Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
REF 19-01456 (a) / TMS 4331
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed via videoconference, on 2 July 2020,
regarding training compensation for the player Akmal Anvarovich BAKHTIYAROV
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA/France), Deputy Chairman
Michelle Colucci (Italy), member
Todd Durbin (USA), member
CLAIMANT:
FC KAIRAT, Kazakhstan
Represented by Mr Luca Tettamanti
RESPONDENT:
FC NOAH, Armenia
Page 2 of 12
REF 19-01456 (a) / TMS 4331
I. FACTS
1.
2.
According to the player passports issued by the Kazakh Football Federation (hereinafter: KFF),
the Football Federation of Armenia (hereinafter: FFA), and the Football Union of Russia
(hereinafter: FUR), the player, Akmal Anvarovich Bakhtiyarov, (hereinafter: the player), born on
2 June 1998, was registered with several clubs, including FC Kairat (hereinafter: the Claimant)
and FC Noah (Hereinafter: the Respondent), as follows:
Clubs
Registration Dates
Status
Claimant
From 18.04.2013 to 29.02.2016
Amateur
Claimant
From 01.03.2016 to 30.06.2018
Professional
Respondent
From 14.09.2018 to 29.01.2019
Professional
FC Sochi
From 05.02.2019 onwards
Professional
For the purpose of the calculation of training compensation for young players, as set out in FIFA
Circular no. 1249 dated 6 December 2010 (hereinafter: FIFA circular 1249), each association
shall divide its clubs each year into a maximum of four categories, from I (highest category) to
IV (lowest category), as follows:
-
-
Category I (top-level, high-quality training centre) All first-division clubs of member
associations investing, on average, a similar amount in training players;
Category II (still professional, but at a lower level) All second-division clubs of member
associations in category I and all first-division clubs in all other countries with professional
football;
Category III All third-division clubs of member associations in category I and all seconddivision clubs in all other countries with professional football;
Category IV All fourth- and lower-division clubs of the member associations in category I, all
third- and lower-division clubs in all other countries with professional football and all clubs
in countries with only amateur football.
3.
As per Annexe 4 art. 4 para. 1 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations) and FIFA Circular 1249, the training costs for each category shall
be based on “the amount needed to train one player for one year multiplied by an average
“player factor”, which is the ratio of players who need to be trained to produce one professional
player”.
4.
Pursuant to FIFA Circular no. 1582 dated 26 May 2017 and the information available on TMS,
the Respondent belonged to the category IV (UEFA indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year)
at the moment the player was registered with it.
5.
According to the information available in TMS, Armenian clubs can be categorised as Category
IV or Category III (UEFA indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year).
Page 3 of 12
REF 19-01456 (a) / TMS 4331
6.
The player unilaterally terminated his contract with the Claimant on 28 May 2018, with effect
on 30 June 2018.
7.
According to the information available in TMS, and after the player unilaterally terminated his
contract as of 30 June 2018, the Macedonian club FC Saxan entered a transfer instruction in
TMS in order to register the player as an “out of contract – free of payment” player but cancelled
said instruction on 9 July 2018.
8.
On 4 September 2018, the Respondent, a club competing in the Armenian first division and
classified by the FFA as UEFA training category IV in TMS filed a provisional registration request
in order to register the player.
9.
In this respect, the Claimant rejected the International Transfer Certificate (hereinafter: ITC)
request and declared that the contract had not been terminated and that FC Noah unlawfully
negotiated a new contract with the player and therefore induced the alleged breach of contract.
The provisional registration was granted to FC Noah on 14 September 2018, and FC Noah
registered the player as a professional.
10.
The player was subsequently transferred to FC Sochi on 5 February 2019, a club competing in
the Russian second division, where he registered as a professional.
11.
On 12 June 2019, the Claimant lodged 2 claims in front of FIFA as follows:
-
A claim against the player, the Respondent and FC Sochi for termination of contract
without just cause;
A claim against the Respondent and FC Sochi for the payment of training compensation.
12.
