Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 6 August 2009,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Philippe Piat (France), member
Carlos Soto (Chile), member
Caio Cesar Vieira Rocha (Brazil), member
Essa Saleh Al Housani (United Arab Emirates), member
on a matter between the club
C,
as Claimant
and the club
Z,
as Respondent
regarding training compensation related to
the transfer of the player M
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The player M (hereinafter: the player), was born on 17 January 1986.
2.
According to a “Historial de Transferencias” provided by the P Football
Association, the player was registered with the club C (hereinafter: the Claimant),
from 1 March 2002 until 18 August 2006. However, upon request of FIFA, the P
Football Association declared, on 13 July 2009, that the player was registered with
the Claimant from 1 March 2002 until 10 August 2006.
3.
According to a statement of the P Football Association, dated 5 December 2007,
the player had an amateur status during the period of registration with the
Claimant.
4.
With regard to the duration of the relevant sporting seasons in P, the P Football
Association indicated that the sporting season starts on 1 January and ends on 31
December.
5.
According to the O Football Association, the player was registered with Z
(hereinafter: the Respondent) on 1 July 2006 as a professional.
6.
By means of a correspondence dated 22 June 2009, the O Football Association
stated that the Respondent was a category 3 club.
7.
On 28 August 2006, the Claimant lodged a complaint before FIFA against the
Respondent claiming the payment of training compensation in a total amount of
EUR 120,000.
8.
On 16 November 2007, the Respondent rejected the claim lodged by the Claimant
and stated that training compensation could not have been paid to the Claimant,
since it was apparently impossible to establish the player’s status during the period
of his registration with the Claimant and whether the player “had any link with
the club C that could be considered as a contract.”
9.
On 25 January 2008, FIFA informed the Respondent that the player had been
registered with the Claimant as an amateur according to the declaration provided
by the P Football Association, dated 5 December 2007 (cf. no I.3 above).
10.
On 20 October 2008, the Claimant maintained its position and argued that the
Respondent had to pay a total amount of EUR 120,000 as training compensation
corresponding to four times EUR 30,000, since the player had been allegedly
registered with the Claimant for four seasons.
11.
On 27 October 2008, the Respondent requested the Claimant to present a base of
calculation of the claimed amount as well as the player passport.
2
12.
On 7 January 2009, the Respondent held that no training compensation was due
to the Claimant, since the relevant player passport had not been delivered.
Furthermore, the Respondent stated, without, however, submitting any
documentary evidence, that the payment requested by the Claimant was
disproportionate, since “the sum of EUR 30,000 (UEFA category III club) shall not
be calculated regardless of the training costs effectively borne by the former club,
the calculation of those costs need to be requested from the Club C.”
II.
Consideration of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed whether it was competent to
deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, the Chamber first referred to art. 21
par. 2 and 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008). The present
matter was submitted to FIFA on 28 August 2006, thus before the aforementioned
Rules entered into force on 1 July 2008. Therefore, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of
the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC)
(hereinafter: Procedural Rules; edition 2005) and concluded that the 2005 edition
of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules, which states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine
its jurisdiction in the light of art. 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (edition 2008). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in connection
with art. 22 lit. d) of the aforementioned Regulations, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber shall adjudicate on disputes relating to training compensation.
3.
Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the
matter. In this respect, the Chamber referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2008) and,
on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged on 28 August
2006 and that the player was registered with the Respondent on 1 July 2006. In
view of the aforementioned, the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that the
2005 edition of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter:
the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so,
the Dispute Resolution Chamber started to acknowledge the facts of the case as
well as the documentation contained in the file.
3
5.
Furthermore, 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, or
when a professional is transferred between two clubs of two different
Associations, before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
6.
In this respect, the Dispute Resolution Chamber recalled that the player, born on
17 January 1986, was registered with the Claimant as from 1 March 2002 until 10
August 2006 as an amateur player and that the Claimant claimed the payment of
an amount of EUR 120,000.
