Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
REF TMS 9385
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 December 2021
regarding training compensation in relation with the registration of the player Kwadwo
ASAMOAH
BY:
Johan Van Gaalen (South Africa), member of the Dispute Resolution Chamber of
the Football Tribunal
CLAIMANT:
ACCRA, Ghana
RESPONDENT:
FK SPARTAKS, Latvia
Page 2 of 10
REF TMS 9385
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Kwadwo ASAMOAH
Date of birth:
15 July 2002
Player passport:
issued by the Ghana Football Association (GFA) and uploaded in TMS on 23 July
2020
Season
13/14
14/15
15/16
16/17
17/18
18/19
19/20
Club(s)
Top Talent FC
Top Talent FC
GYE NYAME FC
ACCRA
ACCRA
DC United
DC United
Bechem United FC
Bechem United FC
Bechem United FC
Registration dates
01/08/13 – 31/07/14
01/08/14 – 31/07/15
01/08/15 – 27/07/16
27/07/16 – 31/07/16
01/08/16 – 22/06/17
22/06/17 – 31/07/17
01/08/17 – 15/03/18
15/03/18 – 31/07/18
01/08/18 – 31/07/19
01/08/19 – 23/07/20
Status
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Sporting season:
1 August to 31 July (Ghana)
Date of transfer:
24 July 2020, from Bechem United FC (Ghana) to FK Spartaks (Latvia) as professional
Bechem United FC and FK Spartaks signed an agreement dated 19 July 2020 via
which the clubs agreed to the transfer of the player against the payment of EUR
50,000 as “FIFA Training Compensation”
As per point C. of the agreement, the clubs confirmed that the player was
“previously registered as an amateur with Bechem United FC”, and according to
point E., “Bechem guarantees to be the sole club entitled to receive FIFA Training
Compensation related to the player.”
Equally, clause 4. of the agreement stipulated that “Bechem confirms to be the sole
club entitled to release the player and to receive any benefits arising from the FIFA
Training Compensation subject of this agreement.”
The player signed an employment contract with FK Spartaks valid as from 15 July
2020 until 31 December 2024, according to which the player inter alia would
receive a monthly salary of EUR 1,000
Claimant club:
ACCRA (Ghana)
Page 3 of 10
REF TMS 9385
Respondent club:
FK Spartaks (Latvia)
UEFA, category III (EUR 30,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 10 November 2021, the Claimant lodged the present claim and requested EUR 9,068.50 as
training compensation for the first registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent,
“plus 5% p.a. interest as of the due date, until the date of effective payment.”
2.
In its calculation, the Claimant multiplied the yearly amount foreseen for UEFA clubs for the seasons
of a player’s 14th and 15th birthdays, i.e. EUR 10,000, pro rata by the 5 days of the payer’s registration
with it for season 2015/2016 and by the 326 days of the player’s registration with it for season
2016/2017.
3.
On 12 November 2021, the FIFA administration submitted a proposal to the parties, and suggested
that the Respondent pay EUR 9,917.81 to the Claimant as training compensation.
4.
On 27 November 2021, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant.
5.
First, the Respondent argued that the player, although registered as an amateur by the GFA with his
former club, Bechem United FC (Bechem), had signed a professional contract with said club on 1
February 2018.
6.
The Respondent submitted a copy of the contract, according to which the player was valid as from 1
February 2018 until “the end of season 2019/2020”, i.e. 31 July 2020.
7.
The contract foresaw a monthly remuneration of GHC 600, which corresponds to approximately USD
100.
8.
The Respondent considered that based on the above, the player was to be considered a professional
player in the sense of art. 2 par. 2 RSTP, and therefore concluded that the registration of the player
with the Respondent did not constitute a first professional registration but a subsequent professional
registration of the RSTP.
9.
The Respondent pointed out that the value of the remuneration was irrelevant when determining if
the player was a professional, so long as the amount received exceeded the footballing expenses
incurred by the player. In the present case, the Respondent argued that the sum of GHC 600 per
month covered more than said expenses.
10.
As such, the Respondent concluded that training compensation was only due to the last club in
Ghana, i.e. Bechem, and not to the Claimant.
Page 4 of 10
REF TMS 9385
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 2021
edition
Decision:
1.
The claim of the Claimant is based on the transfer of the player as professional between Bechem and
the Respondent.
2.
It is undisputed that the GFA had the player always registered as an amateur in Ghana, including but
not limited to Bechem, as per the GFA player passport dated 23 July 2020.
3.
In particular, the player was registered with the Claimant as from 27 July 2016 until 22 June 2017,
that is to say during:
a. 5 days of the season of his 14th birthday; and
b. 326 days of the season of his 15th birthday.
4.
It is also undisputed that the player registered as a professional with the Respondent on 24 July 2020,
i.e. during the season of his 18th birthday, directly from Bechem.
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 season 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 season 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.
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 already a professional with Bechem, before transferring to the Respondent.
