Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 21 September 2012,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Philippe Piat (France), member
Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member
Thilina Panditaratne (Sri Lanka), member
on the claim presented by the club,
FC P, of Country R,
as Claimant
against the club,
FC H, of Country U
as Respondent
regarding a training compensation dispute
related to the transfer of the player D
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the player passport issued by the National Football Federation of Country R
(NFF) the player, D (hereinafter: the player), born on xy June 1991, was registered with the
Club FC P(hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 1 July 2009 until 31 December 2009 as an
amateur. Equally the player passport indicates “no record found” during the period as from
1 January 2010 until 21 February 2010 and that the player was transferred to Country U on
22 February 2010.
2.
The sporting season in Country R follows the calendar year.
3.
According to a written statement from the Football Federation of Country U (FFU) the
player was registered with FC H (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 26 February 2010, as a
professional.
4.
The FFU confirmed that the Respondent belongs to the category II (indicative amount of
EUR 60,000 per year within UEFA).
5.
On 29 August 2011, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training
compensation for the transfer of the player to the Respondent on 22 February 2010. In
particular, the Claimant requested EUR 30,245.92 as training compensation plus an interest
rate of 5% p.a. as from “the date when the due amount became outstanding, i.e. since the
signature of the first professional contract by the player”, as well as EUR 2,000 as legal fees.
6.
In its response to the claim, the Respondent stated that it does not owe any compensation
to the Claimant since the latter gave up all such rights in writing on 10 January 2010. In this
respect, the Respondent provided a letter sent by the Regional Federation of Country R to
the Liga J of Country R dated 9 February 2010 stating that “in reply to your office, we
inform you that the amateur player D, born on xy/06/1991, Fiscal number xxxxx was
registered with the Football Club P, affiliated to the Liga J of Country R, and he is currently
free, but bound to this entity for transfer purposes” (free translation from French to
English).
7.
Moreover, the Respondent provided a correspondence dated 10 February 2010 signed by
the president of the Claimant and declaring that he “was asked to release the player D; ID
number: xxxxxxx and Fiscal number: xxxxxx, who can be transferred to the club of his
convenience, equally he is freed from any penalties, fines or compensation” (free translation
from French to English).
8.
In its replica, the Claimant argued that the documents presented by the Respondent had the
sole and exclusive purpose of declaring that the player did not had any contract with the
Claimant. Furthermore, the Claimant held that the said document cannot in any way be
Training Compensation for the player D
considered as a waiver of rights “because it is not expressed textually in that document and
definitely it was not what the club was intended to expressing at that time”. Finally, the
Claimant stated that it would never waive its right to receive training compensation because
it is only a small amateur club which needs all the possible resources to continue to exist.
9.
In its final position, the Respondent pointed out that it only engaged the player because the
Respondent had the confirmation of the Claimant that no training compensation or other
indemnity would be due. Also, the Respondent stated that “it is crystal clear that the player
had no registration at any club prior to coming to [FC H] except for a 6 month period from
July 01. to December 31. 2009 when he was registered at [Club P]”. Equally, the Respondent
underlined that it “wanted to be sure that there will be no training compensation or other
indemnity payable for the 6 month period to the club of Country R (FC P)”.
10.
The Respondent added that it refused to sign the player until it received the document
dated 10 February 2010, signed by FC P’s President stating “that the player can be engaged
by [FC H] free of any indemnity that would otherwise be payable to [FC P]”.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 29 August 2011. Consequently, the 2008
edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter
at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules).
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 in combination with art. 22 lit. d) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2009 and 2010), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake relating to training
compensation between clubs belonging to different associations.
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,
taking into consideration that the player was registered with the Respondent on
26 February 2010 as well as the fact that the present claim was lodged on 29 August 2011, it
confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (editions 2009 and 2010), the 2009 edition of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
Training Compensation for the player D
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 the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the
documentation on file.
5.
First of all the Chamber recalled that the player was born on xy June 1991 and was
registered with the Claimant as from 1 July 2009 until 31 December 2009 as an amateur.
6.
