Club A, X / Club B, Y)
5
all the conditions set in the Regulations for an entitlement of the Claimant to
training compensation were fulfilled. Moreover, the Chamber emphasised that the
argument of the Respondent to have proposed the player better contractual
conditions than the Claimant did not constitute a valid counter-argument against
the basic entitlement of the Claimant to request training compensation from the
Respondent.
14.
Following the first conclusion, the Chamber pointed out that the two parties
disagree with each other about the calculation modalities of the training
compensation in connection with the transfer of the player from the Claimant to
the Respondent.
15.
In this respect, the Chamber took note that the X Football Federation confirmed
that the player was registered for the Claimant as of 10 November 1998 to 17
August 2006 as an amateur player. It also acknowledged that the player signed his
first professional contract valid from 1 August 2006 until 30 June 2010 with the
Respondent on 1 August 2006 and that the Y Football Federation confirmed that
the player was registered for the Respondent on 21 August 2006.
16.
The Chamber also considered that the X Football Federation had provided the
information that up to and including the 1999/2000 season, the sporting season in
X had started on 1 August and ended on 31 July of the following year. As of the
2000/01 season, the season has begun on 1 July and ended on 30 June of the
following year.
17.
Equally, the Chamber noted that the two respective federations confirmed that as
far as the categorisation of their affiliates is concerned, both clubs are category 2
clubs. Moreover, the Chamber took into account that the indicative training costs
for UEFA category 2 clubs amount to EUR 60’000 per season, respectively to EUR
10’000 per season for category 4 clubs. The second amount is of relevance since
according to art. 5 par. 3 of annex 4 of the Regulations, the first four seasons of
training (between a player’s 12th and 15th birthday) are in any case to be based on
the training costs for category 4 clubs.
18.
Considering that the 1998/99 season had started on 1 August 1998 and had ended
on 31 July 1999, the Chamber stated that the player celebrated his 12th anniversary
on 29 July 1999 and therefore during the football season 1998/99. Consequently,
he celebrated his 13th birthday in the 1999/2000 season. The Chamber took due
note that in the 2000/01 season, the starting and end dates of the football season
in X had been modified and that this season had thus already been terminated on
30 June 2001, this specific season 2000/01 being reduced to eleven months. As a
consequence of this reduction of the duration of the season, it occurred that the
player celebrated his 13th anniversary in the 1999/2000 season (29 July 2000), but
he did not celebrate his 14th birthday in the 2000/01 season because of the season
having been reduced by one month, July 2001, i.e. precisely the month of his
birthday. The Chamber stressed that this really unique and extraordinary
Training Compensation for the player C
(Club A, X / Club B, Y)
6
constellation, i.e. the reduction of the season 2000/01 by the month of the player’s
birthday, somehow results in the fact that for formal reasons, it could be
concluded that between the seasons of the player’s 12th and 15th anniversary, not
only four, but five seasons had elapsed. Such a conclusion is, obviously, irrational.
19.
Considering the position of the Claimant, the Chamber took note that the
Claimant, by citing art. 5 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, for the case at stake
interprets the dispositions of this paragraph by estimating that the training costs
have to be based upon the costs of a category 4 club for the first four seasons of
training it offered to the player. According to the Claimant, it is for this reason
that the calculation of the training compensation has to be made by taking into
account the first four seasons of training of the player at a rate of EUR 10’000 and
the following four seasons at EUR 60’000, what results in the total amount of
training compensation of EUR 280’000.
20.
On the other hand, the Chamber acknowledged the position of the Respondent.
The latter considers that the calculation of the Claimant does not comply with the
Regulations. In particular, the Chamber took note that according to the
Respondent, the only method of calculation in line with the Regulations was the
method that actually takes into account four seasons between the player’s 12th
and 15th birthday, with each season at EUR 10,000 (for category 4 clubs), but only
three seasons between the player’s 16th and 18th birthday, with each season at EUR
60,000 (for category 2 clubs). This method would result in a sum of EUR 220,000
and not EUR 280,000 as demanded by the Claimant. In summary, the Respondent
maintains that, with respect to the case at stake, art. 5 of annex 4 of the
Regulations has to be interpreted as follows: Before the age of 16, a training
compensation can only be paid for four seasons. By taking into account a fifth
season, one season too much would be considered, increasing in a unjustified
manner the training costs by EUR 60,000.
21.
