Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
REF TMS 10785
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 7 September 2022
regarding training compensation in relation with the registration of the
player Leandro Livramento ANDRADE
BY:
Johan van Gaalen (South Africa)
CLAIMANT:
CD de Fatima, Portugal
RESPONDENT:
Cherno More, Bulgaria
Page 2 of 10
REF TMS 10785
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Leandro Livramento ANDRADE
Date of birth:
24 September 1999
Player passport:
issued by the Federação Portuguesa de Futebol (FPF) on an unknown
date (relevant abstract only)
Season Birthday Club(s)
Registration dates
Status
19/20
20th
CD Fàtima, Sad
09/08/19 – 30/06/20
Amateur
20/21
21
CD Fàtima, Sad
01/07/20 – 02/08/20
Amateur
st
Date of registration: 8 August 2020, from CD de Fatima (Portugal) to PFC Cherno More Varna
(Bulgaria) as professional (Engage out of contract free of payment – The
player was not under contract with his former club)
Claimant club:
CD de Fatima (Portugal)
UEFA, category IV (EUR 10,000 per year)
Respondent club:
Cherno More (Bulgaria)
UEFA, category III (EUR 30,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 22 July 2022, the Claimant lodged the present claim and requested EUR 18,027.40 as
training compensation for the first registration of the player as a professional with the
Respondent, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 7 September 2020 until the date of effective
payment.
2.
For the purposes of its calculations, the Claimant took into consideration the average of
its and the Respondent’s training categories, i.e. EUR 20,000, which it multiplied pro rata
by the 329 days it had the player registered with.
3.
On 25 July 2022, the FIFA general secretariat requested the Claimant to complete its
claim by submitting all documents of relevance pertaining to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 to
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) along with its comments.
4.
On 28 July 2022, the Claimant indicated that it was a purely amateur club competing in
the lowest amateur division of Portugal at the time the player registered with the
Respondent.
Page 3 of 10
REF TMS 10785
5.
In this respect, the Claimant provided an extract of the website www.zerozero.pt
referring to the latter’s participation to the 2020/2021 AF Santarém 2nd Division sporting
season, i.e. the “2nd regional division of Santarém’s District” according to the Claimant. In
addition, the said extract referred to the Claimant’s general data, the composition of its
squad and its participation statistics in the said division as well as to the “AF Santarem
Ribatejo Cup”.
6.
What is more, the Claimant explained that “none of the Claimant’s players has a sporting
employment contract with it, particularly since it misses the necessary financial resources to
reach such a level of professionalism”.
7.
Bearing the above in mind, the Claimant held that it was prevented from offering a
professional contract to the player (or any other one of its players) within the scope of
the relevant provisions of the RSTP which are consequently not applicable in the matter
at stake.
8.
On 2 August 2022, the claim of the Claimant was notified to the Respondent.
9.
On 18 August 2022, the Respondent rejected the claim.
10.
In this respect, the Respondent first stated that the claim was inadmissible because the
player had been registered with (and trained by) “CD FATIMA, SAD” as per the FPF player
passport which is a different club than “CENTRO DESPORTIVO DE FATIMA” which is the club
claiming the relevant training compensation in the present matter.
11.
The Respondent indicated that it based its aforementioned allegation on documentation
which it requested to the player in order to be forwarded in due time to the FIFA general
secretariat and according to which “CENTRO DESPORTIVO DE FATIMA” and “CENTRO
DESPORTIVO DE FATIMA – Futebol, SAD” are two different entities, the latter being the only
club to which the player was “contracted to”.
12.
What is more, the Respondent submitted an email it received via its own FA from the FPF
referring to the existence of two Clubs “CD Fatima – 501199500” and “CD Fatima, Futebol
SAD – 510830722” ad wells as further documentation in Portuguese language allegedly
linked to the two clubs’ “legal registrations”.
13.
Finally, and as regards to the substance, the Respondent held that the player had
terminated its training before reaching the age of 21 and before joining the Claimant
which would make the present claim groundless.
Page 4 of 10
REF TMS 10785
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): June 2020
edition
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (Procedural Rules):
June 2022 edition
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested
Admissibility:
Yes, contested
Decision:
1.
The claim of the Claimant is based on the player’s first professional registration with the
Respondent.
2.
The Respondent contested the admissibility of the claim deeming that the Claimant club,
allegedly “CENTRO DESPORTIVO DE FATIMA”, was not the club which had the player
registered with, allegedly “CD FATIMA, SAD” and/or “CENTRO DESPORTIVO DE FATIMA –
Futebol, SAD”, in line with the FPF player passport and the information provided by the
FPF in this respect.
3.
Art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules indicates that a chamber may consider and rely on
any evidence not presented by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within TMS.
4.
According to TMS, the club “CD de Fatima” (Club ID nr. 2331) is indicated as active and
bears the local name “Centro Desportivo de Fátima”, such information having been
constantly the same since 4 July 2009.
5.
According to the transfer instruction of reference, the player was transferred from the
Portuguese club “CD de Fatima” (Club ID nr. 2331) to the Respondent on 8 August 2020
and the FPF player passport of reference was uploaded in the said transfer instruction.
