Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
TMS 7504
Decision of the
Single Judge of the sub-committee of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 April 2021,
regarding training compensation for the player Murilo Cerqueira Paim
BY:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber
CLAIMANT:
Cruzeiro EC, Brazil
RESPONDENT:
FC Lokomotiv Moscow, Russia
Page 2 of 7
TMS 7504
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Murilo Cerqueira Paim
Date of birth:
27 March 1997
Player passport:
issued by the Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) on 30 November 2020
Status
Amateur
Professional
Professional
Professional
Basis
Permanent
Permanent
Permanent
Permanent
Country
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Russia
From
26.08.2011
10.07.2013
05.04.2016
19.06.2019
To
09.07.2013
04.04.2016
31.05.2019
19.06.2024
Club
Cruzeiro
Cruzeiro
Cruzeiro
FC Lokomotiv
Sporting season:
1 January to 31 December (Brazil)
Date of transfer:
21 June 2019, from Cruzeiro EC (Brazil) to FC Lokomotiv Moscow (Russia)
Claimant club:
Cruzeiro EC (Brazil)
Respondent club:
FC Lokomotiv Moscow (Russia)
UEFA, category II (EUR 60,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 30 December 2020, the Claimant claimed the payment of EUR 373,506.85 as training
compensation from the Respondent on the basis of the subsequent registration as a professional
of the player with the Respondent, “plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 30 June 2019”.
2.
On 6 January 2021, the FIFA administration submitted a proposal to the parties suggesting that
the Respondent should pay to the Claimant the sum of EUR 373,506.85 as training
compensation, plus 5% interest per annum “as of the due date”.
3.
The proposal was accepted by the Claimant and rejected by the Respondent.
4.
The Respondent rejected the proposal submitted to the parties alleging inter alia that the transfer
compensation paid for the player’s transfer from the Claimant to the Respondent already
included training compensation.
5.
In support of its allegation, the Claimant made reference to the provisions of article 5.3 of the
transfer agreement, according to which “[the Respondent] shall not be responsible for any
additional payments to the transfer payment indicated in par. 5.1. to Player’s former clubs, teams
or national associations which are not payments due under the FIFA solidarity mechanisms”.
Page 3 of 7
TMS 7504
6.
As per the Respondent, the transfer fee of EUR 2,300,000 already included the training
compensation. Referring to the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), the
Respondent sustained that the “compensation for the Player’s training shall be considered to be
included in the transfer payment, unless otherwise expressly stated in the transfer contract”.
7.
Having said this, the Respondent further pointed out that the Claimant failed to provide evidence
certifying that the parties intended to pay the training compensation in addition to the agreed
transfer fee of EUR 2,300,000.
Replica:
8.
As per the Claimant, article 5.3 of the transfer agreement “only [exempted the Respondent]
from paying Solidarity Mechanism, which is an entirely different amount”. In this context, the
Claimant sustained that “[t]he Transfer Agreement does not include any provision determining
that Training Compensation is not due, and it specifically covered Solidarity Mechanism”.
9.
In this respect, the Claimant maintained that “[i]f there is nothing indicating otherwise, it is
deemed that the parties agreed that the transfer fee does not include Training Compensation,
since it is a general rule applicable to all cases in which the contract determines differently”.
Duplica:
10.
The Respondent reiterated its arguments.
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): February 2021 edition.
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested.
Admissible:
Yes, uncontested.
Decision:
11.
The claim of the Claimant is based on the subsequent transfer of the player as a professional
from the Claimant to the Respondent.
12.
It is uncontested that the player was registered as a professional with the Respondent on 21
June 2019.
Page 4 of 7
TMS 7504
13.
The Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim alleging that the transfer compensation paid for
the player’s transfer from the Claimant to the Respondent already included training
compensation.
14.
According to the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC, if two parties enter into a transfer
agreement which provides, inter alia, for the financial conditions of the relevant transfer, i.e. the
payment of the transfer compensation, training compensation is considered as being included
in the transfer compensation.
15.
In cases where the parties intended to agree on an additional amount in relation to the payment
of training compensation, the transfer agreement should make explicit reference to a specific
amount, distinct from transfer compensation, which would be due as training compensation.
16.
As per the aforementioned jurisprudence, should the transfer agreement remain silent on the
payment of training compensation, it is considered that training compensation is included in the
transfer compensation.
17.
In the matter at hand, considering that the transfer agreement does not make any explicit
reference to training compensation, and the Claimant did not present any contrary evidence,
the transfer fee has to be considered as comprising training compensation.
18.
As such, by receiving the amount of EUR 2,300,000, the Claimant must thus be deemed to have
been financially compensated for the transfer of the player, including any training compensation
to which the Claimant may also have been entitled.
19.
Consequently, the claim of the Claimant is rejected.
20.
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).
21.
Article 24 bis RSTP is applicable.
Page 5 of 7
TMS 7504
DECISION OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Cruzeiro EC, 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 6 of 7
TMS 7504
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