Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
REF TMS 7497
Decision of the
Single Judge of the sub-committee of
The Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 18 May 2021
regarding training compensation relating to the registration of the player Maksymilian
BORUC with Stoke City FC (England)
BY:
Om ar Ongaro (Italy), Single Judge of the sub-committee of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
CLAIMANT:
HUSQVARNA FF, Sweden
RESPONDENT:
STOKE CITY FC, England
Page 2 of 11
REF TMS 7497
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Maksymilian BORUC
Date of birth:
15 November 2002
Player passport:
issued by the Svenska Fotbollförbundet (SVFF)
Season
2015
2016
2017
Birthday
13th
14th
15th
2018
16th
2019
17th
Clubs
IFK Varnamo
IFK Varnamo
IFK Varnamo
Husqvarna FF
Husqvarna FF
Varnamo Sodra FF
Varnamo Sodra FF
Registration dates
14/09/15 – 31/12/15
01/01/16 – 31/12/16
01/01/17 - 20/05/17
21/05/17 – 31/12/17
01/01/18 – 11/05/18
12/05/18 – 31/12/18
01/01/19 – 31/07/19
Status
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Sporting season:
1 January to 31 December (Sweden)
Date of transfer:
15 August 2019, from Varnamo Sodra FF (Sweden) to Stoke City FC (England)
as professional
Claimant club:
Husqvarna FF (Sweden)
UEFA, category III (UEFA 30,000 per year)
Respondent club:
Stoke City FC (England)
UEFA, category I (EUR 90,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 30 December 2020, the Claimant requested the payment of the amount of EUR 23,972.60
as training compensation, plus 5% interest as of “the due date”.
2.
The claim is based on the first registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent.
3.
In its calculation, the Claimant took into consideration the amount set for category IV clubs in
UEFA, i.e. EUR 10,000 per year, which it multiplied pro rata by the 255 days the player was
registered with the Claimant during the season of his 15th birthday.
4.
Equally, the Claimant took into consideration the average between its category (UEFA category
III. i.e. EUR 30,000 per year) and the Respondent’s category (UEFA category I, i.e. EUR 90,000
per year, which it multiplied pro rata by the 130 days the player was registered with the Claimant
during the season of his 16th birthday.
Page 3 of 11
REF TMS 7497
5.
On 6 January 2021, the FIFA administration submitted a proposal to the parties, informing them
that it was of the opinion that the Respondent should pay the amount of EUR 23,945.21 to the
Claimant.
6.
On 20 January 2021, the Claimant accepted the proposal.
7.
On 4 February 2021, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant, arguing that the
Claimant had waived its training compensation entitlement.
8.
The Respondent provided FIFA with a document dated 29 November 2018, which was
apparently signed and stamped by the Claimant and which stipulates the following:
“Confirmation
To whom it may concern
Husqvarna FF confirms that no training compensation is required for Maksymilian BORUC, born
15.11.2002. Additionally, there was no any form of contract agreement between club and player
in the past years.”
9.
In its replica on 3 March 2021, the Claimant underlined that the alleged waiver was:
a. Not signed by an authorized signatory;
b. Not on letter-headed paper; and
c. With an identical wording to another alleged waiver presented by the Respondent in a
training compensation dispute in relation to the player and involving Varnamo Sodra
FF.
10.
The Claimant argued that the Respondent “should be at least a little diligent when receiving
identical documents regarding the same player and issued by different entities” and that “had
the Respondent contacted the Claimant, through the contacts available on TMS or through its
official website, when receiving the unrealistic waiver on which it relies its refusal to pay training
compensation, the Respondent would have learned that the Claimant never waived its
entitlement.”
11.
The Claimant insisted that based on its company registry, the “unidentified person” who signed
the alleged waiver was not registered as an authorised signatory, and pointed out that only the
following individuals were listed as such:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Stefan Axelsson;
Magnus Krantz;
Ingvar Edeborn; and
Örjan Johnsson.
Page 4 of 11
REF TMS 7497
12.
The Claimant added that the alleged waiver did not meet the prerequisites established by the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), since “it is not
specific, it does not refer to FIFA RSTP, it is not on the Claimant’s letterhead, and it is not signed
by an authorized person.”
13.
On 6 April 2021, the Respondent reiterated its request for relief.
