Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 September 2009,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Gerardo Movilla (Spain), member
Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member
Philippe Diallo (France), member
Essa M. Saleh Al Housani (United Arab Emirates), member
on a matter between the club
S,
as Claimant
and the club
G,
as Respondent
regarding a training compensation dispute related to
the transfer of the player O.
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The player O (hereinafter: the player) was born on 18 January 1990.
2.
The Football Association of D confirmed that the player was registered for its
affiliated club, A (hereinafter: the Claimant), from 10 July 2002 until 27 June 2007
as an amateur.
3.
The football season in D lasts from 1 July to 30 June of the following year.
4.
According to a written statement from the T Football Federation, the player was
registered for its affiliated club, G (hereinafter: the Respondent), as a professional,
on 28 January 2008.
5.
The T Football Federation confirmed that the Respondent belonged to category II
during the season 2007/2008 (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year).
6.
On 4 August 2008, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of
training compensation from the Respondent on the basis that the player had
signed his first professional contract with the Respondent. In particular, the
Claimant requested EUR 180,000 as training compensation.
7.
In reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent stated that the Claimant had not
offered a contract to the player, and that the player was free to sign a contract.
Consequently, according to the Respondent, the player was not trained at a level
to sign a contract as a professional. Moreover, the Claimant stated that the player
received only the minimum salary, which, according to the Respondent, amounts
to a monthly salary of 666. Thus, he could not be considered as a professional.
Furthermore, according to the Respondent, the player had never participated in
trainings and games of its A-team. He allegedly only played five games in the
Youth League (U-18) during the season 2007/2008 and three games in the League
(U-19) during the season 2008/2009. In both leagues, amateur and professional
players may participate. However, the Respondent held that the Youth League is
administratively considered as an amateur one. Finally, the Respondent affirmed
having signed a contract with the player in order to give him the opportunity to
continue his training.
8.
In its replica, the Claimant adhered to its position and informed FIFA that the
player had wanted to leave the club. In this respect, the Claimant expressed the
opinion that, in general, a club must set an amateur player free if he wants to go.
Consequently, the Claimant had no chance to offer the player a contract. Finally,
the Claimant affirmed that the fact that the player only played a few games with
2
the Youth team of the Respondent is not relevant. Indeed, according to the
Claimant, the only relevant fact is that the player was a non-amateur for the first
time when signing an employment contract with the Respondent.
9.
In its final position, the Respondent informed FIFA that it did not deem necessary
to submit any additional arguments. Nevertheless, the Respondent provided FIFA
with a copy of the contract signed with the player, valid as from 21 January 2008
until 31 May 2010, which bears the stamp of the T Football Federation and bears
the title “General Principles of Contract” as well as “professional football Player
Type contract to be made between clubs recruiting professional football player
and professional players”, respectively. Furthermore, the contract stipulates that
the monthly salary amounts to the “Minimum Salary”, without mentioning any
specific amount. Furthermore, the Respondent enclosed a statement issued by the
T Football Federation dated 21 January 2008, in which it is mentioned that “This
agreement is used in contract between clubs recruiting professional footballers”.
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 4 August 2008. Consequently, the 2008 edition of
the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to
the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules
and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 and art. 22 lit. d) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2008; hereinafter: the
Regulations), it was competent to decide on the present litigation with an
international dimension concerning the training compensation claimed by the
Claimant, A, for the training and education of the player O, in connection with
the first registration of the said player as a professional for the Respondent, G.
3.
Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered for the
Respondent on 28 January 2008, the Chamber analysed which regulations should
be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in
accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, and also considering that
the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 4 August 2008, the 2008 edition
of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
3
4.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter and started by
acknowledging the facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in
the file.
5.
First and foremost, the Chamber stated that, as established in art. 20 of the
Regulations in combination with art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 as well art. 2 of Annexe
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 continuation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber acknowledged that the player,
who was born on 18 January 1990, was registered for the Claimant from 10 July
2002 until 27 June 2007 as an amateur.
7.
Furthermore, the Chamber duly noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant is
requesting training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR
180,000 and, on the other hand, that the Respondent contested the Claimant’s
entitlement to receive any training compensation arguing that the Claimant did
not offer a contract to the player, who was free to sign a contract. Consequently,
according to the Respondent, the player was not trained at a level to sign a
contract as a professional. Moreover, the Respondent stated that the player
received only the minimum salary, which amounts to a monthly salary of 666, and
that he could therefore not be considered as a professional when signing the
relevant contract.
8.
In view of the aforementioned, the Chamber noted that the Respondent
challenged the fact that it would owe training compensation to the Claimant in
view of the fact that the Claimant did not offer a contract to the player and that,
in any case, the player should not be considered as a professional upon his
registration with the Respondent.
9.
With regard to the fact that the Claimant did not offer the player a contract,
although the Respondent did not allege expressly the application of art. 6 par. 3
of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Chamber was eager to recall that according to
the said provision, no training compensation is payable “if the former club does
not offer the player a contract”. However, art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations is
only applicable for transfers where players move from one association to another
one inside the territory of the EU/EEA.
4
10.
