Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
TMS 11351
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 18 November 2022
regarding training compensation in relation with the registration of the player Adam
ARMOUR
BY:
Frans de Weger (the Netherlands)
CLAIMANT:
North Carolina FC, USA
RESPONDENT:
1. FC Nürnberg, Germany
Page 2 of 14
TMS 11351
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Adam ARMOUR
Date of birth:
27 September 2002
Player passport:
issued by the Football United States Soccer Federation (USSF) on 29
September 2020
Season Birthday Club(s)
Registration dates
Status
14/15
01/09/14 – 31/08/15
Amateur
12th
Inter
Development
(Permanent)
Futbol
14/15
12th
15/16
13
th
15/16
13
th
Capital
Area
01/07/15 – 31/08/15
Soccer League
Capital
Area
(Permanent)
01/09/15 – 28/08/16
Soccer League
Capital
Area
Amateur
Amateur
(Permanent)
29/08/16 – 31/08/16
Railhawks
Amateur
(Permanent)
Academy
16/17
14
th
Capital
Area
01/09/16 – 26/08/17
Railhawks
Amateur
(Permanent)
Academy
16/17
14
th
North Carolina FC
27/08/17 – 31/08/17
Youth Academy
17/18
15th
North Carolina FC
(Permanent)
01/09/17 – 31/08/18
Youth Academy
18/19
16th
19/20
17
th
19/20
17
th
North Carolina FC
01/09/18 - 31/08/19
Amateur
(Permanent)
01/09/19 – 15/04/20
Youth Academy
North Carolina FC
Amateur
(Permanent)
Youth Academy
North Carolina FC
Amateur
Amateur
(Permanent)
16/04/20 – 09/07/20
Amateur
(Permanent)
Sporting season:
1 September to 31 August of the following year (USA)
Date of transfer:
29 September 2020, from North Carolina FC (USA) to 1. FC Nürnberg
(Germany) as a professional (Engage out of contract free of payment –
The player was not under contract with his former club)
Page 3 of 14
TMS 11351
Claimant club:
North Carolina FC (USA)
Respondent club:
1. FC Nürnberg (Germany)
UEFA, category II (EUR 60,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 28 September 2022, the Claimant requested EUR 143,150.68 as training
compensation “plus 5% p.a. interest as of the due date, until the date of effective payment”.
The Claimant is basing its claim on the first registration of the player as a professional
with the Respondent.
2.
The Claimant argued that the player was registered with it for 1835 days between the
seasons of the player’s 12th to 17th birthday.
3.
In this respect, the Claimant argued that despite that the USSF player passport indicates
that the player has been registered inter alia by four different clubs (North Carolina FC,
North Carolina FC Youth Academy, Capital Area Soccer League, and Capital Area
Railhawks Academy), those four clubs corresponded to the same entity.
4.
First, the Claimant indicated that “Regarding North Carolina FC Youth Academy, there is no
doubt that this is the Claimant’s youth training team.”
5.
Furthermore, the Claimant explained that “Capital Area Soccer League is the former name
of the Claimant (…) [which] is now North Carolina FC”.
6.
In this respect, the Claimant referred to a document entitled “Certificate of assumed name
for corporation”, sealed by a “Notary Public”, dated 10 May 2017 and indicating inter alia
that “The undersigned corporation, proposing to engage in business in Wake County, North
Carolina, under an assumed name other than its corporate name, hereby certifies that: 1.
The name under which the business is to be conducted is North Carolina FC Youth. 2. The
name and address of the owner of such business is: Capital Area Soccer League, Inc. 5017
Memory Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609”. The said document bears the signature of
the Chief Executive Officer of “Capital Area Soccer League, Inc.”.
7.
In addition, the Claimant indicated that “Capital Area Railhawks Academy is considered the
top team of Capital Area Soccer League, so they are the same entity.”
8.
What is more, the Claimant held that “North Carolina Academy has been a front runner for
player development since its early days as Capital Area RailHawks (CASL), Triangle Futbol Club
Alliance, and Capital Area Soccer League, now as North Carolina FC”.
9.
In this respect, the claimant provided the following documents:
Page 4 of 14
TMS 11351
- an extract of the website www.ncfcyouth.com presenting and detailing the academy
pathway for its players as from their 8th birthday until their 23rd birthday, i.e. as from the
junior until the professional level;
- an extract of the website www.ncfcyouth.com referring to “North Carolina Youth” as
being a “non-profit youth soccer organization [and] the product of a collaboration between
Capital Area Soccer League, Triangle Futbol Club Alliance and North Carolina Football Club”.