With regards to the claim lodged for training compensation, the Claimant requested to be
awarded the amount of EUR 864,538.34 as training compensation that shall be paid by the
Respondent and/or FC Sochi.
13.
The Claimant is of the opinion that the Respondent and FC Sochi induced the player and built a
scheme with the aim of registering the player with FC Sochi without having to pay any
compensation to the Claimant, that is to say transfer compensation for a player under contract
and/or training compensation for the player. In fact, the Claimant argued that the player was
the subject of a bridge transfer and that FC Sochi was the club with which he always intended
to register after having unilaterally terminated his contract with the Claimant.
14.
With regards to the Claimant’s claim for training compensation, the Claimant stated that the
fact that he first registered with FC Noah, a category IV club, and moved a few months after to
FC Sochi, was proof that the intention was to circumvent art. 20 of the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players and avoid the payment of training compensation.
Page 4 of 12
REF 19-01456 (a) / TMS 4331
15.
In fact, the Claimant argued that the costs of running its youth academy were much higher than
the costs foreseen by the FIFA training categories, in this instance UEFA training category II, i.e.
EUR 60,000 per year of training. As such, the Claimant requested the training compensation to
be raised to a much higher level.
16.
In this respect, the Claimant indicated that it had invested way above the amounts set out in his
UEFA training category in the training of young players, and provided a large set of documents
in support, including its detailed accounts.
17.
The Respondent did not reply to the aforementioned training compensation claim.
18.
On 12 February 2020, the Dispute Resolution Chamber ruled that the player had validly
terminated the contract by having rightfully triggered the liquidated damages clause contained
within, and ordered him to pay the amount set out in the clause to the Claimant. Any further
claim of the Claimant was rejected, including his request for payment of the buy-out clause by
the Respondents and/or any of the allegations of bridge transfer.
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the
present matter was submitted to FIFA on 12 June 2019 and submitted for decision on 2 July
2020. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the June 2020 edition of the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is
applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC referred to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which states that the Dispute
Resolution Chamber shall examine its jurisdiction in light of arts. 22 to 24 of the Regulations
(edition June 2020). In accordance with art. 3 of Annexe 6 in conjunction with art. 24 par. 3 and
art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations, the Chamber is competent to decide on the present dispute
relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations handled
through TMS.
3.
Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with the Respondent
on 14 September 2018, the DRC analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the June 2018 edition of the
Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the
DRC entered into the substance of the matter. The Chamber started by acknowledging the
Page 5 of 12
REF 19-01456 (a) / TMS 4331
above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. However, the DRC
emphasized that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and
documentary evidence which were considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at
hand. In particular, the DRC recalled that, in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the
Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the
Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in the TMS.
5.
First of all, the Chamber recalled that, in accordance with the player passports issued by the KFF,
the FFA and the FUR, the player was registered:
-
With the Claimant (1) as an amateur from 18 April 2013 to 29 February 2016 and (2) as a
professional from 1 March 2016 to 30 June 2018;
With the Respondent as from 14 September 2018 until 29 January 2019;
With FC Sochi as from 5 February 2019 onwards.
6.
In continuation, the DRC took note that the Claimant requested the payment of the training
compensation from the Respondent and/or FC Sochi in view of the subsequent registration of
the player as a professional with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd
birthday. In particular, the Chamber took note that the Claimant requested the amount of EUR
864,538.34 plus interest.
7.
In particular, the Chamber noted that the Claimant was of the opinion that the Respondent and
FC Sochi had put together in place a bridge transfer scheme in order to avoid the payment of
transfer compensation and/or training compensation to the Claimant.
8.
As to the amount of training compensation claimed, the Claimant requested an amount higher
than the one foreseen in the Regulations, arguing that it had spent much higher amounts per
year on the training of the player than the one foreseen in the training categories system.
9.
Furthermore, the Chamber remarked that the Respondent did not reply to the claim of the
Claimant.
10.
