Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
REF TMS 11009
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 9 November 2022
regarding training compensation relating to the registration of the player Etienne
Marius Catena with Sporting CP (Portugal)
BY:
Lívia Silva Kägi (Brazil), Acting Deputy Chairperson of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber
CLAIMANT:
Roma Spa, Italy
RESPONDENT:
Sporting CP, Portugal
Page 2 of 9
REF TMS 11009
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Etienne Marius Catena
Date of birth:
1 January 2004
Player passport:
issued by the Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC) on 14 June 2022
Year
Birthday
Club(s)
Registration dates
Status
2016
12th
Roma Spa
01.01.2016 – 30.06.2016 &
Young Amateur
2017
13
th
2018
14
th
03.08.2016 – 31.12.2016
Roma Spa
01.01.2017 – 30.06.2017 &
Young Amateur
27.07.2017 – 31.12.2017
Roma Spa
Entire year
Young Amateur /
Amateur
2019
15th
Roma Spa
Entire year
Amateur
2020
16
th
Roma Spa
Entire year
Amateur
2021
17th
Roma Spa
Entire year
Amateur
2022
18
Roma Spa
01.01.2022 – 09.01.2022
Amateur
th
Sporting season:
1 July to 30 June (Italy)
Date of transfer:
10 January 2022, from Roma Spa (Italy) to Sporting CP (Portugal) as
professional (out of contract)
Claimant club:
Roma Spa (Italy)
UEFA, category I (EUR 90,000 per year)
Respondent club:
Sporting CP (Portugal)
UEFA, category II (EUR 60,000 per year)
Page 3 of 9
REF TMS 11009
Claim and Response:
1.
On 24 August 2022, the Claimant requested EUR 159,865.48 as training compensation,
plus 5% interest p.a. as of 10 January 2022 until the date of effective payment.
2.
In its calculation, the Claimant took into consideration the training category of the
Respondent (which it deemed to be category II within UEFA, i.e. EUR 60,000 per year),
which it multiplied pro rata by the years the player was registered with the Claimant, as
from his 12th until 18th birthday.
3.
In its submissions, the Claimant confirmed that it did not offer the player a contract in
line with the provisions set out in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP).
4.
Nevertheless, the Claimant argued being entitled to receive training compensation for
the first registration of the player as a professional because it had shown a bona fide
interest in retaining the services of the player, in line with CAS jurisprudence.
5.
In this respect, the Claimant provided an untranslated letter dated 30 June 2021, sent to
the player and signed by the latter. According to the Claimant’s translation of said letter,
it informed the player, inter alia, of its “wish to continue working with you [the player],
keeping alive the option of offering you a professional contract at a later stage.”
6.
The Claimant added that the player was registered as a “giovane di serie”, a specific bond
provided by the Norme organizzative interne (NOIF) of FIGC.
7.
The free translation of art. 33, par. 1 and 2 of the NOIF provided by the Claimant read as
follows:
“1. Young players from the age of 14 take on the qualification of “giovane di serie” when they
sign an application for registration with a club competing in one of the professional Leagues
and such application is accepted.
2. Players with the qualification of "giovane di serie" are bound to a club, which is therefore
allowed to train and coach them with the aim of fielding them in the competition that the
club is competing in, until the end of the football season which begins in the year in which the
player reaches 19 years of age. During the last football season of such registration, the player
qualified as "giovane di serie" is entitled, within the term established each year by the Federal
Council, to receive an indemnity determined each year by the League in which the relevant
club competes, being the player subject to a relationship of technical training and without
Page 4 of 9
REF TMS 11009
this entailing the acquisition of the status of "professional". The club for which the “giovane
di serie” is registered has the right to stipulate the player’s first professional contract with a
maximum duration of three years. Such right can be exercised exclusively during the last
month of registration as "giovane di serie", following the procedures established each year by
the Federal Council.”
8.
Finally, the Claimant maintained that it and the player “already had a valid bond at
domestic level due to the Player’s registration with Roma as a “giovane di serie”. Such bond
would have expired on 30 June 2023 and therefore Roma had no need to immediately offer
a professional contract to the Player.”
9.
On 19 September 2022, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant in its entirety.
10.
The Respondent underlined that because the Claimant had not offered a contract to the
player, it was in principle not entitled to training compensation.
11.
The Respondent however acknowledged the jurisprudence developed by CAS in this
respect, according to which a club may safeguard its entitlement to training
compensation although no contract offer was made, if it’s able to demonstrate that it
had a bona fide interest in retaining the player’s services.
12.
Nevertheless, the Respondent, deemed that the Claimant had failed to meet its burden
of proof as to having showed said bona fide interest in keeping the player.
13.
In this respect, the Respondent pointed out that the Claimant’s claim “is solely based on
a standard notice sent to the Player, which serves to summon him to the beginning of season
2021/2022” and maintained that it failed to prove to have ever “taken a proactive stance
vis-à-vis the Player (and/or his family) to demonstrate its will to maintain him at AS Roma
S.p.A., let alone offered (or even discussed!) any contract with the player.”