14.
The Respondent declared that the player had an unhappy time with the Claimant and that after
the Claimant’s Head of Academy, Mr. Emil Fritzell, announced by email to the player’s father his
son’s reassignment to the second team of his age group on 21 April 2018, the player’s father
informed the Claimant via Mr. Fritzell that the player would no longer train with the Claimant
as of 22 April 2018.
15.
The Respondent explained that, as a result, the Claimant, through Mr. Fritzell by way of an email
on 4 December 2018, informed the player’s father that it would not seek training compensation
for the player.
16.
This email contained a copy of the alleged waiver along with Mr. Fritzell’s best wishes for the
future to the player.
17.
In this respect, the Respondent contested that the signatory of the alleged waiver was unknown
to the Claimant, and indicated that this document had been signed by Mr. Emil Fritzell.
18.
The Respondent stated that said individual was the Claimant’s Head of Academy at the time and
is still currently employed by the Claimant.
19.
In support of its allegation, the Respondent referred to:
a. The above two emails dated 21 April 2018 and 4 December 2018 respectively, which
were signed by Mr. Friztell as “Head of Academy” of the Claimant; and
b. An article published on the Claimant’s website on 6 March 2019, presenting Mr. Fritzell
as its Academy Director/Head of Academy.
20.
What is more, the Respondent stated that, according to the information indicated on the
Claimant’s website on 19 December 2019, Mr. Fritzell was a member of its board of Directors.
21.
In continuation, the Respondent provided a statement issued by the player’s father and by its
former Academy Director in which they confirmed that the player had been recruited on the
assumption that Mr. Emil Fritzell, in his capacity as Head of Academy, duly acted as an official
representative of the Claimant.
22.
The Respondent insisted that the waiver had been signed by the Claimant’s Head of Academy.
23.
The Respondent added that the official stamp of the Claimant on the document in question was
a clear indication that “it was entirely reasonable for the Respondent to consider the Waiver to
Page 5 of 11
REF TMS 7497
have been validly issued having regard to the seniority of the person who signed and delivered
the Waiver (Mr Fritzell, Head of Academy) and the presence of the Claimant’s seal.”
24.
As to the authority of Mr. Fritzell, the Respondent pointed out that Mr. Fritzell was listed on the
Claimant’s website as:
a. A member of the board of Directors of the Claimant since 19 December 2019; and
b. “noted him on key certification as the club’s representative” on an article published on
the Claimant’s website on 6 March 2019.
25.
Based on the above, the Respondent sustained that Mr. Fritzell was a key member of the
Claimant’s organisation as Head of Academy, and that it shall be considered that he had the
authority to sign documents pertaining to the Claimant’s youth development activities, including
documents such as the alleged waiver.
26.
In this respect, the Respondent argued that the Claimant’s internal process regarding authorized
signatories were not relevant to the case at hand.
27.
Finally, the Respondent underlined that notwithstanding the above, “the Claimant cannot simply
escape responsibility for its representatives and agents who are disposed of apparent authority
to act on its behalf.”
28.
In particular, the Respondent pointed out that the Claimant had presented Mr. Fritzell as a key
member of its organisation, and authorised Mr. Fritzell to act as such. The Respondent argued
that this led it to perceive that said individual had authority to act on the Claimant’s behalf.
29.
Therefore, the Respondent concluded that since the alleged waiver had been “validly and
legitimately obtained from the Claimant’s actual Head of Academy” in the circumstances
described above, no further confirmation was required.
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): June 2019 edition
Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (Procedural Rules): January 2021 edition
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested
Admissible:
Yes, uncontested
Decision:
1.
The Claimant requested the payment of training compensation for the first registration of the
player as a professional with the Respondent.
Page 6 of 11
REF TMS 7497
2.
It is undisputed that the player was registered for the first time as professional with the
Respondent on 15 August 2019.
3.
The Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant arguing that the latter had waived its right
to receive training compensation by means of a document dated 29 November 2018.
4.
The validity of the waiver presented by the Respondent is disputed by the Claimant.
5.
As per the jurisprudence of the DRC, the validity of a waiver in the context of the entitlement to
receive training compensation is subject to a clear and unequivocal declaration by the party
concerned and requires a clear language which reflects such party’s intention to renounce its
rights.