As a preliminary remark, the DRC emphasised that the Claimant’s allegations regarding the
involvement of the Respondent and FC Sochi in the termination of the contract of the player,
and the subsequent allegations of inducement and bridge transfer, had been dealt with by the
decision the Chamber passed on 12 February 2020 (cf. I.17 above).
11.
In particular, the Chamber underlined that it had been concluded that the player had validly
terminated his contract, and therefore in this context the player was to be considered as a free
agent as from 1 July 2018. As such, the Chamber had no other option but to set aside any claim
regarding the allegations of bridge transfer made by the Claimant.
12.
As such, the Chamber recalled that, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations in combination
with art. 1 par. 1 and art. 2 par 1. of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is
Page 6 of 12
REF 19-01456 (a) / TMS 4331
payable, as a general rule, for training incurred between the ages of 12 and 21 when a player is
registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of the player’s 23 rd
birthday or when a professional is transferred between clubs of two different associations before
the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
13.
In continuation, the DRC observed that, based on the documents at disposal, it can be
established that the player was registered with the Claimant before the end of the season of his
21st birthday, i.e. (1) as an amateur from 18 April 2013 to 29 February 2016 and (2) as a
professional from 1 March 2016 to 30 June 2018. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the
player was registered with the Respondent as a professional on 14 September 2018, i.e. before
the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.
14.
In view of the foregoing, the Chamber remarked that the Claimant should in principle be entitled
to training compensation.
15.
However, the DRC was keen to point out that according to art. 2 par. 2 lit. ii) of Annexe 4 of
the Regulations, no training compensation was due to the former club of the player when said
player was subsequently registered with a category IV club. In addition, the DRC remarked that
the Respondent being classified as a category IV when registering the player, no training
compensation shall be due to the Claimant in principle.
16.
Recalling the principles set out in art. 4 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations regarding training costs
according to which member associations are instructed to divide their clubs into a maximum of
four categories in accordance with the club’s financial investment in training players, and that
member associations are required to keep the data regarding the training category of their clubs
inserted in TMS up to date at all times, the DRC observed that the FFA had classified the
Respondent as a Category IV club despite having the possibility to classify the club as a Category
II club. In other words, the Chamber noted that the FFA classified the Respondent at the lowest
category possible, despite the Respondent competing in the highest professional division in
Armenia.
17.
Nevertheless, the Chamber strongly emphasised that the sole objective of training compensation
is to reward clubs that are training young players, and to encourage the future development of
more players by those training clubs. Reverting to the case at hand, the DRC underlined that
should art. 2 par. 2 lit. ii) of Annexe 4 of the Regulations strictly be applied, the player would
have effectively moved from the Claimant where he was trained and developed to the
Respondent, one of the main professional clubs in Armenia, without receiving any
compensation. What is more, the DRC vehemently emphasised that in this scenario, the last
training club (i.e. the Claimant) would be deprived of receiving any training rewards from the
new club, a top-flight club in its country (i.e. the Respondent) on the basis that said new club
was classified at the lowest training category available. The Chamber concluded that it would
be against the spirit of art. 21 of the Regulations to allow a professional club that plays in the
highest division of a country where more than one training category are available would benefit
Page 7 of 12
REF 19-01456 (a) / TMS 4331
from young talents trained by other clubs outside of Armenia without having to reward the clubs
which have invested in training those young players.
18.
In view of the above, the DRC was of the strong opinion that in the present case, the category
of the Respondent in the TMS, i.e. category IV, could not be taken into consideration.
19.
Then, the DRC recalled that according to art. 4 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations and FIFA
Circular 1249, associations shall divide their affiliated clubs into a maximum of four training
categories, from I (the highest) to IV (the lowest), and that the training costs determined for each
category were mainly based on the clubs’ declared financial investments in the training of young
players and on the correlation between the number of young players trained per professional
player produced.
20.
In view of the above, the Single Judge was keen to remind that the aforementioned
categorisation and its inherent training costs were an objective and uniformed tool to determine
the effective costs of training young players. Therefore, and in line with the Regulations and the
long standing practice of the DRC, the Single Judge dismissed the Respondent’s argumentation
that training costs should be determined based on its own calculations, which correspond to a
much higher amount of training costs, rather than through the well-established training
categorisation of clubs.