6.
As such, the Claimant in the present claim, “CD de Fatima” (Club ID nr. 2331), is identical
to the former club as per the relevant transfer instruction in TMS and the player passport
of reference has been uploaded in TMS and submitted by the Claimant along its claim.
7.
In addition, the FPF email refers to two entities but does not indicate that the Claimant
did not have the player registered with.
Page 5 of 10
REF TMS 10785
8.
Finally, the Respondent provided further documentation in Portuguese language.
9.
Art. 13 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules provides that any submission to FIFA shall be made
in English, Spanish, or French and that any submission to FIFA not made in one of the
aforementioned languages will be disregarded.
10.
As a result, the documentation in Portuguese language shall be disregarded.
11.
Bearing all the above in mind, it appears that the Respondent did not provide evidence
that the Claimant differs from the club “CD de Fatima” (Club ID nr. 2331) and is therefore
not entitled to training compensation (if any), in line with the principle of burden of proof
of art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules.
12.
Consequently, the claim of the Claimant is admissible and the argument of the
Respondent to the contrary cannot be accepted.
13.
It remained undisputed that the player registered as a professional with the Respondent
on 8 August 2020, before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.
14.
According to art. 2 par. 1 lit. i) of Annexe 4 RSTP, training compensation is due when a
player registers for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of his
23rd birthday.
15.
Art. 6 of Annexe 4 RSTP foresees special provisions regarding training compensation for
clubs that are located within the territory of the European Union (EU) and/or the
European Economic Area (EEA).
16.
In casu, the Claimant is based in Portugal and the Respondent in Bulgaria, both countries
being member of the EU and/or the EEA.
17.
Therefore, art. 6 of Annexe 4 RTSP is applicable to the matter at hand as lex specialis.
18.
Art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RTSP foresees that if the former club does not offer the player
a contract, no training compensation is payable unless the former club can justify that it
is entitled to such compensation. The burden of proving that the conditions of art. 6 par.
3 of Annexe 4 RSTP are met lies with the former club.
19.
In the present case, it is undisputed that the Claimant was the last club the player was
registered before registering as a professional with the Respondent.
20.
As such, the Claimant is considered to be the former club in the sense of art. 6 par. 3 of
Annexe 4 RSTP.
Page 6 of 10
REF TMS 10785
21.
As per the jurisprudence developed by the DRC in respect of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4
RSTP, if the former club is a purely amateur club, the requirement to offer a contract
does not apply. Equally, if the player was registered as an amateur with the former club
but that said club had professional players under contract, the former club shall
evidence that it had offered a contract to the player at any time during the registration
of reference.
22.
According to the jurisprudence of the DRC, a purely amateur club can be understood as
a club with no legal, financial or de facto links to a professional club that: (i) is only
permitted to register amateur players; or (ii) has no registered professional players; or
(iii) has not registered any professional players in the three years prior to a particular
date.
23.
In casu, from the evidence provided by the Claimant, none of the aforementioned criteria
is fulfilled in order to consider the Claimant as a purely amateur club.
24.
In addition, according to the information inputted by the Claimant itself in TMS, the
Claimant registered internationally players as professionals during the course of season
2019/2020.
25.
In particular, on 17 September 2019 it registered a player against a monthly
remuneration of EUR 1,000 and on 2 December 2019 it attempted to offer two
employment contracts to players which provided for a monthly remuneration of EUR
635 and 800 each.
26.
Based on the above, it is established that the Claimant was in a position to offer a
contract to the player when the latter was registered with it.
27.
As such, art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP applies to the matter at hand, and the Claimant
carries the burden of proving that it had offered a contract to the player between 9
August 2019 and 2 August 2020 to be entitled to training compensation.
28.
The Claimant did not submit any proof that it had offered a contract to the player at any
point in time. The Claimant did not meet the applicable burden of proof required to be
entitled to training compensation in relation to the registration of the player as a
professional with the Respondent.
29.
Based on all the above, training compensation is not due to the Claimant.
30.
The claim of the Claimant is rejected.
31.
According to art. 25 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, procedural costs are payable for
disputes between clubs regarding the payment of training rewards.
32.
The Claimant claimed the amount of EUR 18,027.40.
Page 7 of 10
REF TMS 10785
33.
Thus, the amount claimed by the Claimant corresponds to an amount lower than USD
50,000. Therefore, procedural costs levied in this respect are set at a maximum of USD
5,000 (cf. art. 2 of Annexe 1 to the Procedural Rules).
34.
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
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.
35.
In view the specific circumstances of the case, procedural costs shall be set at USD 1,800.
36.
In view of the outcome of the claim, said costs shall be borne by the Claimant.
Page 8 of 10
REF TMS 10785
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, CD de Fatima, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is rejected.
3. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of USD 1,800 are to be paid by the
Claimant to FIFA with reference to case no. TMS 10785 (cf. note relating to the payment of
the procedural costs below).
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 9 of 10
REF TMS 10785
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 10 of 10