Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 August 2009,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member
on a matter between the
P Football Federation,
as Claimant
and the club
C,
as Respondent
regarding training compensation related to
the transfer of the player D
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The player, D (hereinafter: the player), was born on 8 January 1988.
2.
The P Football Federation (hereinafter: the Claimant) confirmed that the player had
been registered as an amateur for the P club, A (hereinafter: A) from 17 May 2002
until 31 May 2006. Furthermore, the Claimant asserted that the player had not been
registered for any affiliated club from the season of the player’s 12th birthday until 17
May 2002.
3.
The football season in P lasts from January to December.
4.
According to a written confirmation delivered by the U Football Association (hereinafter:
U Football Association), the player was registered for its affiliate, club C (hereinafter: the
Respondent), as a professional player, on 1 June 2006.
5.
The U Football Association confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the category
II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year within UEFA) during the season
2005/2006.
6.
On 3 June 2008, the Claimant lodged a complaint before FIFA against the
Respondent requesting its proportion of training compensation. In particular, the
Claimant requested the payment of a total amount of EUR 190,000, plus 5% of
interest, composed as follows:
for the seasons between the player’s 12th and 15th birthday: EUR 40,000;
for the seasons of the player’s 16th and 17th birthday: EUR 120,000;
for the season of the player’s 18th birthday (6 months): EUR 30,000.
7.
In this respect, the Claimant held that the player was not registered for any of its
affiliated clubs from the season of his 12th birthday until his registration for A on 17
May 2002. Thus, the Claimant maintained being entitled to receive training
compensation related to the aforementioned period of time based on art. 3 par. 3 of
Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. Furthermore, the
Claimant declared that it was entitled to claim the relevant proportion of training
compensation for the period during which the player was registered for A, since the
latter club did not make itself known within 18 months of the player’s first
registration as a professional.
8.
On 30 September 2008, the Claimant informed FIFA that A duly received the relevant
proportion of training compensation from the Respondent. As a consequence, the
Claimant amended its claim, and requested the payment of the proportion of
training compensation for the period between the season of the player’s 12th
birthday until 17 May 2002, without specifying any amount again.
2
9.
On 8 October 2008, the Respondent rejected the claim, based on the fact that the
player was not registered for any club between the season of the player’s 12th
birthday until 17 May 2002.
10. On 16 February 2009, the Claimant adhered to its claim. Furthermore, it declared that
the player was living in P between the years 2000 and 2002. In addition, and in
response to FIFA’s specific request, the Claimant affirmed that it was not possible to
determine in which club the player had been trained, since lots of players in P start to
play football in teams of their district or of their school, which are not affiliated to
the national Football Federation. The Claimant added that, in accordance with art. 3
par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, it only
has to demonstrate that no link can be established between the player and a club or,
in any case, that more than 18 months have elapsed since the first registration of the
player as a professional, without a club that had trained him making itself known.
11. On 10 March 2009, the Respondent rejected, once again, the claim. In this respect,
the Respondent maintained that the claim was, in fact, prescribed, since two years
have elapsed between the issuance of the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) of
the player on 1 June 2006 by the Claimant in favour of the U Football Association
and the present claim lodged on 3 June 2008. Indeed, according to the Respondent,
the deadline of the prescription starts on the date of the player’s registration, in
casu, on 1 June 2006.
12. On 29 May 2009, the Claimant rejected the fact that its claim was time-barred as
advocated by the Respondent. Firstly, according to the Claimant, the two years
deadline of prescription starts to run only 18 months after the first registration of the
player as a professional. Furthermore, and in case the competent deciding body
would not follow its first argumentation, the Claimant maintained that the relevant
deadline of time limitation starts to run 30 days after the registration of the player
for the new club, i.e. when the new club shall pay the relevant proportion(s) of
training compensation to the training club(s). Therefore, in casu, two years would
have elapsed on 1 July 2008, i.e. 30 days after the player’s registration for the
Respondent on 1 June 2006. Finally, the Claimant referred to art. 16 par. 8 of the
Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber, which stipulates that “All time limits shall be suspended […] for
a period of five days before and five days after an Ordinary or an Extraordinary
Congress”. Since the 58th FIFA Congress was held on 29 and 30 May 2008, this means
that all time limits were suspended until 4 June 2008. Thus, its claim, lodged on 3
June 2008, would not be prescribed for that reason, as well.
13. On 3 August 2009, the Respondent adhered to its previous position alleging, once
again, that the claim of the Claimant was time-barred since more than two years
have elapsed between the player’s registration and the date the present complaint
was lodged.
3
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 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 3 June 2008, 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) (edition 2005; hereinafter:
Procedural Rules) 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 and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in
combination with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2008), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on
the present litigation with an international dimension concerning the training
compensation claimed by the Claimant, the Football Federation of P, in connection
with the transfer of the professional player, D, to a B club.
3.
Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered for the
Respondent on 1 June 2006, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be
applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed
that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (edition 2008), and considering that the present matter was
submitted to FIFA on 3 June 2008, the previous edition of the regulations (edition
2005; 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. The members of
the Chamber started by acknowledging that the Claimant requested training
compensation in connection with the first registration of the player as a
professional for the Respondent at the U Football Association on 1 June 2006.
5.