To this regard, the Chamber pointed out that both clubs were category 2 clubs
and that therefore, the amounts to be taken into account for the calculation of
the training compensation were effectively of EUR 10’000 (indicative training costs
for category 4 clubs) and of EUR 60’000 (indicative training costs for category 2
clubs).
22.
Concerning the seasons to be taken into account for the calculation of the training
compensation and their respective training costs, the Chamber was eager to
emphasise that the Regulations in their art. 5 par. 3 of annex 4 provide that the
training costs for players for the seasons between their 12th and 15th birthday shall
be based on the training and education costs for category 4 clubs. To this regard,
the Chamber stressed that this time range between the season of the 12th and 15th
birthday of the player is meant to span four seasons, as explicitly indicated in the
relevant provision.
Training Compensation for the player C
(Club A, X / Club B, Y)
7
23.
On this basis, the Chamber was of the unanimous opinion that in the case at hand,
according to the aforementioned provisions, the calculation of the training
compensation had to be made as follows: As provided for in art. 5 par. 3 of annex
4 of the Regulations, the training costs to be taken into consideration are of EUR
10’000 (for category 4 clubs) for four seasons between the 12th and 15th
anniversary of the player. As already stated above, the Chamber emphasised that
only because of the rather unique and extraordinary constellation that the X
Football Federation had modified the starting and end dates of the football
season from 1 August - 31 July to 1 July - 30 June of the following year and
because of the player’s anniversary being on 29 July, formally the calculation could
be interpreted to lead to the somehow irrational result that five seasons had
elapsed between the season of the player’s 12th and the one of his 15th birthday.
24.
Nevertheless, the Chamber wished to stress that, as a general rule, the season of
the player’s 15th birthday was the last season for which the training costs to be
taken into account shall be based on the training and education costs for category
4 clubs. According to the Chamber, this is a strict and fundamental principle of the
Regulations. As of the season of the player’s 16th birthday, the training
compensation is calculated based on the training costs of the new club (cf. art. 5
par. 2 of annex 4 of the Regulations) or, in the case of a player moving from one
Association to another inside the territory of the EU/EEA, the relevant amount
shall be established based on the provisions of art. 6 par. 1 of annex 4 of the
Regulations, i.e. either on the average of the training costs of the two clubs or on
the training costs of the lower category club. However, this distinction is irrelevant
in the case at stake, since both clubs belong to category 2.
25.
As a consequence of these considerations, the Chamber stated that even though
the very specific and extraordinary situation of the player formally may lead to the
absurd conclusion that five seasons had elapsed before the season of the player’s
16th birthday, the four seasons for which the costs of a category 4 club apply, are
the 1999/2000, 2000/01, 2001/02 and 2002/03 football seasons. In fact, the season
of the player’s 15th birthday is the 2002/03 season. As of the season of the player’s
16th birthday, the 2003/04 season, the costs to be taken into account are for each
of the three remaining seasons 2003/04, 2004/05 and 2005/06, of EUR 60’000 for
category 2 clubs. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the training compensation
that the Respondent is obliged to pay to the Claimant amounts to EUR 220’000.
26.
In continuation, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant claimed training
compensation, plus interests of 5% as of 30 days after the registration date of the
player for the Respondent.
27.
To this regard, the Chamber emphasised that the reaction of the Respondent to
refuse to pay the amount of EUR 280’000 to the Claimant was justified by the
aforementioned reasoning. The Respondent consistently alleged that the amount
possibly to be paid was not of EUR 280’000, but of EUR 220’000. Emanating from
the above-stated conclusion that the training compensation to be paid by the
Training Compensation for the player C
(Club A, X / Club B, Y)
8
Claimant amounts effectively to EUR 220’000, the Chamber decided that the
Respondent had valid reasons to object to the payment of the claimed amount
and that therefore, the Respondent would not have to pay any interests for the
training compensation owed to the Claimant.
28.
On account of all the foregoing considerations, the Chamber decided that the
Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation for the training and
education of the player in the amount of EUR 220’000 from the Respondent.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim lodged by the Claimant, club A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, club B, is ordered to pay the amount of EUR 220’000 to the
Claimant within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision.
3.
In case the aforementioned amount is not paid within the established timeframe,
interest at a rate of 5% per year shall apply as of the first day after expiry of the
deadline and the matter shall be referred to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee so that
the appropriate measures may be imposed.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
The Claimant is instructed 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 any payment received.
6.
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).
Training Compensation for the player C
(Club A, X / Club B, Y)
9
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
General Secretary
Enclosed: CAS directives
Training Compensation for the player C
(Club A, X / Club B, Y)
10