Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
TMS 7435
Decision of the Single Judge of the
sub-committee of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 11 February 2021,
regarding training compensation for the player Lorenzo CALLEGARI with Football Club
Chambly Oise (France)
BY:
Roy Verm eer (Netherlands), Single Judge of the sub-committee of the
DRC
CLAIMANT:
TERNANA CALCIO SPA, Italy
RESPONDENT:
FOOTBALL CLUB CHAMBLY OISE, France
Page 2 of 7
TMS 7435
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Lorenzo CALLEGARI
Date of birth:
27 February 1998
Player passports:
(1) issued by the Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC) on 24 July 2020
Season
Birthday Club
17/18
20
18/19
21st
Paris
St
Germain
(France)
Genoa Cricket FC (Italy)
22nd
Ternana Calcio SPA
(Italy)
Genoa Cricket FC (Italy)
19/20
th
Registration
Status
01/07/17 – 30/06/18
Professional (permanent)
04/07/18 – 23/08/18
Professional (permanent)
24/08/18 - 30/06/19
Professional (loan from
Genoa Cricket FC)
Professional (permanent)
01/07/19 – 03/07/19
(2) issued by the Fédération Française de Football (FFF), not dated
Season
Birthday Club
Registration
Status
19/20
22
US Avranches (France)
31/07/19 – 30/06/20
Professional (permanent)
20/21
23rd
Football Club Chambly
Oise (France)
01/07/20 onwards
Professional (permanent)
nd
Sporting season:
1 July to 30 June (Italy)
Date of transfers:
(1) 8 August 2019, from Genoa Cricket FC (Italy) to US Avranches (France) as
professional (out of contract player)
The player signed an employment contract valid for two seasons according to
which he was entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 2,691
(2) 1 July 2020, from US Avranches (France) to Football Club Chambly Oise
(France) as professional
Claimant club:
Ternana Calcio SPA (Italy)
UEFA, category III (EUR 30,000 per year)
Respondent club:
Football Club Chambly Oise (France)
UEFA, category III (EUR 30,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
Page 3 of 7
TMS 7435
1.
On 17 December 2020, the Claimant claimed training compensation of EUR 25.561,64 on the
basis of the subsequent registration as a professional of the player with the Respondent, plus
5% interest p.a. as of “the due date”, for the training and education provided to the player
during the season of his 21st birthday.
2.
The Claimant considered that the player was an amateur with US Avranches and that he had
reacquired professional status with the Respondent less than 30 months after the expiry of his
previous professional registration as per art. 3 par. 2 RSTP, and before the end of his 23rd birthday
season.
3.
The Claimant assumed that since US Avranches is classified as training category IV, the player
could only be registered with it as an amateur.
4.
As to the calculation, the Claimant took into consideration its category and the category of the
Respondent, i.e. category II UEFA, and multiplied the average obtained, i.e. EUR 30,000, pro rata
for the 311 days the player was registered with it on loan from his previous club Genoa Cricket
FC. No interest requested.
5.
On 22 January 2021, the Respondent rejected the claim.
6.
The Respondent underlined that the player had signed a professional contract with US Avranches
after the expiry of his registration with Genoa Cricket FC. The Respondent submitted a copy of
the player’s contract with US Avranches.
7.
Making reference to art. 2 par. 2 RSTP, the Respondent declared that the player was
unmistakably a professional when registered with US Avranches.
8.
The Respondent sustained that because the player had never lost professional status only US
Avranches should in principle pay training compensation to the Claimant.
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATION
Applicable law:
RSTP: June 2020 edition
Procedural Rules: January 2021 edition
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested
Admissible:
Yes, uncontested
Decision:
1.
The claim of the Claimant is based on the assumption by the latter that the player subsequently
registered as a professional with the Respondent after having been registered as an amateur
with US Avranches.
Page 4 of 7
TMS 7435
2.
In accordance with art. 2 par. 2 RSTP as well as the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution
Chamber, a player is considered a professional if (1) he has signed a written contract with a club
and (2) he is receiving a retribution (financial and/or in kind) for his footballing activity which is
greater than the expenses he effectively incurs.
3.
Based on the information inputted in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), US Avranches
registered the player as a professional in TMS on 8 August 2019 and the parties signed an
employment contract.
4.
Thus, the written contract criteria of art. 2 par. 2 RSTP is met.
5.
The player signed an employment contract with US Avranches according to which he was
entitled to inter alia receive a monthly salary of EUR 2,691.
6.
Taking into account the jurisprudence of the DRC and the particularities of the matter at stake,
it can be concluded that a monthly salary of EUR 2,691 is a remuneration that covers more than
the expenses a player may incur in his practice of football.
7.
Therefore, it is established that the player was earning more than the expenses he incurred. As
a result, the second criteria of art. 2 par. 2 RSTP is also met and the player was a professional
player when he registered with US Avranches on 8 August 2019.
8.
In view of the above, art. 3 par. 2 RSTP is not applicable in casu.
9.
In accordance with art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 4 RSTP, training compensation is due when a player
is registered for the first time as a professional or a professional is transferred between clubs of
two different associations.
10.
The registration of the player with US Avranches is a transfer of a professional player between
clubs of two different associations.
11.
As established in art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 RSTP, in case of a subsequent transfer of a professional
player, training compensation will only be owed to his former club.
12.
In the matter at hand, Genoa Cricket FC is the former club of the player and not the Claimant
and therefore the latter is not entitled to receive training compensation.
13.
Consequently, the claim of the Claimant is rejected.
14.
No procedural costs are levied (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 5 of 7
TMS 7435
III. DECISION OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ternana Calcio SPA, 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 DRC:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 6 of 7
TMS 7435
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 7 of 7