Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
REF TMS 11041
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 28 September 2022
regarding training compensation in relation with the registration of the
player Mohammed Liadi ABUBAKAR
BY:
Frans De Weger (the Netherlands)
CLAIMANT:
VIA Football Academy, Nigeria
RESPONDENT:
Smouha, Egypt
Page 2 of 11
REF TMS 11041
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Mohammed Liadi ABUBAKAR
Date of birth:
22 November 2002
Player passport:
issued by the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) on 24 August 2022
Season Birthday Club(s)
2014
12
th
VIA Football Academy
Registration dates
Status
01/01/14 –
Amateur (permanent)
31/12/14
2015
13th
2016
14
th
2017
15
th
2018
16
th
VIA Football Academy
01/01/15 –
Amateur (permanent)
31/12/15
VIA Football Academy
01/01/16 –
Amateur (permanent)
31/12/16
VIA Football Academy
01/01/17 –
Amateur (permanent)
31/12/17
VIA Football Academy
01/01/18 –
Amateur (permanent)
31/12/18
2019
17th
2020
18
2021
19
VIA Football Academy
01/01/19 –
Amateur (permanent)
31/12/19
th
Liepaja
Football
Academy
th
Liepaja
Amateur (permanent)
31/12/20
Football
Academy
Date of transfer:
01/01/20 –
01/01/21 –
Amateur (permanent)
31/12/21
16 January 2022, from Liepaja Football Academy (Nigeria) to Smouha
(Egypt) as professional
Liepaja Football Academy and Smouha signed an agreement on an
unknown date via which the clubs agreed to the transfer of the “nonamateur football player” as from 10 January 2022, free of fixed payment.
The clubs also agreed on a 25% sell-on fee should the player be
transferred to a third club.
Art. 2 of the transfer agreement entitled “Compensation for training and
education and solidarity contribution” provided that “Liepaja F.C. will
Page 3 of 11
REF TMS 11041
indemnify and hold harmless Smouha from any costs and damages suffered
consequent to a claim for solidarity contribution by a third party caused by
Smouha’s non-performance of its payment obligations in this respect.”
The player signed an employment contract with Smouha valid as from 11
January 2022 until 31 August 2024, according to which the player inter
alia would receive a salary of USD 47,000 for the 21/22 season, USD
80,000 for the 22/23 season, and USD 85,000 for the 23/24 season, plus
bonuses according to the club’s financial regulations.
The NFF did not upload any player passport in the relevant transfer
instruction
Claimant club:
VIA Football Academy (Nigeria)
Respondent club:
Smouha (Egypt)
CAF, category II (USD 30,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 25 August 2022, the Claimant lodged the present claim and requested EUR 68,000
as training compensation for the first registration of the player as a professional with
the Respondent, plus 5% p.a. interest from the due date.
2.
In its calculation, the Claimant took the yearly amount foreseen for CAF category IV clubs,
i.e. USD 2,000, which it applied for the calendar year of the player’s 12th to 15th birthdays.
3.
In addition, the Claimant took the amount set for CAF category II clubs, i.e. USD 30,000,
which it applied for the calendar year of the player’s 16th and 17th birthdays.
4.
On 9 September 2022, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant.
5.
The Respondent was of the opinion that no training compensation was due to the
Claimant because it had agreed with the former club that it would not be held
responsible to pay training compensation as per the contents of art. 2 of the transfer
agreement.
6.
In addition, the Respondent held that the player had already been a player with the “nonamateur status” with the former club and as such, no training compensation was due to
the Claimant.
Page 4 of 11
REF TMS 11041
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): August 2021
edition
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (Procedural Rules):
June 2022 edition
Decision:
1.
The claim of the Claimant is based on the transfer of the player as professional between
Liepaja Football Academy and the Respondent.
2.
According to the player passport issued by the NFF, the player was always registered as
an amateur in Nigeria.
3.