6.
In other words, the above jurisprudence requires a document:
a. Containing a clear and unequivocal renouncement to training compensation; and
b. Issued by the party concerned by such renouncement.
7.
The alleged waiver stipulates that no training compensation is required for the player of
reference.
8.
As such, the first prerequisite of a valid waiver is met, i.e. a clear and unequivocal renouncement
to training compensation.
9.
As to the issuance of the waiver, the Claimant is arguing that the document was issued by an
“unidentified person” who was not listed as an authorized signatory within its own statutes.
10.
On the other hand, the Respondent is stating that the document was duly issued, signed and
stamped by the Claimant’s Head of Academy, Mr. Fritzell, and that this individual had the
authority to issue the waiver.
11.
The Claimant did not contest the Respondent’s allegations that the waiver had been produced
by one of its employees.
12.
Thus, it is established that the waiver was issued by a club official of the Claimant.
13.
What is more, it is uncontested that the stamp used in the waiver is the official stamp of the
Claimant.
14.
The Claimant did not comment on the Respondent’s allegations that the waiver had been issued
by Mr. Fritzell, and did not comment on the allegations that said individual was acting as its own
Head of Academy.
15.
The Respondent evidenced that Mr. Fritzell, signing its correspondence as Head of Academy of
the Claimant, electronically informed the player’s father of the player’s reassignment to a
Page 7 of 11
REF TMS 7497
different team in the Claimant’s youth setup on 21 April 2018, and sent the alleged waiver to
the player’s father on 4 December 2018, following the player’s release from the Claimant.
16.
Mr. Fritzell was listed on the Claimant’s website as its Head of Academy as of 6 March 2019,
and was listed as a member of its Board of Directors as of 19 December 2019.
17.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, and bearing in mind the lack of any mention from
the Claimant’s submissions as to the identity and role of the signatory of the alleged waiver, it
is considered that Mr. Friztell was officially acting as the Claimant’s Head of Academy as from
21 April 2018.
18.
Thus, it is established that the Claimant’s Head of Academy issued, signed and stamped the
waiver on 29 November 2018, and duly sent it to the player’s father on 4 December 2018.
19.
In view of the above, the alleged waiver shall, in principle, be considered as a valid waiver.
20.
However, the Claimant is arguing that the signatory of the document was not one of its
authorized signatories and that the Respondent did not act with due diligence by not having
contacted it directly prior to the registration of the player.
21.
As previously established, the Respondent, when registering the player on 15 August 2019,
knew that the waiver had undoubtedly been signed and stamped by the Claimant’s Head of
Academy at the time of its issuance, i.e. 4 December 2018, and duly sent via email to the player’s
father by the individual of reference.
22.
The Head of Academy of a club generally holds a highly strategic position within a club’s youth
structure, being in charge of the recruitment and coaching strategies as well as being responsible
for the education and safeguard of young players.
23.
The Respondent could not be expected to carry out enquiries regarding the presence or not of
the Claimant’s Head of Academy on the Claimant’s company registry in Sweden since Mr. Fritzell
was officially performing administrative duties on behalf of the Claimant as its Head of Academy
at the time it registered the player.
24.
The fact that an official representative of the Claimant produced a document which he/she may
have not been entitled to issue according to its own internal processes, such as the alleged
waiver, does not preclude the Claimant to assume the legal consequences of such act.
25.
The waiver was undoubtedly signed by the Claimant’s Head of Academy and contained its
official stamp.
26.
Based on all the above, it is determined that the Respondent had carried out its due diligence
prior to the registration of the player and could legitimately expect that the Claimant would not
seek training compensation based on the representations made by Mr. Fritzell on behalf of the
Claimant.
Page 8 of 11
REF TMS 7497
27.
Therefore, the second prerequisite of a valid waiver is met, i.e. a clear and unequivocal
renouncement to training compensation issued by the party concerned by such renouncement.
28.
The potential existence of other waivers with similar wordings allegedly issued by other training
clubs of the player has no relevance to the matter at hand.
29.
Consequently, the claim of the Claimant is rejected.
30.
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).
Page 9 of 11
REF TMS 7497
III. DECISION
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Husqvarna FF, 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 10 of 11
REF TMS 7497
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 11 of 11