Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
REF 19-01456 (b) / 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 SOCHI, Russia
Page 2 of 9
REF 19-01456 (b) / TMS 4331
I. FACTS
1.
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 Sochi (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
FC Noah
From 14.09.2018 to 29.01.2019
Professional
Respondent
From 05.02.2019 onwards
Professional
2.
After having unilaterally terminated his contract on 28 May 2018 with effect as from 30 June
2018, the Armenian club FC Noah registered the player on 14 September 2018 as a professional.
3.
The player was subsequently transferred to the Respondent on 5 February 2019, a club
competing in the Russian second division, where he registered as a professional.
4.
On 12 June 2019, the Claimant lodged 2 claims in front of FIFA as follows:
-
A claim against the player, the Respondent and FC Noah for termination of contract
without just cause;
A claim against the Respondent and FC Noah for the payment of training compensation.
5.
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 Noah.
6.
The Claimant is of the opinion that the Respondent and FC Noah induced the player and built a
scheme with the aim of registering the player with the Respondent 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 the Respondent was the club with which he always
intended to register after having unilaterally terminated his contract with the Claimant.
7.
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
the Respondent, 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 3 of 9
REF 19-01456 (b) / TMS 4331
8.
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.
9.
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.
10.
The Respondent did not reply to the aforementioned training compensation claim.
11.
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 5 February 2019, 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 4 of 9
REF 19-01456 (b) / 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 FC Noah as from 14 September 2018 until 29 January 2019;
With the Respondent 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 Noah 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 Noah 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 Noah 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 5 of 9
REF 19-01456 (b) / 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 subsequently registered with FC Noah as a professional on 14 September 2018, i.e.
before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday, before moving to the Respondent on 5 February
2019 as a professional.
14.
Recalling the aforementioned provisions, the Chamber underlined that when a professional
registers between clubs of two different associations, and in line with art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4
of the Regulations, in case of subsequent transfers of the professional, training compensation
will only be owed to his former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club.
15.
Bearing in mind that after having been registered with the Claimant, the player was registered
with FC Noah before subsequently moving to the Respondent, the DRC concluded that the
Claimant was not entitled to claim training compensation from the Respondent.
16.
In view of the foregoing, the Chamber rejected the claim of the Claimant.
17.
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.
18.
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.
19.
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.
20.
As a result, the DRC determined that the costs of the proceedings should correspond to CHF
2,000, an amount equivalent to the one paid by the Claimant.
Page 6 of 9
REF 19-01456 (b) / TMS 4331
21.
In view of the fact that the claim of the Claimant is rejected, the Chamber determined that the
entire costs of the proceedings shall be borne by the Claimant. The DRC concluded that the
Claimant shall pay CHF 2,000 as procedural costs.
22.
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.
23.
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.
24.
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
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.
25.
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 7 of 9
REF 19-01456 (b) / TMS 4331
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, FC Kairat, is rejected.
2.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 2,000 are to be paid by the Claimant to
FIFA (cf. note relating to the payment of the procedural costs below). 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 8 of 9
REF 19-01456 (b) / 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 9 of 9