The said extract also indicates that Capital Area Soccer League was founded as a nonprofit youth soccer organization in 1974;
- an extract of the website www.facebook.com, in Portuguese language, and showing a
picture posted on 26 August 2013 on the account of North Carolina and commenting
that “Capital Area RailHawks Academy players are training at AkeMed Soccer Park today,
under the supervision of RailHawks Head Coach Colin Clarke”;
- an extract of the website www.northcarolinafc.com indicating inter alia that “The
Carolina RailHawks are proud to announce a landmark collaboration with CASL’s USSF
Development Academy program (…) The Academy will be renamed the Capital Area RailHawks
(…)”; and
- an extract of the website www.ncfcyouth.com referring to the name change of North
Carolina FC Youth to North Carolina FC Academy after having been identified “since its
early days as Capital Area Rail Hawks (CASL), Triangle Futbol Club Alliance and CASL Chelsea”.
10.
Along with those lines, the Claimant sustained that “we tried to contact de USSF in order
to get an official document that can confirm this, but we haven´t been able to get an answer
up until now” and provided in support of its allegation an email dated 23 September 2022
by means of which, the legal representative of the Claimant requested the USSF to issue
it “a short statement that "Capital Area Soccer League" operates now as "North Carolina FC"”.
11.
As a consequence of the above, the Claimant requested that “FIFA kindly notifies USSF to
provide the respective documentation that proves what has been described above.”
12.
Bearing the above in mind, the Claimant held that it is evident that the player was
registered with the Claimant, as an amateur, from 1 July 2015 until 9 June 2020.
13.
As such and for the purpose of its calculation, the Claimant multiplied the player’s
registration dates pro rata by 1) EUR 10,000, i.e. the amount set for category IV clubs in
UEFA, as per art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP, for the player’s 12th to 15th birthday seasons
and 2) by EUR 60,000, i.e. the amount set for category II clubs in UEFA, for the player’s
16th and 17th birthday seasons.
14.
On 3 October 2022, the FIFA general secretariat requested the Claimant to complete its
claim by 8 October 2022 by providing the details of a bank account registered in the
name of the Claimant on a signed and stamped copy of the Bank Account Registration
Form by the Claimant, in line with art. 27 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal.
Page 5 of 14
TMS 11351
15.
On 20 October 2022, the FIFA general secretariat reiterated its above request to the
Claimant with a deadline set on 25 October 2022.
16.
On 24 October 2022, the Claimant completed its claim by submitting the
aforementioned document along a statement indicating that it does not hold a seal or
stamp.
17.
On 26 October 2022, the FIFA general secretariat notified the claim to the Respondent.
18.
On 14 November 2022, the Respondent rejected the claim.
19.
The Respondent first indicated that the claim should be deemed as inadmissible
because it was time-barred when the Claimant lodged it in the Transfer Matching System
(TMS).
20.
In particular, the Respondent explained that, in line with the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players (RSTP), the event triggering the claim for training compensation
is the player’s registration with the new club, i.e. the Respondent, occurred on 1
September 2020 in casu.
21.
As such, in its opinion, because the “deadline of another 30 days after the player’s
registration only determines the grace period during which the debtor club can settle the
claim without any consequence”, it has no impact on the calculation of the prescription of
art. 23 par 3 of the RSTP, similar to the contents of art. 12 bis of the RSTP.
22.
Therefore, in its opinion, by lodging its claim on 28 September 2022, the Claimant did it
after the 24 months prescription deadline elapsed, i.e. on 1 September 2022 when
starting to count as of 1 September 2020.
23.
Furthermore, should the prescription elapse on 1 October 2022 instead, the Respondent
held that the claim shall also be deemed as inadmissible because, as reflected by FIFA’s
correspondence of 3 October 2022, the Claimant lodged an incomplete claim before that
date and therefore the claim shall be deemed as time-barred.
24.
Subsidiarily, the Respondent held that the Claimant did not meet its burden of proof
according to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal
(Procedural Rules) in providing evidence in support of its allegations.
25.
First, the Respondent held that, to the contrary of what was alleged by the Claimant, FIFA
cannot be helping the Claimant in obtaining an information for the USSF which the latter
did not obtain itself when it lodged its claim in TMS “in the very last minute”, which would
contravene the principle of burden of proof on top.
26.
What is more, the Respondent indicated that the Claimant only alleged that North
Carolina FC Youth academy and the Claimant are the same entities without proving it. In
Page 6 of 14
TMS 11351
fact, the Respondent underlined that the player passport makes a distinction which
actually proves such difference. In particular, the Respondent held that should North
Carolina FC Youth academy and the Claimant be two different entities, it could be
potentially faced to a double payment issue in case it pays the share of training
compensation of one entity to the other entity.
27.
