Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
TMS 8196
Decision of the Single Judge
of the sub-committee
of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 4 June 2021,
regarding training compensation in relation with the registration of the player Georgii
CHELIDZE
BY:
Tomislav Kasalo (Croatia), Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber
CLAIMANT:
A.F.C. TUBIZE, Belgium
RESPONDENT:
FC ARARAT, Armenia
Page 2 of 10
TMS 8196
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Georgii CHELIDZE
Date of birth:
20 January 2000
Player passport:
issued by the Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football-Association
(URBSFA) on 12 January 2021
Season
Birthday
18/19
19
Sporting season
of the URBSFA:
Date of transfer:
th
Club(s)
Registration dates
Status
A.F.C. TUBIZE
03/08/18 – 30/06/19
Professional
(Permanent)
1 July to 30 June
30 July 2019, from A.F.C. Tubize (Belgium) to FC Ararat (Armenia) as a
professional (free agent)
FC Ararat entered into an employment with the player valid as from 1 June
2019 until 1 June 2021
Claimant club:
A.F.C. Tubize (Belgium)
Respondent club:
FC Ararat (Armenia)
UEFA, category IV (EUR 10,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 13 April 2021, the Claimant requested EUR 29,671.25 as training compensation for the
subsequent registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent before the end of
the season of his 23rd birthday, along with 5% interest p.a. as of 30 August 2019 until payment.
2.
The Claimant is basing its claim on the fact that the player was registered with it as from 3
August 2018 until 30 June 2019, that is to say for 331 days of the season of his 19th birthday,
and as from 1 July 2019 until 30 July 2019, i.e. 30 days of the season of his 20th birthday.
3.
The Claimant confirmed that it had mutually terminated the contract it had with the player on
30 June 2019 before his registration with the Respondent, and that since said termination was
not without just cause, training compensation was due (cf. art. 2 par. 2 lit. i) of Annexe 4 RSTP).
4.
The Claimant acknowledged that the Respondent was classified under training category IV, and
that, in principle, no training compensation would be due (cf. art. 2 par. 2 lit. ii) of Annexe 4
RSTP).
Page 3 of 10
TMS 8196
5.
Nevertheless, the Claimant, making reference to previous decisions rendered by the Dispute
Resolution Chamber (DRC), underlined that as per FIFA Circular 1249, the DRC may recategorise
a club for the purpose of training compensation in case of discrepancy between the guidelines
set out in said Circular and the actual categorization of clubs by their respective member
associations.
6.
The DRC decision of reference explains that the above Circular indicated that for countries with
training categories III and IV only, such as Armenia, category III was for “all third-division clubs
of member associations in category 1 and all second-division clubs in all other countries with
professional football” and category IV for “all fourth and lower-division clubs of the member
associations in category 1, all third and lower-division clubs in all other countries with
professional football and all clubs in countries with only amateur clubs.”
7.
The Claimant underlined that the Respondent was one of the 6 most prominent clubs in Armenia
which participates in the Armenian first division, and therefore concluded that the Respondent
could not be considered a category IV club and requested the Respondent to be considered as
a category III club for the purpose of training compensation.
8.
The Claimant provided abstract of online sources evidencing that the Respondent participated
in the Armenian first division during season 2018/2019 and 2019/2020.
9.
As such, the Claimant calculated the amount claimed by taking into consideration the yearly
amount foreseen for training category III clubs in UEFA, i.e. EUR 30,000, which it multiplied pro
rata with the 361 days the player was registered with it.
10.
The Respondent did not reply to the claim.
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
Admissibility:
Yes, uncontested
Decision:
1.
The claim of the Claimant is based on the subsequent registration of the player as a professional
with the Respondent.
Page 4 of 10
TMS 8196
2.
The Respondent did not reply to the claim, thus the allegations of the Claimant remained
uncontested and the decision shall be taken on the basis of the documentation on file (cf. art. 9
par. 3 of the Procedural Rules).
3.
It is uncontested that the player and the Claimant terminated their employment contract on 30
June 2019.
4.
In accordance with art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 RSTP the player’s career history is established
through the information included in the player passport of the latter.
5.
In accordance with the information included in the player passport issued by the URBSFA on 12
January 2021, it is established that the player was registered as a professional with the Claimant
as from 3 August 2018 until 30 June 2019, that is to say 331 days of the season of the player’s
19th birthday.
6.
Based on the above, it is established that the registration of the player with the Claimant ended
on 30 June 2019.
7.
It is uncontested that the player was registered as a professional with the Respondent on 30 July
2019, i.e. during the course of the season of his 20th birthday, having signed a 2-year
employment contract upon registration.
8.
Thus, it is determined that the registration of the player of the Respondent constituted a
subsequent registration of the player as a professional before the end of the season of his 23 rd
birthday.
9.
In accordance with art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of Annexe 4 RSTP, in the case of subsequent transfers of
the professional, training compensation will only be owed to his former club for the time he was
effectively trained by that club, and said training compensation shall pay within 30 days after
registration by the new club.
10.
However, as per art. 2 par. 2 lit. ii) of Annexe 4 RSTP, no training compensation is due to the
former club of the player when said player registered with a category IV club.
11.
The Respondent was classified as a training category IV club by its member association, the
Football federation of Armenia (FFA) upon registering the player as a professional, and therefore,
in principle, no training compensation would be due to the Claimant.
12.
The Claimant contested the aforementioned categorization of the Respondent arguing that the
latter was to be considered a training category III club.
13.
According to art. 5 par. 4 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the DRC “may review disputes
concerning the amount of training compensation payable and shall have discretion to adjust the
amount if it is clearly disproportionate to the case under review.”