14.
In continuation, the Respondent affirmed that the letter sent by the Claimant to the
player on 30 June 2021 did not materialize into any offer of a professional contract “or
even an approach vis-à-vis the Player, [thus] the Respondent believes that the relevant letter
is tailor made to try to justify the entitlement to training compensation, under an apparent
bona fide and genuine interest in retaining a player.”
15.
Finally, the Respondent pointed out that “the alleged bond between the Claimant and the
Player arising of his status as “giovane di serie”, while it is a mere amateur registration bond,
it did not mean that the Claimant could not offer the Player a professional contract on or
before 30 June 2023, which it admittedly never did.”
Page 5 of 9
REF TMS 11009
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): August 2021
edition.
Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and
the Dispute Resolution Chamber (Procedural Rules): July 2022 edition.
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested
Admissible:
Yes, uncontested
Decision:
1.
The Claimant is located in Italy and the Respondent in Portugal, both countries being
members of the European Union (EU), hence art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP is applicable
as lex specialis to the matter at hand and the registration of the player with the
Respondent shall be considered a first registration of a professional player between two
clubs based within the EU.
2.
As per the provisions set out in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RTSP, in case of a first registration
of a professional, the Claimant, in order to retain its entitlement to training
compensation, shall provide evidence that it had made a contract offer to the player
during the course of his registration with it. The 60-day criteria is not applicable to the
matter, since it is only applied to matters where the player was already under
professional status with the former club.
3.
In very exceptional cases, the DRC has decided that a club that has not offered a contract
in the sense of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP may retain its entitlement to training
compensation by having shown a bona fide interest in keeping the player, a principle that
has also been confirmed by CAS.
4.
In this respect, it is undisputed that the Claimant did not offer a contract to the player.
5.
Nevertheless, the Claimant alleged having shown bona fide interest in retaining the
services of the player.
Page 6 of 9
REF TMS 11009
6.
In accordance with art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the Claimant carries the burden
of proving that it did show a genuine interest in retaining the player’s services.
7.
In this respect, the Claimant provided an untranslated letter dated 30 June 2021, sent to
the player and signed by the latter. According to the Claimant’s translation of said letter,
it informed the player of its “wish to continue working with you [the player], keeping alive
the option of offering you a professional contract at a later stage.”
8.
The Claimant further stated that in any case, the player was registered with it for the
season as per the FIGC regulations, therefore it had no need to offer the player a contract
or show bona fide interest since the player’s registration was ongoing.
9.
The Claimant sent the aforementioned letter to the player on 30 June 2021, whilst the
player was still registered with it. Thus, it cannot be considered as a proof of its intention
to retain the player. In fact, it appears rather logical for a club to organize the pre-season
and the return to training for its registered players.
10.
The letter submitted by the Claimant did not prove that it had intended to offer a
contract to the player, nor that it had intended to begin contractual negotiations with
him and/or his entourage any time soon. In particular, the wording of the letter is quite
open and merely appears to foresee the possibility of perhaps, in the future, offering the
player a contract. Even though we are dealing with a translation of the original, the
expressions “keep alive”, “the option” and “at a later stage” seem to rather confirm that
such possibility is not yet discarded, than to reinforce a genuine interest in the player’s
services.
11.
What is more, the Claimant could in principle still have offered a contract to the player,
something that it did not do.
12.
In view of all of the above, the Claimant did not meet its burned of proof in the sense of
art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules.
13.
Therefore, it cannot be established that the Claimant had shown bona fide interest in
retaining the player’s services.
14.
As a result, the Claimant did not comply with the requirements of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe
4 RSTP and/or the requirements developed by the jurisprudence of the DRC and CAS in
their application of the provisions set out in the aforesaid article.
Page 7 of 9
REF TMS 11009
15.
Hence, the Claimant is not entitled to receive training compensation for the first
registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent.
16.
Consequently, the claim of the Claimant is rejected.
17.
Art. 25 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules stipulates that costs in the maximum amount of
USD 25,000 are levied in connection with proceedings before the DRC of the Football
Tribunal relating to disputes regarding training compensation and the solidarity
mechanism. Costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in
the proceedings (art. 25 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules).
18.
The amount claimed in the present dispute corresponded to EUR 159,865.48. Therefore,
procedural costs levied in this respect shall not exceed USD 20,000 (cf. art. 2 of Annexe
1 of the Procedural Rules).
19.
Taking into account that the Claimant’s claim is rejected, procedural costs in the amount
of USD 16,000 are to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA.
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Roma Spa, is rejected.
2.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of USD 16,000 are to be paid by the
Claimant to FIFA with reference to case no. TMS 11009 (cf. note relating to the payment
of the procedural costs below).
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 8 of 9
REF TMS 11009
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 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 17 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