Moreover, the Respondent contested the evidence provided by the Claimant according
to which Capital Area Soccer League is the former name of the Claimant. In fact, the
Respondent held that such evidence (i.e. the “Certificate of assumed name for
corporation”) is not conclusive in this respect.
28.
The Respondent also held that it is unproven that the entity Capital Area Railhawks
Academy is part of the Claimant, but on the contrary, that it appears to be a separated
entity from the Claimant and even from other entities such as Capital Area Soccer
League which appears to be a league rather than a club.
29.
Given all the above, in case the claim is admissible, the Respondent held that training
compensation (if any) could only be awarded to the Claimant for the period of time it
had the player registered with in accordance with the USSF passport, i.e. as from 16 April
until 9 July 2020, that is to say “for 85 days which would lead to a claim of EUR 13,972.60
(85/365 x € 60.000)”.
30.
Finally, the Respondent also indicated that the Claimant appears more to be a
commercial entity rather than a club and that the amount claimed by it is clearly
disproportionate considering the period of registration of the player with the
Respondent which lasted only until July 2021, period in which the player returned to the
US.
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):
October 2022 edition
Decision:
1.
The claim of the Claimant is based on the first registration of the player as a professional
with the Respondent.
2.
For its parts, the Respondent contested the claim arguing that 1) the claim was timebarred; 2) the Claimant did not meet its burden of proof in evidencing that the entities
the player had been registered with as from the season of his 12th until his 17th birthday
Page 7 of 14
TMS 11351
were the same; and 3) as such, the Claimant would only be entitled to EUR 13,972.60 as
training compensation (if any).
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.
The Respondent registered the player on 29 September 2020.
5.
In accordance with art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP, training compensation is
to be paid 30 days following the registration of the player with the new association.
6.
Any potential training compensation due as a result of the player being registered as a
professional with the Respondent on 29 September 2020 was to be paid by the latter to
any entitled club on 29 October 2020.
7.
The Claimant lodged its claim on 28 September 2022.
8.
According to art. 25 par. 5 of the RSTP (June 2020 edition), the DRC shall not hear any
case subject to the Regulations if more than two years have elapsed since the event
giving rise to the dispute.
9.
Consequently, given that the Claimant lodged its claim less than two years since the
event giving rise to the dispute, i.e. on 29 September 2020, the claim of the Claimant is
admissible, regardless of the arguments of the Respondent in this respect.
10.
As established above, the player registered as a professional with the Respondent on 29
September 2020, i.e. during the course of the season of the player’s 18th birthday.
11.
It is uncontested that before registering as a professional, the player was always
registered as an amateur with his previous training clubs.
12.
According to art. 2 par. 1 lit. i) of Annexe 4 of the RSTP, training compensation is due
when a player is registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the
season year of his 23rd birthday.
13.
As such, training compensation is due.
14.
In accordance with art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 RSTP, for first registration of a professional,
the registering club shall pay training compensation within 30 days of registration to
every club with which the player has previously been registered starting from the start
of the season 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 8 of 14
TMS 11351
15.
As such, the Respondent shall in principle be held liable to pay training compensation to
the player’s training club(s).
16.
The Claimant provided the USSF player passport of reference and held that the period
of registration of the player with the Claimant ran as from 1 July 2015 until 9 July 2020.
17.
In particular, the Claimant explained that North Carolina FC, North Carolina FC Youth
Academy, Capital Area Soccer League, and Capital Area Railhawks Academy
corresponded to the same entity.
18.
The respondent contested the above.
19.
Art 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules stipulates that a party that asserts a fact has the
burden of proving it.
20.
As such, the Claimant carries the burden of proving that North Carolina FC Youth
Academy, Capital Area Soccer League, and Capital Area Railhawks Academy are the same
entity as North Carolina FC, i.e. the Claimant.
21.
First, the Claimant indicated that “regarding North Carolina FC Youth Academy, there is no
doubt that this is the Claimant’s youth training team.” without explicating its allegation nor
providing supportive evidence in this respect.
22.
Furthermore, according to the “Certificate of assumed name for corporation” provided by
the Claimant, i.e. the “Notary Public” dated 10 May 2017, the name under which the
business is to be conducted is North Carolina FC Youth and the name and address of the
owner of such business is Capital Area Soccer League. The document does not however
indicate that those two entities are the same as the Claimant.
23.
Moreover, the Claimant provided several extracts of the websites of some of the entities
it held as being the same as it. However, from the examination of such evidence, despite
naming those entities as being all interconnected, it does not appear that they are all
part of the same entity/club which is the Claimant.
24.