Page 5 of 10
TMS 8196
14.
FIFA Circular 1249 of 6 December 2010 stipulated that in principle, clubs shall be categorized
by their respective member associations according to the following principles:
a. Category I (top-level, high-quality training centre): All first-division clubs of member
associations investing, on average, a similar amount in training players;
b. Category II (still professional, but at a lower level): All second-division clubs of member
associations in category I and all first-division clubs in all other countries with
professional football;
c. Category III: All third-division clubs of member associations in category I and all seconddivision clubs in all other countries with professional football;
d. Category IV: All fourth- and lower-division clubs of the member associations in category
I, all third- and lower-division clubs in all other countries with professional football and
all clubs in countries with only amateur football.
15.
What is more, in accordance with FIFA Circular 1249 “in such a case of manifest discrepancy,
the DRC normally applies the training categories in accordance with the guidelines, despite the
fact that the member association concerned had indicated a different categorisation”.
16.
According to FIFA Circular 1726 of 28 May 2019, the FFA may classify its clubs between the
following two training categories, i.e.:
a. Category III, with training costs of EUR 30,000 per year; and
b. Category IV, with training costs of UEUR 10,000 per year.
17.
In countries where there is more than one category available, i.e. more than category IV, category
IV is in principle reserved for amateur clubs.
18.
The Respondent was classified as category IV by the FFA when it registered the player as a
professional.
19.
However, the player was recruited as a professional player by the Respondent, having signed a
2-year contract.
20.
The Claimant provided evidence that the Respondent competed in the Armenian first division
for seasons 2018/2019 and 2019/2020.
21.
Consequently, the category of the Respondent in TMS, i.e. category IV, cannot not be taken into
consideration. In fact, the Respondent is not a purely amateur club.
22.
Based on the evidence on file, it is determined that the Respondent shall be considered as an
established first division club in Armenia.
23.
In view of all the above, it is established that the Respondent shall be considered a training
category III club, as per FIFA Circular 1249 of 6 December 2010 and FIFA Circular 1726 of 28
May 2019 in combination with art. 5 par. 4 of Annexe 4 RSTP.
Page 6 of 10
TMS 8196
24.
Consequently, training compensation is due to the Claimant on the basis of the subsequent
professional registration of the player with the Respondent.
25.
Art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 RSTP stipulates that in the case of subsequent transfers of the
professional, training compensation will only be owed to his former club for the time he was
effectively trained by that club, in casu the Claimant.
26.
As established above, the player was registered with the Claimant as a professional with the
Claimant as from 3 August 2018 until 30 June 2019, that is to say 331 days of the season of
the player’s 19th birthday.
27.
In accordance with art. 5 par. 2 of Annexe 4 RSTP, in the case of subsequent transfers, training
compensation is calculated based on the training costs of the new club multiplied by the number
of years of training with the former club.
28.
As established above, the Respondent is considered to be a training category III club. Training
costs for category III clubs within UEFA are set at EUR 30,000 per year.
29.
Art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 RSTP stipulates that the amount payable of training compensation is
calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of training that the player spent with each
club.
30.
Consequently, on the basis of the first registration of the player as a professional with the
Respondent, the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation in the amount of EUR
27,205.48, corresponding to the 331 days it was registered with it during the season of the
player’s 19th birthday.
31.
Furthermore, the Claimant requested to be awarded interest amounting to 5% per annum, “as
per the due date”.
32.
With reference to art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 RSTP, the Respondent has to pay, in conformity with
the longstanding practice of the DRC, interest of 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training
compensation as of 31 days after the registration of the player with it, i.e. as from 30 August
2019 until the date of effective payment.
33.
In view of all the above, the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and the Claimant is
entitled to receive EUR 27,205.48 as training compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. on that
amount, as from 30 August 2019 until the date of effective payment.
34.
Procedural costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 may be levied for decisions passed by
the subcommittee of the DRC in disputes related to solidarity contribution (cf. art. 18 par. 1 of
the Procedural Rules).
35.
The amount claimed by the Claimant corresponds to EUR 29,671.25, i.e. below CHF 50,000.
Therefore, procedural costs levied in this respect shall not exceed the sum of CHF 5,000 (art. 1
of Annexe A of the Procedural Rules).
Page 7 of 10
TMS 8196
36.
In consideration of the amount claimed by the Claimant, costs of the current proceedings shall
be set at CHF 3,000.
37.
In view of the degree of success of the Claimant, the costs shall be borne in full by the
Respondent.
38.
The relevant provisions of art. 24bis RSTP are applicable in the present matter.
Page 8 of 10
TMS 8196
III. DECISION
1.
The claim of the Claimant, A.F.C. Tubize, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, FC Ararat, shall pay to the Claimant EUR 27,205.48 as training compensation,
plus 5% interest per annum on that amount as from 30 August 2019, until the date of effective
payment.
3.
Any further claim of the Claimant is rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in the
enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of full payment to [email protected]. If applicable,
the evidence shall be translated into an official FIFA language (English, French, German, Spanish).
6.
If the due amount (including all applicable interest) is not paid by the Respondent within 45 days
as from notification of the bank account details, the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three
entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The ban will be lifted immediately, and prior to its complete serving, following confirmation
that the due amount (including all applicable interest) has been received by the Claimant.
3. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end of
the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
7. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 3,000 are to be paid by the Respondent
to FIFA with reference to case no. TMS 8196 (cf. note relating to the payment of the procedural
costs below).
For the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 9 of 10
TMS 8196
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 10 of 10