Moreover, the Chamber noted that the Player was registered with the Respondent on
26 February 2010 as a professional.
7.
In continuation, the Chamber took note that on 29 August 2011 the Claimant claimed
EUR 30,245.92 as training compensation plus an interest rate of 5% p.a. as from “the date
when the due amount became outstanding, i.e. since the signature of the first professional
contract by the player”, as well as EUR 2,000 as legal fees.
8.
Equally, the Chamber acknowledged that it is undisputed by the parties that the player was
registered for the first time as a professional football player by the FFU on 26 February 2010
with the Respondent who, according to the FFU, belonged to category II. In this respect, the
Chamber noted that the indicative training costs for a category II club (UEFA) amounts to
EUR 60,000.
9.
In view of the above, the Chamber reverted to the Regulations and held that, as established
in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 lit. i of Annexe 4 of said Regulations,
training compensation is payable, as a general rule, for training incurred between the ages
of 12 and 21 when a player is registered for the first time as a professional football player
before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
10.
Furthermore, the Chamber also referred to art. 3 par. 1 and par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations, in accordance with which, as a general principle, the club for which the player
was registered for the first time as a professional is responsible for paying training
compensation to every club with which the player has previously been registered and that
has contributed to his training, the aforementioned in accordance with the player’s career
history as provided in the player passport.
11.
In this respect, the DRC evoked the fact that it was established that the player had been
registered for the first time as a professional football player with the Respondent.
12.
In continuation, the Chamber reminded that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to
receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 30,245.92 since it
trained the player as from 1 July 2009 until 31 December 2009, as per the contents of the
player passport.
Training Compensation for the player D
13.
Equally, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim and asserted,
in the first place, that the Claimant would have given up its right to receive training
compensation in writing on 10 January 2010.
14.
Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Claimant denied having ever waived in any ways
its right to claim training compensation in relation with the player and that the documents
(cf. point I.6. and I.7.) presented by the Respondent had the sole and exclusive purpose of
declaring that the player did not have any contract with the Claimant.
15.
In view of the above-mentioned, the Chamber recalled that according to the legal principle
of the burden of proof, any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry
the burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules).
16.
In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent shall carry the burden of
proof that the Claimant had waived its right to claim training compensation. As a result, the
Chamber turned its attention to the letter sent by the Regional Federation of Country R to
the Liga J dated 9 February 2010 (cf. point I.6.).
17.
By doing so, the Chamber firstly wished to point out that said document, sent by the
Regional Federation of Country R, was apparently only addressed to the Liga J of Country R
and not to any other person or entity. Furthermore, the members noted that the letter was
not signed by the Claimant.
18.
After a careful examination of the contents of said document, and without restating its
entire contents, the Chamber noted that the general topic developed therein consisted in
informing the Liga J that the player was not contractually bound to the Claimant, but
bound to the Claimant in relation to any transfer.
19.
In light of the above, the members found that it could not be considered that said
statement was a conclusive evidence of the fact that the Claimant would have had indeed
waived its right to claim training compensation.
20.
As a consequence thereof, the Chamber rejected the Respondent’s argument in this respect.
21.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the document
presented by the Respondent, which is the correspondence dated 10 February 2010 signed
by the president of the Claimant (cf. point I.7.).
22.
By doing so, the DRC deemed important to point out that the aforementioned letter does
not indicate any addressee. Therefore, it is not clear for what purposes the letter was sent.
Moreover, the Chamber refer to the content of said document, by means of which the
Training Compensation for the player D
president of the Claimant wrote that he was asked to release the player, who can be
transferred to the club of his convenience, equally he is freed from any penalties fines or
compensation. In other words, by means of said correspondence the Claimant’s president
stated that the player did not have any contract with the Claimant.
23.
In this respect, the Chamber concluded that the content of said correspondence refers to the
relationship between the Claimant and the player, i.e. that the player himself is freed from
any penalties, fines or compensation and that therefore he can start to look for a new club
to be registered for without the prior consent or authorisation from the Claimant.
24.
