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 McGuire (England), member
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member
Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member
on the claim presented by the club,
X, XX
as “Claimant”
against the club,
Y, YY
as “Respondent”
regarding a training compensation dispute related to the
transfer of the player ZZ.
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The XXn Football Federation confirmed that the player ZZ, born on 19 March
1983, was registered with its member club, X (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 2
August 2002 until 21 January 2004 between the ages of 19 and 20 as an amateur
(player passport). Moreover, the said Federation confirmed that its football season
runs from 1 July until 30 June the following year.
2.
On 24 July 2006, the XX contacted FIFA on behalf of its affiliate, the Claimant, and
requested the payment of training compensation from the YYn club, Y
(hereinafter: the Respondent), in accordance with the relevant applicable FIFA
Regulations. The XX explained that the player was last registered with its member
club, Segesta Sisak, as an amateur before being transferred to the Respondent on
28 July 2005.
3.
According to an official statement from the YYn Football Union, the Respondent
signed on 15 July 2005 an employment contract with the player in question, which
is to be valid until 30 June 2007.
4.
According to the FIFA circular no. 959, dated 16 March 2005, which regards the
categorisation of clubs, both the Claimant and the Respondent belong to category
4.
5.
The Respondent, in reply to the claim, emphasized that no compensation shall be
paid if the former club of the player has terminated the contract with the player
without just cause. In this respect, the Respondent submitted a copy of a sentence
rendered by the Arbitration Court at the XXn Football Union dated 31 January
2003. The relevant translated document of the said decision contains, inter alia,
the following remarks:
“The player has submitted a request by which he asks to be relieved from the
obligation to compete for (the Claimant). He indicates in his request that he was
registered for the summer season of 2002 at X (the Claimant), a contract was
signed and had to be registered later by the responsible organs at CCC (XXn
Football Union). …The Club (the Claimant) has declined to sign the contract
agreed before, justifying this with the unfavourable financial situation and has
issued a confirmation to the claimant (the player) which was an evidence that
the Club (the Claimant) did not rely on the player and did not intend to sign the
contract agreed before”.
Training Compensation for the player ZZ
(Club X, XX / Club Y, YY)
The holding of the decision was, inter alia, that “according to the Regulations
for registration of clubs and players, this decision is considered official
termination of the contractual relationship between the player and the club (the
Claimant), on account of the Club (the Claimant)”.
6.
Furthermore, the Respondent submitted a copy of a document entitled as
“Request” and issued by the Claimant on 28 January 2003, according to which the
latter stated that “the player ZZ has come to our club in the summer season of
2002/2003. We have agreed with the player to sign a contract for 1 year, but
according to the rules of I.O. of CFF stating that a club under distraint is not
allowed to sign contracts, we have not managed to ratify the agreement and also
couldn’t unblock the current account, i.e. we wasn’t able to fulfil the agreement,
nor we ca do it now”. Therefore, the Claimant stated that “we don’t want make
obstacles to him (the player) development and ask you to give him possibility to be
registered in a club where to play and develop himself”.
7.
In view of all the above, the Respondent asked for the claim of the Claimant to be
rejected.
8.
The Claimant remained of its conviction to be entitled to receive training
compensation from the Respondent. In this respect, it mentioned that it is
undisputed that it had trained the player in question and that thus the conditions
contained in the Regulations are fulfilled.
9.
The Claimant added that it had never signed a contract with the player and that it
had never denied to receive compensation for training the player. With regard to
the statement it made in the document dated 28 January 2003, the Claimant
confirmed that it had financial difficulties at that time and therefore had met the
player’s wish to change club.
10.
The Claimant concluded by claiming an amount of EUR 14,166.61 plus interest and
cost of the proceedings, without, however, specifying the amount.
11.
The Respondent referred to its previous correspondence and confirmed its
contents.
Training Compensation for the player ZZ
(Club X, XX / Club Y, YY)
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 24 July 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 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 ZZ.
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
Respondent in July 2005. Equally the Chamber took note that the claim was
lodged at FIFA on 24 July 2006. In view of the aforementioned, the Chamber
concluded that the current FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players
(edition 2005; hereinafter: 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 facts of the case as well as the
documentation contained in the file.
Training Compensation for the player ZZ
(Club X, XX / Club Y, YY)
6.
In particular, the Chamber considered that in accordance with the relevant
applicable FIFA circular, which regards the categorization of clubs, the Respondent
belongs to category 4 with regard to the calculation of training compensation.
Moreover, the Chamber took note that the YYn Football Union confirmed that its
affiliate, the Respondent, is classified in category 4.
7.
In this context, the Chamber referred to art. 2 of the annex 4 of the Regulations
which, inter alia, states that training compensation is not due if the player is
transferred to a category 4 club.
8.
The Chamber emphasised that based on the documentation at its disposal, it
appears, that the player signed an employment contract when he was transferred
to the Respondent, i.e. as established above a category 4 club.
9.
As a consequence of the above, the Chamber concluded to reject the Claimant’s
claim for training compensation for the player ZZ in strict application of art. 2 of
the annex 4 of the Regulations.
Training Compensation for the player ZZ
(Club X, XX / Club Y, YY)
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, X, is rejected.
2.
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:
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
Encl.
CAS directives
Training Compensation for the player ZZ
(Club X, XX / Club Y, YY)