9.
According to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, a party that asserts a fact has the burden of
proving it.
Page 5 of 10
REF TMS 9385
10.
The Respondent carries the burden of proving that the player was in fact a professional player with
his last club in Ghana, i.e. Bechem.
11.
In accordance with art. 2 par. 2 of 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 provided a copy of the alleged contract that Bechem and a player signed. According
to this document, the player was bound to a contract valid as from 1 February 2018 until 31 July
2020.
13.
Thus the first prerequisite of art. 2 par. 2 RSTP is met, i.e. the player and Bechem had a written
agreement in place.
14.
As to the remuneration prerequisite, it is uncontested that the player was earning a monthly salary
of approximately GHC 600 per month, which corresponds to circa USD 100.
15.
Regarding the remuneration criteria set out in art. 2 par. 2 RSTP, the DRC previously established that
whenever it is not possible to determine a concrete amount of remuneration applicable to all players,
the specific circumstances and particularities of each individual case, namely the realities of the
country concerned, the other, non-financial benefits to which the player is entitled, and even a
possible liquidated damages clause contained in the contract signed between the player and his club,
must be taken into account.
16.
In accordance with the aforementioned jurisprudence, a player in order to be considered as
professional does not have to be able to make a living from his footballing activity and may still need
to pursue other working activities in order to earn enough for a living. However, as long as the
remuneration he receives from his club is higher than the expenses he effectively incurs for the
practice of football, he shall be considered a professional.
17.
The Respondent did not submit any evidence that would permit to conclude that the amount of GHC
600 was enough to cover any expenses incurred in the practice of football.
18.
What is more, the Respondent and Bechem unequivocally stipulated in the transfer agreement of 19
July 2020 that the player was registered as an amateur with Bechem (cf. point C. of the agreement).
Equally, the Respondent and Bechem did not make any mention in the transfer agreement of the
alleged employment contract the player had signed with Bechem.
19.
It appears that the content of the transfer agreement signed by Bechem and the Respondent is in
complete contradiction with the Respondent’s allegations brought before the DRC.
20.
Based on all the above, it is established that the Respondent did not submit any conclusive evidence
that the player was to be considered a professional with Bechem in the sense of art. 2 par. 2 RSTP.
Page 6 of 10
REF TMS 9385
21.
Consequently, it is determined that the player was always registered as an amateur in Ghana,
including with Bechem, as per the GFA player passport.
22.
Therefore, reverting back to point II. 4 to 6 above, the registration of the player with the Respondent
on 24 July 2020 constituted the first professional registration of the player before the end of the
season of his 23rd birthday.
23.
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 season of his 12th birthday, and on a pro
rata basis if less than one year (cf. art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 RSTP).
24.
The player was registered with the Claimant as from 27 July 2016 until 22 June 2017, that is to say
during:
a. 5 days of the season of his 14th birthday; and
b. 326 days of the season of his 15th birthday.
25.
In view of the above, training compensation is due to the Claimant.
26.
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.
27.
The player registered with the Respondent on 26 July 2020.
28.
Thus, the Respondent had to pay any due training compensation by 25 August 2020.
29.
It is undisputed that the Respondent did not pay training compensation to the Claimant.
30.
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 seasons
between their 12th and 15th birthdays (i.e. four seasons) shall be based on the training and education
costs of category 4 clubs.
31.
The yearly amount set for category IV clubs in UEFA corresponds to EUR 10,000.
32.
In view of all the above, the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation of EUR 9,068.50,
corresponding to:
a. EUR 136.99 for the training and education provided to the player during the 10 days of the
season of his 14th birthday; and
b. EUR 8,931.51 for the training and education provided to the player during the 326 days of
the season of his 15th birthday.
Page 7 of 10
REF TMS 9385
33.
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 26 August 2020 until the date of effective payment.
34.
Consequently, the claim of the Claimant is accepted.
35.
According to art. 25 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, procedural costs are payable for disputes between
clubs regarding the payment of training rewards.
36.
The Claimant claimed the amount of EUR 9,068.50.
37.
Thus, the amount claimed by the Claimant corresponds to an amount lower than USD 49,999.
Therefore, procedural costs levied in this respect are fixed at USD 5,000 (cf. art. 2 of Annexe 1 to the
Procedural Rules.
38.
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.
39.
In view of the specific circumstances of the case, the procedural costs shall be set at USD 1,000.
40.
In view of the outcome of the claim, said costs shall be borne by the Respondent in full.
Page 8 of 10
REF TMS 9385
III. DECISION
1.
The claim of the Claimant, ACCRA, is accepted.
2. The Respondent, FK Spartaks, shall pay to the Claimant EUR 9,068.50 as training compensation, plus
5% interest p.a. on that amount, as from 26 August 2020 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 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.
5. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance with article
24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of USD 1,000 are to be paid by the Respondent to
FIFA with reference to case no. TMS 9385 (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 9385
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
Pursuant to article 58 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