In particular, according to this document, the player was registered with the Claimant as
from 1 January 2014 until 31 December 2019, that is to say during:
a. The entire calendar year of his 12th birthday;
b. The entire calendar year of his 13th birthday;
c. The entire calendar year of his 14th birthday;
d. The entire calendar year of his 15th birthday;
e. The entire calendar year of his 16th birthday; and
f.
4.
The entire calendar year of his 17th birthday.
It is undisputed that the player registered as a professional with the Respondent on 16
January 2022, i.e. during the calendar year of his 20th birthday, directly from Liepaja
Football Academy.
5.
Art. 2 par. 1 lit. i) of Annexe 4 RSTP stipulates that training compensation is due when a
player is registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the calendar
year of his 23rd birthday.
6.
Art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 RSTP foresees that on registering as a professional for the first
time, the club with which the player is registered is responsible for paying training
compensation within 30 days of registration to every club with which the player has
previously been registered (in accordance with the players’ career history as provided in
the player passport) and that has contributed to his training starting from the calendar
year of his 12th birthday. The amount payable is calculated on a pro rata basis according
to the period of training that the player spent with each club.
Page 5 of 11
REF TMS 11041
7.
Thus, based on the above, the registration of the player with the Respondent constituted
in principle a first professional registration, and training compensation would be due to
the player’s training clubs.
8.
Nevertheless, the Respondent held that no training compensation was due to the
Claimant since the player was transferred in from Liepaja Football Academy as a
professional, i.e. the player was already a professional with the former club, and that any
case, the responsibility to pay training compensation had been shifted to the former club
by means of the contents of the transfer agreement.
9.
As per the representations made by Liepaja Football Academy and the Respondent in
the transfer agreement, the player was under professional contract with Liepaja Football
Academy and the Respondent recruited him for free, providing for a sell-on fee
potentially triggerable in the future.
10.
It is uncontested that, as per the NFF player passport issued on 24 August 2022, the
player was always registered as an amateur in Nigeria.
11.
In accordance with art. 2 par. 2 of the RSTP as well as the jurisprudence of the DRC, a
player is considered a professional if (1) he has signed a written contract with a club and
(2) is receiving a retribution (financial and/or in kind) for his footballing activity which is
greater than the expenses he effectively incurs.
12.
The Respondent did not provide any copy of the alleged employment contract that tied
the player to Liepaja Football Academy. As such, the written contract prerequisite is not
met.
13.
Therefore, it is established that the Respondent did not submit any conclusive evidence
that the player was to be considered a professional with Liepaja Football Academy in the
sense of art. 2 par. 2 RSTP.
14.
Consequently, in the absence of evidence of the contrary, it is determined that the player
was registered as an amateur with Liepaja Football Academy.
15.
Furthermore, in accordance with art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 RSTP, the obligation of the
payment of training compensation in case of the player’s first registration as a
professional stands with the registering club, i.e. the Respondent.
16.
As such, the said obligation cannot be shifted to the former club despite the latter and
the Respondent agreed to do so in the transfer agreement.
17.
In addition, art. 2 of the transfer agreement bears inter alia in its title the wording
“Compensation for training and education” but does only refer to solidarity contribution in
the content of its clause and not to training compensation.
Page 6 of 11
REF TMS 11041
18.
Consequently, in view of the above, the argument of the Respondent in that sense shall
not be accepted.
19.
Therefore, reverting back to point II./4. above, the registration of the player with the
Respondent on 16 January 2022 constituted the first professional registration of the
player before the end of the calendar year of his 23rd birthday.
20.
As a consequence, training compensation is due to every club with which the player has
previously been registered (in accordance with the players’ career history as provided in
the player passport) and that has contributed to his training starting from the calendar
year of his 12th birthday, and on a pro rata basis if less than one year (cf. art. 3 par. 1 of
Annexe 4 RSTP).
21.
It is uncontested that the player was registered with the Claimant as from 1 January 2014
until 31 December 2019, that is to say during:
a. The entire calendar year of his 12th birthday;
b. The entire calendar year of his 13th birthday;
c. The entire calendar year of his 14th birthday;
d. The entire calendar year of his 15th birthday;
e. The entire calendar year of his 16th birthday; and
f.
