Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 14 September 2007,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member
Gerardo Movilla (Spain), member
Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member
Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member
Philippe Diallo (France), member
Ivan Gazidis (USA), member
Percival Majavu (South Africa), member
Essa M. Saleh Al-Housani (UAE), member
on the claim presented by the club
X, xxxx
represented by Mr xxxx
as Claimant
against the club
Y, xxxx
represented by Mr xxxx
as Respondent
regarding training compensation
for the player Z.
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The Football Association of xxxx confirmed that the player Z, born on 27 July 1984,
was registered with the club X, the Claimant, as from 27 February 1995 until 26
February 2002, as amateur, between the ages of 11 and 17.
2.
The Football Association of xxxx also confirmed that the player signed his first
employment contract with the club A in July 2005 and that he was transferred to
the club Y the Respondent, on 14 February 2006.
3.
The Football Association of xxxx provided a copy of the employment contract
signed between the player and A, originally valid until 30 June 2006 providing for
a monthly salary of ARS 1,700. The Football Association of xxxx also confirmed
that the said employment contract was mutually terminated by the parties in
January 2006.
4.
On 8 June 2006, the Claimant contacted FIFA affirming that the player in question
signed his first employment contract with the Respondent in July 2005. As a result,
and being the Y a category 2 club, in the sense of art. 4 par. 2 of the annex 4 of
the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players, the Claimant requests
the amount of EUR 220,000 plus default interest and procedural costs.
5.
On 2 October 2006, the Respondent informed FIFA that the player had already
signed an employment contract with the club A in July 2005. In order to
corroborate its position, the Respondent provided a copy of the mutual
termination agreement signed between the player and his former club A on 5
January 2006. As a result, the Respondent underlined that it does not owe any
amount at all to the Respondent since in accordance with art. 3 par. 1 of the
annex 4 of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players the matter
at stake has to be considered a subsequent transfer of a professional player.
Finally, the Respondent emphasised that the fact that the player did allegedly not
play any match with A is of no relevance.
6.
The Claimant insisted on its entitlement to receive training compensation arguing
that the employment contract signed between the player and A is not valid since it
was valid for 5 months only. Moreover, the Claimant underlined that the salaries
of the player are not even known, that according to the national regulations his
former club was obliged to offer him a contract and that the player never played
for A. Finally, the Claimant maintained that the player only signed an employment
contract with the club A so as to circumvent the obligation of his future clubs to
pay training compensation.
7.
The Respondent referred to its previous correspondence.
2
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 8 June 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 on 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 Z.
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 professional had been registered for
the Respondent in February 2006. Equally the Chamber took note that the claim
was lodged at FIFA on 8 June 2006. In view of the aforementioned, the Chamber
concluded that the current FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players
(edition 2005, hereafter: 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 acknowledged that the Claimant requests the amount of EUR
220,000 as training compensation from the Respondent plus default interest and
procedural costs. Particularly, the Claimant emphasised that irrespective from the
fact that the player in question had already previously been registered as a
professional, it was entitled to receive the claimed training compensation from
the Respondent, since the player’s previous registration was aimed to circumvent
the Respondent’s obligation to pay training compensation.
3
6.
The Chamber also took note that the Respondent contested the claim of the
Claimant emphasizing that the player had already been registered as a
professional with the club A in July 2005. In order to corroborate its position, the
Respondent provided a copy of the mutual termination agreement signed
between the player and his former club, A., on 5 January 2006. As a result, the
Respondent underlined that it does not owe any amount at all to the Respondent
since in accordance with art. 3 par. 1 of the annex 4 of the Regulations the matter
at stake has to be considered a subsequent transfer of a professional player.
7.
Equally, the Chamber considered that the Football Association of xxxx confirmed
that the player had already been registered as a professional with one of its
affiliated, i.e. A., based on an employment contract originally valid as from July
2005 until 30 June 2006, however, the said contract was mutually terminated in
January 2006.
8.
Thereafter, the Chamber maintained that, as a general rule, training
compensation for a player’s training and education is, in principle, due when a
player is registered as a professional for the first time and in case of a subsequent
transfer of a professional, training compensation will only be owed to his former
club for the time he was effectively trained by that club (cf. art. 3 par. 1 of the
Annex 4 of the Regulations)
9.
Subsequently, the Chamber considered that the Football Association of xxxx
confirmed that the player in question had already been registered as a
professional before being transferred to the Respondent and provided a copy of
the relevant employment contract.
10.
In continuation, the Chamber turned its attention to the Claimant’s position with
regard that the employment contract signed between the player and A is not valid
since it was valid for 5 months only. Moreover, the Claimant underlined that the
salaries of the player are not known, that according to the national regulations his
former club was obliged to offer him a contract and that the player never played
for A.
11.
First of all, the Chamber referred to the legal principle of the burden of proof,
which is a basic principle in every legal system, according to which a party deriving
a right from an asserted fact has the obligation to prove the relevant fact (cf. art.
12 par. 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee
and the Dispute Resolution Chamber). Therefore, due to the lack of proof with
regard the Claimant’s allegations related to the alleged invalidity of the
employment contract signed between the player and A, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber did not uphold the Claimant’s position in this respect. For the sake of
good order, the Chamber remarked that, as a general principle, an employment
contract between a professional player and a club may be terminated by mutual
agreement (cf. art. 13 of the Regulations).
4
12.
Subsequently, the Chamber emphasised that, contrary to the Claimant’s
unfounded affirmation, and in accordance with the confirmation of the Football
Association of xxxx, particularly the copy of the relevant employment contract
signed between the player and A, the aforementioned parties signed a one-year
employment contract providing for a monthly salary of xxx 1,700. Finally, and with
regard to the Claimant’s allegation that the player never played for A the
Chamber again referred to the above-mentioned legal principle of the burden of
proof and underlined that the Claimant did not provide any documentary
evidence to corroborate its position.
13.
In view of the above, the members of the Chamber rejected the Claimant’s
appreciation with regard to an alleged circumvention and remarked that the
Claimant did not provide any documents in that regard which would let the
Chamber to follow its appreciation.
14.
Thus, and bearing in mind the above, the members of the Chamber underlined
that in accordance with the clear wording of the Regulations in case of
subsequent transfers of a professional, training compensation will only be owed
to his former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club (cf. annex 4
art. 3 par. 1 of the Regulations).
15.
In light of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant is not entitled to
receive any training compensation from the Respondent since the transfer of the
player to the Respondent has to be considered as a subsequent transfer of a
professional player and therefore, only the previous club of the player would be
entitled to receive training compensation.
16.
Taking into account all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant’s
demand for training compensation is rejected.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim lodged by the Claimant 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).
5
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport
Avenue de Beaumont 2
CH-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
6