On the contrary, it appears rather that some of those entities are to be considered as
“clubs”, such as North Carolina FC Youth Academy and Capital Area Railhawks Academy,
while other are rather to be considered as “Leagues”, such as Capital Area Soccer League.
25.
As such it appears that these entities are separated entities of a potential different legal
nature.
26.
What is more, it is also established that according to TMS, beside the Claimant’s TMS
account, other current TMS active accounts can be found for the following clubs: “North
Carolina FC Youth”; “North Carolina FC Youth Academy”; “North Carolina FC Academy”; and
“North Carolina FC Youth South”.
Page 9 of 14
TMS 11351
27.
Therefore, it can also be established that the existence of multiple active TMS accounts
of clubs which are identical and/or similar to the aforementioned entities as per the USSF
player passport of reference adds to the lack of clarity which has not been dissolved by
the arguments and evidence provided by the Claimant.
28.
Bering the above in mind, it is also established that the Claimant was not in a position to
provide a statement and/or an official confirmation from its own member association,
the USSF, supporting its allegations that the Claimant itself and the three other entities
are the same.
29.
In particular, it is established that the Claimant provided an email of 23 September 2022
by means of which its legal representative requested such information to the USSF,
however to no avail.
30.
At this point, it has to be underlined that not only the Claimant did not obtain from its
own member association confirmation as to its allegations, but it did not even solicit its
member association directly but preferred rather to obtain such information via its legal
representative instead.
31.
As such, it appears that the above indicates a certain lack of due diligence from the
Claimant in its quest to demonstrate its allegations by providing concrete and solid
supportive evidence from its own member association to which it is affiliated.
32.
Along those lines it can also be noted that the Claimant explicitly requested FIFA to
obtain the information from its affiliated member association, the USSF, in lieu of the
Claimant itself which had previously failed to do so.
33.
Bearing all the above in mind, it is established that the Claimant did not meet its burden
of proof, in line with art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural rules, in demonstrating with tangible
evidence that that North Carolina FC, North Carolina FC Youth Academy, Capital Area
Soccer League, and Capital Area Railhawks Academy corresponded to the same entity
and that therefore the period of registration of the player with those entities was to be
considered as one and only accountable to the Claimant.
34.
As such, referring back to the USSF player passport of reference, it is established that
the player was registered with the Claimant, i.e. North Carolina FC, as from 16 April until
9 July 2020, that is to say during 85 days of the player’s 17th birthday season.
35.
In view of the above, training compensation is due to the Claimant for the period of
training of relevance.
36.
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.
Page 10 of 14
TMS 11351
37.
The player registered with the Respondent on 29 September 2020.
38.
Thus, the Respondent had to pay any due training compensation by 29 October 2020.
39.
It is undisputed that to date the Respondent did not pay training compensation to the
Claimant.
40.
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
season of the player’s 12th birthday to the season of his 21st birthday.
41.
The Respondent was classified under category II when it registered the player. The yearly
amount set for category II clubs in UEFA corresponds to EUR 60,000.
42.
In view of all the above, the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation of EUR
13,972.60 for the training and education provided to the player during the 85 days of his
17th birthday season.
43.
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 30 October 2020 until the date of
effective payment.
44.
Consequently, the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
45.
According to art. 25 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, procedural costs are payable for
disputes between clubs regarding the payment of training rewards.
46.
The Claimant claimed the amount of 143,150.68.
47.
Thus, the amount claimed by the Claimant corresponds to an amount higher than USD
100,000 and lower than USD 149,999.99. Therefore, procedural costs levied in this
respect are set at a maximum amount of USD 15,000 (cf. art. 2 of Annexe 1 to the
Procedural Rules).
48.
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.
49.
In view the specific circumstances of the case, procedural costs shall be set at USD
14,800.
Page 11 of 14
TMS 11351
50.
In view of the outcome of the claim, said costs shall be borne by the parties as follows:
- The amount of USD 8,000 shall be paid by the Respondent; and
- The amount of USD 6,800 shall be paid by the Claimant.
51.
Art. 24bis RSTP is applicable.
Page 12 of 14
TMS 11351
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, North Carolina FC, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3. The Respondent, 1. FC Nürnberg, shall pay to the Claimant EUR 13,972.60 as training
compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. on that amount, as from 30 October 2020 until the
date of effective payment.
4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
5. Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6. Pursuant to article 24bis 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.
7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant.
8. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of USD 14,800 are to be paid by the parties
to FIFA with reference to case no. TMS 11351 (cf. note relating to the payment of the
procedural costs below) as follows:
- The amount of USD 8,000 shall be paid by the Respondent; and
- The amount of USD 6,800 shall be paid by the Claimant.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 13 of 14
TMS 11351
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 14 of 14