The entire calendar year of his 17th birthday.
22.
In view of the above, training compensation is due to the Claimant.
23.
According to art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 RSTP, the deadline for payment of training
compensation is 30 days following the registration of the professional with the new
association.
24.
The player registered with the Respondent on 16 January 2022.
25.
Thus, the Respondent had to pay any due training compensation by 15 February 2022.
26.
It is undisputed that to date the Respondent did not pay training compensation to the
Claimant.
27.
Art. 5 par. 2 of Annexe 4 RSTP stipulates that the first time a player registers as a
professional, the training compensation payable is calculated by taking the training costs
of the new club multiplied by the number of years of training, in principle from the
calendar year of the player’s 12th birthday to the calendar year of his 21st birthday.
28.
The Respondent was classified under category II when it registered the player. The yearly
amount set for category II clubs in CAF corresponds to USD 30,000.
Page 7 of 11
REF TMS 11041
29.
According to art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP, in order to ensure that training
compensation for very young players is not set at unreasonably high levels, the training
costs for players for the calendar years between their 12th and 15th birthdays (i.e. four
years) shall be based on the training and education costs of category 4 clubs.
30.
The yearly amount set for category II clubs in CAF corresponds to USD 2,000.
31.
In view of all the above, the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation of USD
68,000, corresponding to:
a. USD 2,000 for the training and education provided to the player during the
entire calendar year of his 12th birthday;
b. USD 2,000 for the training and education provided to the player during the
entire calendar year of his 13th birthday;
c. USD 2,000 for the training and education provided to the player during the
entire calendar year of his 14th birthday;
d. USD 2,000 for the training and education provided to the player during the
entire calendar year of his 15th birthday;
e. USD 30,000 for the training and education provided to the player during the
entire calendar year of his 16th birthday; and
f. USD 30,000 for the training and education provided to the player during the
entire calendar year of his 17th birthday.
32.
Taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 RSTP,
the Respondent has to pay, in conformity with the longstanding practice of the DRC,
interest of 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of 31 days after
the registration of the player with it, i.e. as from 16 February 2022 until the date of
effective payment.
33.
Consequently, the claim of the Claimant is accepted.
34.
According to art. 25 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, procedural costs are payable for
disputes between clubs regarding the payment of training rewards.
35.
The Claimant claimed the amount of USD 68,000.
36.
Thus, the amount claimed by the Claimant corresponds to an amount higher than USD
50,000 and lower than USD 99,999.99. Therefore, procedural costs levied in this respect
are set at a maximum amount of USD 10,000 (cf. art. 2 of Annexe 1 to the Procedural
Rules).
37.
According to art. 25 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the chamber will decide the amount
that each party is due to pay, in consideration of the parties’ degree of success and their
Page 8 of 11
REF TMS 11041
conduct during the procedure, as well as any advance of costs paid. In exceptional
circumstances, the chamber may order that FIFA assumes all procedural costs.
38.
In view the specific circumstances of the case, procedural costs shall be set at USD 6,800
39.
In view of the outcome of the claim, said costs shall be borne by the Respondent.
40.
Art. 24 RSTP is applicable.
Page 9 of 11
REF TMS 11041
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, VIA Football Academy, is accepted.
2. The Respondent, Smouha, shall pay to the Claimant USD 68,000 as training compensation,
plus 5% interest p.a. on that amount, as from 16 February 2022 until the date of effective
payment.
3. Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4. Pursuant to article 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players if full
payment (including all applicable interest) is not paid within 45 days of notification of this
decision, the following consequences shall apply:
▪
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the
ban shall be of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still
not paid by the end of the of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
5. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant.
6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of USD 6,800 are to be paid by the
Respondent to FIFA with reference to case no. TMS 11041 (cf. note relating to the payment
of the procedural costs below).
For The Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 10 of 11
REF TMS 11041
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
Pursuant to article 57 paragraph 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport within 21 days of notification.
NOTE RELATED TO PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 11 of 11