Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
REF TMS 6447
Decision of the
Single Judge of the sub-committee of
The Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 November 2020
regarding training compensation for the player Botond Balogh
BY:
Daan de Jong (Netherlands), Single Judge of the sub-committee of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber
CLAIMANT:
MTK Budapest, Hungary
RESPONDENT:
PARMA CALCIO 1913 S.R.L., Italy
Page 2 of 8
REF TMS 6447
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
BOTOND BALOGH
Date of birth:
6 June 2002
Player passport:
issued by the Hungarian Footbal Federation (“HFF”) on an unknown date
Season
Birthday
Club(s)
20152016
20162017
20172018
20182019
20192020
20192020
14th
MTK Budapest
15th
MTK Budapest
16th
MTK Budapest
17th
MTK Budapest
18th
MTK Budapest
18th
Parma Calcio 1913
Registration
dates
12.08.201530.06.2016
01.07.201630.06.2017
01.07.201730.06.2018
01.07.201830.06.2019
01.07.201915.10.2019
15.10.2019onwards
Sporting season:
1 July to 30 June (Hungary)
Date of transfer:
15 October 2019, Hungary to Italy
Claimant club:
MTK Budapest (Hungary)
UEFA, category III (EUR 30,000 per year)
Respondent club:
PARMA CALCIO 1913 S.R.L. (Italy)
UEFA, category I (EUR 90,000 per year)
Status
Category
Amateur
II
Amateur
II
Amateur
II
Amateur
II
Amateur
II
Professional -
Claim and Response:
1.
On 28 July 2020, the Claimant claimed training compensation of EUR 161,876 on the basis of
the first registration as a professional of the player with the Respondent, plus 5% interests p.a.
as of 15 November 2019.
2.
The Claimant argued that as of May 2019 it had expressed its wish to sign the player as a
professional.
3.
In particular, the Claimant referred to a meeting that apparently took place on 19 May 2019
and to a Whatsapp message dated 5 July 2019 that it had allegedly sent to the players’ agent
of the player.
Page 3 of 8
REF TMS 6447
4.
On both occasions the Claimant argued having offered a contract to the player.
5.
The Claimant added having received an offer from the Respondent for the player which
amounted to EUR 120,000, payable as training compensation that it had refused as well as
another increased one on 17 July 2019 which it had also declined.
6.
The Claimant deemed being entitled to receive training compensation on the basis of art. 20
RSTP combined with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (RSTP).
7.
The Claimant sustained that because the player had been registered with it as an amateur, only
the first sentence of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 to the RSTP was applicable and that by means of
its communication sent to the player’s agent on 5 July 2019, it had provided the player with a
written contract offer in the sense of the RSTP.
8.
In the alternative, the Claimant held that, in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
RSTP (last part of the first sentence), it had showed a bona fide and genuine interest in keeping
the player by means of its proactive attitude vis-á-vis the latter.
9.
The Claimant considered having showed the player that it counted on him for future seasons.
In this respect, the Claimant referred , inter alia, to the “oral negotiations with the Player for a
professional contract, joint television interviews about future prospects and plans, chat offer to
the Player’s agent, etc…”.
10.
The Claimant calculated the claimed amount on the basis of the provisions set out in art. 6 of
Annexe 4 to the RSTP (special provisions for the EU/EEA) arguing that in the relevant time period
of registration it had belonged to different categories: category II during the seasons 2016/17
and 2018/19 and category III in the seasons 2017/18 and 2019/20.
11.
On 13 August 2020, the FIFA administration made a proposal to the parties to the settle the
matter suggesting that the Respondent should pay the Claimant the sum of EUR 157,630.14 as
training compensation, plus 5% interests p.a. as from 15 November 2019.
12.
The proposal was accepted by the Claimant and rejected by the Respondent.
13.
On 17 September 2020, the Respondent contested the Claimant’s entitlement to receive training
compensation for the player arguing that it had failed to offer a contract to the player and did
not justify a genuine and bona fide interest in maintaining the services of the player.
14.
In the alternative, the Respondent argued that the Claimant was only entitled to receive the
amount EUR 145,000 as training compensation considering the Claimant’s category III upon
registration and its sayings admitting that it trained the player only until 24 July 2019 .
Page 4 of 8
REF TMS 6447
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
RSTP: October 2019 edition.
Procedural Rules: June 2020 edition.
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested
Admissible:
Yes, uncontested
Decision:
15.
The registration of the player with the Respondent is a first registration of a professional player.
The former club (the Claimant) and the new club (the Respondent) being based within the
EU/EEA, the provisions set out in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP and the corresponding
jurisprudence of the DRC are applicable to the matter at hand.
16.
As such, in principle, the 1st sentence of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP unequivocally establishes
that, in general, when a player move from two clubs affiliated to different associations within
the EU/EEA before the end of the player’s 23rd birthday season, 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.
17.
If the former club is a professional club and the player had been registered with it as amateur,
such club will have to justify its entitlement to receive training compensation by way of a contract
offer made to the player, i.e. the provisions set out in art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 RSTP are
applicable, but not sent. 2 and 3.
18.
In exceptional cases, the DRC has recognized that a club that has not offered a contract to a
player in line with the above, may retain its entitlement to receive training compensation by
showing a bona fide interest in retaining the player.
19.
In casu, the player was always registered as an amateur with the former club.
20.
The Claimant failed to provide concrete evidence as to the content of the meeting dated 19 May
2019: the statements of the Claimant’s employees provided by the latter cannot be retained as
they might not be entirely impartial, there are no minutes of the meeting and the Respondent
strongly contested its existence. The Claimant also failed to provide evidence that the content
of the WhattsApp communication of 5 July 2019 was remitted by the Claimant to the player.
21.
According to the jurisprudence of the DRC, bona fide interest can in general be manifested by
showing a proactive attitude vis-à-vis the respective player, so as to clearly manifest that the club
intends to keep the player in the future and that it counts on his presence. Such proactive
attitude can been demonstrated if there is evidence that concrete contractual negotiations have
taken place.
Page 5 of 8
REF TMS 6447
22.
The Claimant failed to provide substantiated evidence that it had made an offer to the player
and that it was in bona fide interested in keeping the services of the player (cfr. Art. 12 par. 3
of the Procedural Rules).
23.
As a result, the Claimant failed to demonstrate that it had fulfilled the requirements of art. 6
par. 3 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP and that therefore, the latter is not entitled to receive
training compensation in connection with the first registration of the player as a professional
with the Respondent.
24.
The claim of the Claimant is rejected.
Page 6 of 8
REF TMS 6447
DECISION
1.
The claim of the Claimant, MTK Budapest, is rejected.
2.
No procedural costs are payable (cf. arts. 17 par. 1 and 18 par. 1 of the Rules Governing the
Procedure of the Players’ Status Committee and Dispute Resolution Chamber).
For the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 7 of 8
REF TMS 6447
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 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 8 of 8