Equally, the Chamber took note that the Claimant had requested training
compensation based on the fact that the player had not been registered for any of
its affiliated clubs for the period comprehended between 1 January 2000 (season of
the player’s 12th birthday) and 17 May 2002 (season of the player’s 14th birthday).
6.
In continuation, 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
4
a professional is transferred between two clubs of two different Associations,
before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
7.
However, the Chamber underlined that in the present case, it was the P Football
Federation, i.e. an association, and not a club, which claimed the payment of the
relevant training compensation. Therefore, it had in particular to analyse whether
the conditions set forth in art. 3 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations were fulfilled.
8.
The Chamber recapitulated that the aforementioned provision stipulates that if a
link between a professional and any of the clubs that trained him cannot be
established within 18 months of the player’s first registration as a professional, the
training compensation shall be paid to the association(s) of the country where the
professional was trained.
9.
On this basis, the Chamber pointed out that, at first, it had to analyse whether the
time frame of 18 months for the possible establishment of a link between a
professional player and a club had already elapsed after the transfer of the player
to the Respondent, which was a prerequisite contained in art. 3 par. 3 of Annex 4 of
the Regulations.
10.
To that regard, the members of the Chamber stated that the player had been
registered for the first time as a professional for the Respondent on 1 June 2006.
Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of Annex 4 of the Regulations,
which stipulates that the training compensation to the training club(s) should be
paid by the new club no later than 30 days after the player’s registration, which, in
casu, was on 1 June 2006.
11.
In view of the aforementioned, the Chamber took note that the required time
frame of 18 months for the possible establishment of a link between the player and
a training club had elapsed and that therefore, the Claimant was, in principle,
entitled to claim training compensation.
12.
In continuation, the Chamber took note of the fact that, in support of its claim, the
Claimant firstly asserted that the player had not been registered for any of its
affiliated clubs from 1 January 2000 until 17 May 2002.
13.
Furthermore, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that, according to the
Claimant, it was not possible to determine which club trained the player, since lots
of players in P start to play football in teams of their district or of their school,
which are not affiliated to the national Football Federation.
14.
Equally, the Chamber observed that, according to the Claimant, an association had
only to prove that no link could be established between a player and a club or, in
any case, that more than 18 months have elapsed since the first registration of the
player as a professional, without a club that had trained him making itself known.
5
15.
To that regard, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to refer to art. 3 par. 3 of
Annex 4 of the Regulations according to which the training compensation shall be
paid to the association of the country where the professional was trained “[i]f a link
between the Professional and any of the clubs that trained him cannot be
established […] within 18 months of the player’s first registration as a professional
…” (emphasis added).
16.
On the basis of the aforementioned wording, the members of the Chamber were
eager to emphasise that the Regulations clearly and unambiguously request for the
player to have been trained in football during the period of time in which no link
between the professional player and any of the clubs that trained him can be
established. Only such understanding can properly reflect the aim and ratio of the
training compensation which is to reward the clubs investing in the football
training and education of young players. In other words, if prior to enter into
football a player practised no sport at all or another sport, that training cannot be
compensated within the football structures.
17.
Moreover, the Chamber deemed it equally important to stress that the
aforementioned provision of the Regulations (cf. point II., 15. above) explicitly and
beyond any doubts mentions that, under the required circumstances, “training
compensation shall be paid to the association(s) … where the Professional was
trained …” (emphasis added). Also the norm in question clearly refers to clubs that
trained him (the player).
18.
Consequently, it is indeed a clear requirement established by the provision in
question that evidence for the player’s football training in the country of the
association concerned has to be provided by the Claimant. Without such evidence,
one of the essential prerequisites listed in art. 3 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations
is not fulfilled, which, according to the Chamber, must undoubtedly result in the
dismissal of any claim of the association concerned for training compensation.
19.
Alleged, not further specified or corroborated training in teams of a district or of a
school, yet falling outside the well-defined structures of organised football, cannot
be considered as sufficient evidence in that regard. In this respect, for the sake of
good order, and in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the
Chamber was eager to emphasise that the Claimant had not even provided any kind
of evidence for such training to have been provided to the player.
20.
As a result, the Chamber unanimously concluded that, contrary to the Claimant’s
position, it is an association’s responsibility not only to demonstrate that no link
could be established between a professional and a club, but also to give evidence
for the player to have actually been trained in football by a club during the relevant
period of time, if it intends to claim training compensation.
6
21.
Therefore, if no evidence is provided that the player was clearly trained in football
by a club during the relevant period of time, the new club of the player is not
obliged to pay any training compensation for the period where no records were
found.
22.
As a consequence, the Chamber stressed that in the case at hand the Claimant had
failed to provide FIFA with adequate and convincing documentary evidence which
would have clearly indicated that the player was indeed trained in football by any
club during the period for which no records regarding his registration could be
found.
23.
On the basis of all these considerations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
unanimously concluded that, also in confirmation of its recent jurisprudence, the
claim of the Claimant for the training compensation for the period from 1 January
2000 until 17 May 2002 must be rejected.
24.
On account of the foregoing and concluding its deliberations in the present affair,
the Chamber did not deem it appropriate to enter into the substance of the other
arguments raised by the parties to the dispute.
*****
7
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
The claim of the Claimant, P Football Federation, is rejected.
*****
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
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Encl. CAS directives
8