In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that the T Football
Federation is not inside the territory of the EU/EEA and consequently, art. 6 par. 3
of the Regulations is not applicable to the matter at hand.
11.
In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that, in any case, the Claimant had
no obligation to offer a contract to the player. Thus, the statement of the
Respondent in this respect, i.e. that the Claimant did not offer a contract to the
player, could not be considered as a valid argument to refuse the payment of
training compensation.
12.
Additionally, in consideration of the other argument developed by the
Respondent, i.e. that the player should not be considered as a professional upon
his registration for the Respondent, the Chamber underlined that the relevant
criteria to determine a player’s status are, in accordance with art. 2 par. 2 of the
Regulations, on the one hand, the fact that the player has a written contract, and,
on the other hand, the player’s remuneration.
13.
Furthermore, the Chamber stated that other factors include the wording of the
relevant employment contract, as well as the status under which the player was
registered at the association concerned. With regard to these criteria, however,
the Chamber highlighted the fact that the status under which an Association
might register a player, as well as the denomination used in the relevant contract
could not per se constitute decisive factors for the evaluation of a player’s status,
but could only be analysed in combination with the specific circumstances of a
particular case.
14.
In view of the aforementioned, the Chamber recalled that the Respondent had
provided a copy of the contract signed with the player and that this contract bears
the title “General Principles of Contract” as well as “professional football Player
Type contract to be made between clubs recruiting professional football player
and professional players”, respectively. Furthermore, the Chamber was eager to
note that the T Football Federation had indicated that the player was registered
for the Respondent as professional. In addition, the Chamber took due note of the
fact that, in its final submission to FIFA, the Respondent had enclosed a statement
of the T Football Federation dated 21 January 2008, which mentioned that “This
agreement is used in contract between clubs recruiting professional footballers”.
15.
In continuation, the Chamber emphasized that, according to art. 8 of the
Regulations, the application for registration of a professional must be submitted
together with a copy of the player’s contract. In this respect, it observed that the
relevant employment contract clearly bore the stamp of the T Football Federation
and had thus been deposited at the said Federation. Thus, the panel deemed that
5
this additional element should be a further indication of the player’s status as a
professional.
16.
Finally, with regard to remuneration, the members of the Dispute Resolution
Chamber pointed out in particular that, according to art. 2 par. 2 of the
Regulations, if such remuneration exceeds the expenses and costs that the player
effectively incurs for his football activity, the player shall be considered to be a
professional.
17.
In this sense, in consideration of the aforementioned elements of the player’s
employment contract, the Chamber held that, in the case at hand, the player
earned a monthly salary of 666 and that this amount exceeds the actual expenses
and costs effectively incurred by his football activity. In this respect, the members
of the Chamber were eager to stress that, although the said salary was referred to
as a “minimum salary”, this did not imply that such salary could not be considered
as exceeding the actual expenses and costs effectively incurred by the player’s
football activity.
18.
The above considerations therefore led the Dispute Resolution Chamber to
conclude that, in the present case, the contract signed between the player and the
Respondent was a professional contract, and that the player’s status during his
registration for the Respondent should, consequently, be considered as
professional.
19.
In view of the above, the members of the Chamber established that the player was
registered for the Respondent for the first time as a professional and before the
end of the season of his 23rd birthday. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the
Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent.
20.
As a result, and considering art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which
stipulates that the amount of training compensation 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 training to be
considered in the matter at stake corresponds to the period from 10 July 2002
until 27 June 2007, i.e. the seasons 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006
and 2006/2007 (five entire seasons), and that these seasons correspond to the
seasons of the player’s 13th to 17th birthdays.
21.
Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber
referred to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of Annexe 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
6
of years of training with the former club. However, art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations provides that the training costs for players for the seasons between
their 12th and 15th birthdays are based on the training and education costs of the
category 4 clubs.
22.
In continuation, the Chamber took due note that, according to the information
provided by the T Football Federation, the Respondent was a category 2 club at
the time the player was registered for it. Moreover, the Chamber took into
account that since the player was registered for the Claimant during the seasons
of his 13th to 15th birthdays (i.e. three seasons), the applicable club category to be
taken into consideration for the calculation of training compensation for these
seasons is category 4. Thus, the Chamber acknowledged that the training costs for
a category 2 club and member of a national association affiliated to the Union des
Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) amount to EUR 60’000 per season,
while the training costs for a category 4 club amout to EUR 10’000 per season (cf.
FIFA circular nr. 1085 dated 11 April 2007).
23.
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 the amount of EUR 150,000.
24.
Therefore, and recalling that the Claimant had requested the amount of EUR
180,000 as training compensation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber ruled that the
claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
****
7
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, G, has to pay to the Claimant, A, the amount of EUR 150,000,
within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision.
3.
Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, A, are rejected.
4.
If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, an
interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiring 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.
5.
The costs of the proceeding in the amount of 10,000 are to be paid by the
Respondent, G, within 30 days of notification of the present decision as follows:
5.1
The amount of CHF 5,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with
reference to case no.
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
5.2
6.
The amount of CHF 5,000 to the Claimant, A.
The Claimant, A, is directed to inform the Respondent, G, 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.
*****
8
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
9