The members hence considered that the letter dated 10 February 2010 could not be
interpreted as a waiver for training compensation.
25.
In light of all of the above, the members considered that the Respondent had not provided
sufficient evidence to support its allegation that the Claimant had waived its right to claim
training compensation.
26.
Having established that none of the arguments presented by the Respondent were leading
to consider that the Claimant would have waived its right to claim training compensation,
and bearing in mind that the conditions set in art. 2 par. 1 lit. i of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations were met, the Chamber considered that the Respondent was liable to pay
training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the
Regulations.
27.
Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation due to the Claimant by the
Respondent, the Chamber referred to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of the Annexe 4 of the Regulations,
which stipulate that, as a general rule, it is necessary to take into consideration 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.
28.
In this respect, the members acknowledged the fact that the player in question was born on
xy June 1991 and had been registered with the Claimant as from 1 July 2009 until
31 December 2009 as an amateur.
29.
Additionally, and considering art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 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 6 months.
30.
Furthermore, the Chamber took due note that according to the information provided by the
FFU the Respondent belonged to the category II.
Training Compensation for the player D
31.
Consequently and taking into account all the above-mentioned elements, the DRC decided
that the Claimant was entitled to receive training compensation for the training and
education of the player for the period of time as from 1 July 2009 until 31 December 2009,
during the season of the player’s 18th birthday, i.e. for 6 months, for an indicative amount of
EUR 60,000 per year.
32.
As a result, the members of the Chamber, taking into consideration all the above as well as
art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, concluded that the Claimant is entitled to
receive the amount of EUR 30,000 from the Respondent for the training and education of
the player.
33.
In view of all of the above, the Chamber decided that the claim of the Claimant is partially
accepted and, in this regard, reiterated that the Respondent must pay the amount of
EUR 30,000 to the Claimant.
34.
Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4
of the Regulations, the members of the Chamber decided that the Respondent has to pay
interest at 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of the 31st day of
the registration of the player with the Respondent, i.e. as of 29 March 2010, until the date
of effective payment.
35.
With regard to the Claimant’s claim for the reimbursement of legal expenses, the Chamber
recalled the contents of art. 15 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which clearly stipulates that
no procedural compensation is awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution
Chamber. Therefore, the members of the Chamber had no other alternative than to reject
this part of the claim.
36.
In continuation, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to
which in the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Chamber relating to disputes
regarding training compensation costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied.
The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the
proceedings.
37.
According to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied
on the basis of the amount in dispute.
38.
The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings amounts
to EUR 30,245.92 related to the claim of the Claimant. Therefore, the Chamber concluded
that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000 (cf. table in
Annexe A).
Training Compensation for the player D
39.
Considering that the case at hand did not show particular factual difficulty but, on the other
hand a certain legal complexity, the Chamber determined the final amount of costs of the
current proceedings to the amount of CHF 3,000.
40.
In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the amount of CHF 3,000 has to be
paid by the Respondent to cover the costs of the present proceedings.
41.
In conclusion, the DRC decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of
EUR 30,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 29 March 2010 until the date of effective payment to
the Claimant for the training and education of the player as well as the amount of
CHF 3,000 as procedural costs.
42.
Finally, the Chamber concluded its deliberation by deciding that any further claim of the
Claimant is rejected.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, FC P, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, FC H, has to pay to the Claimant, FC P, the amount of EUR 30,000 plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 29 March 2010 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as
from the date of notification of the present decision.
3.
If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, the
present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee, for
consideration and a formal decision.
4.
The final amount of costs of the proceeding in the amount of CHF 3,000 is to be paid by the
Respondent, FC H, to FIFA within 30 days of notification of the present decision to the
following
bank
account
with
reference
to
case
no.
[xxxxxxx-xx]:
xxxxxx
Account number yyyyyyy (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number xxx
IBAN: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SWIFT:yyyyyyyyyyy
5.
Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, FC P, are rejected.
Training Compensation for the player D
6.
The Claimant, FC P, is directed to inform the Respondent, FC H, 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.
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 67 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
Training Compensation for the player D