21.
In this regard, the Chamber noted that it was undisputed that the Respondent had been
competing at the highest level in Armenia. In other words, the DRC observed that the
Respondent was an established professional football club in Armenia competing at the highest
level in this country.
22.
What is more, the DRC observed that there were 2 training categories available in Armenia, and
that as per FIFA Circular 1249, “All third-division clubs of member associations in category I and
all second-division clubs in all other countries with professional football”, such as the
Respondent, shall be classified as category III, not IV. As such, the Chamber decided to consider
that the Respondent is a UEFA category III club (UEFA indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year)
in this particular case.
23.
Turning its attention to the calculation of the training compensation, the Chamber referred to
art. 3 par. 1 sent. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the amount payable is
calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of training that the player spent with each
club. As such, the DRC concluded that the effective period of time to be considered in the matter
at stake corresponds to 74 days of the season of his 15th birthday; and the entire seasons of his
16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th birthdays.
24.
Taking into consideration all the above, as well as the amount claimed by the Claimant, the DRC
decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 156,082 to the Claimant for the
training and education of the player.
Page 8 of 12
REF 19-01456 (a) / TMS 4331
25.
Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4
of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent has to pay, in conformity with its
long standing practice, interest at 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation
as of the 31st day of the registration of the player with the Respondent as a professional, i.e. as
of 15 October 2018 until the date of effective payment.
26.
Lastly, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in conjunction with art. 18 par.
1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the DRC relating to disputes
regarding training compensation and the solidarity mechanism, costs in the maximum amount
of CHF 25,000 are levied. The relevant provision further states that the costs are to be borne in
consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and that, in accordance with
Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of
the amount in dispute.
27.
In respect of the above, the DRC held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the
present proceedings is EUR 156,082.19 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the
Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the present proceedings corresponds
to CHF 20,000.
28.
Recalling the provisions set out in art. 18 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Procedural Rules according to which
any claim or counter-claim lodged prior to 10 June 2020 which was decided after 10 June 2019,
the maximum amount of procedural costs levied shall be equivalent to any advance of costs
paid.
29.
As a result, the DRC determined that the costs of the proceedings should correspond to CHF
3,000, an amount equivalent to the one paid by the Claimant.
30.
In view of the degree of success of the Claimant and the absence of response of the Respondent,
the DRC concluded that the Respondent shall pay CHF 2,000 as procedural costs and the
Claimant shall pay CHF 1,000.
31.
Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, the DRC referred
to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the
pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation
in due time.
32.
In this regard, the DRC pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to pay
the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new players, either
nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
33.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber decided that, in the event that the
Respondent does not pay the amount due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the moment
Page 9 of 12
REF 19-01456 (a) / TMS 4331
in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the
relevant bank details to the Respondent, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods
shall become effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the
Regulations.
34.
Finally, the DRC recalled that the above-mentioned sanction will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3
of the Regulations.
Page 10 of 12
REF 19-01456 (a) / TMS 4331
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, FC Kairat, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, FC Noah, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
- EUR 156,082 as training compensation plus 5% interest p.a. as from 15 October 2018 until the
date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant bank
account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.
5.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with this
decision to [email protected], duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official FIFA languages
(English, French, German, Spanish).
6.
In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the Respondent
within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the
Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods. The aforementioned ban mentioned will be lifted immediately
and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid. (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players).
2. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end of the
ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be submitted,
upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
7.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 3,000 are to be paid by the parties to
FIFA (cf. note relating to the payment of the procedural costs below) as follows:
1. The Respondent shall pay CHF 2,000;
2. The Claimant shall pay CHF 1,000. Considering that the Claimant has already paid advance of
costs, no further amount shall be paid by the Claimant in this respect.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 11 of 12
REF 19-01456 (a) / TMS 4331
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE 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 20 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 12 of 12