7.
Equally, the members of the Chamber noted that the Respondent contested the
Claimant’s entitlement to receive training compensation.
8.
In this respect, the Chamber took note that, according to the Respondent, it was
apparently impossible to establish the status of the player during his registration
with the Claimant and whether he “had any link with the club C that could be
considered as a contract.” Moreover, the Chamber acknowledged that the
Respondent held that no training compensation was due to the Claimant, since
the relevant player passport had not been delivered.
9.
In this context, the Dispute Resolution Chamber firstly noted that, according to
the P Football Association, the player had been registered with the Claimant as an
amateur. Furthermore, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that, on 25 January
2008, FIFA informed the Respondent of the foregoing fact.
10.
In addition, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to recall that FIFA invited the P
Football Association to provide it with an official confirmation of the exact period
of registration of the player with the Claimant and that the said Football
Association remitted the requested information on 13 July 2009. Thus, the P
Football Association informed FIFA that the player had been registered from 1
March 2002 until 10 August 2006. In this respect, the Chamber considered that the
aforementioned attestation validly replaced the need of a player passport, since it
contained the pertinent information, i.e. the exact registration period of the
player, in an accurate and precise way.
11.
On account of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant was
entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent, since, based on
the documents at disposal, it could be established that the player, born on 17
January 1986, was registered for the first time as a professional with the
Respondent on 1 July 2006, i.e. before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.
4
12.
As a result, and considering the above points I. 2. and I. 5. as well as II. 5. and II. 6.
as well as art. 3 par. 1 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the
amount payable is calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of
training that the player spent with each club, the Chamber concluded that the
effective period of time to be considered in the matter at stake corresponds to the
period between 1 March 2002 until at least 30 June 2006, i.e. for a period of 4
sporting seasons and 4 months.
13.
Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber
referred to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that,
as a general rule, it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by
the new club as if it had trained the player itself and thus it is calculated based on
the training costs of the new club multiplied by the number of years of training
with the former club.
14.
In continuation, the Chamber took due note that, according to the information
provided by the O Football Association, the Respondent was a category 3 club at
the time the player was registered for it on 1 July 2006. Moreover, the Chamber
took into account that the indicative training costs for a category 3 club and
member of a national association affiliated to the Union des Associations
Européennes de Football (UEFA) amount to EUR 30’000 per season.
15.
In this context, the Dispute Resolution Chamber observed that the Respondent
contested the amount claimed and considered it as disproportionate.
16.
Therefore, the Chamber referred to art. 5 par. 4 of Annex of the Regulations,
according to which “The Dispute Resolution Chamber may review disputes
concerning the amount of Training Compensation payable and shall have
discretion to adjust this amount if it is clearly disproportionate to the case under
review.” (emphasis added).
17.
Equally, the Chamber referred to the contents of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural
Rules, which stipulates that any party deriving a right from an alleged fact shall
carry the burden of proof and pointed out that the Respondent had not provided
FIFA with any substantial documentary evidence establishing that the amount
claimed was clearly disproportionate and, consequently, that the Chamber should
deviate from the indicative amounts.
18.
Consequently and taking into account all the above-mentioned elements, the
Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the Claimant was entitled to receive
training compensation from the Respondent in an amount of EUR 120,000.
5
19.
Therefore, the Chamber decided that the Respondent was liable to pay to the
Claimant training compensation amounting to EUR 120,000 and, hence, the claim
of the Claimant, C, is accepted.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, C, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Z, has to pay to the Claimant, C, the amount of EUR 120,000
within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision.
3.
If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, an
interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiry of the fixed time limit and the
present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary
Committee so that the necessary disciplinary sanctions may be imposed.
4.
The Claimant, C, is directed to inform the Respondent, Z, immediately and
directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to
notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
*****
6
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 63 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
Markus Kattner
Deputy Secretary General
Encl.
CAS directives
7