Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
REF TMS 6432
Decision of the
Single Judge of the sub-committee of
The Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 17 November 2020
regarding training compensation relating to the registration of the player Maxime Jose
Samuel Do Couto Teixeira with Olimpik Donestk (Ukraine)
BY:
Geoff Thompson (England), Single Judge of the sub-committee of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber
CLAIMANT:
Tours FC, France
RESPONDENT:
Olimpik Donestk, Ukraine
Page 2 of 7
REF TMS 6432
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Maxime Jose Samuel Do Couto Teixeira
Date of birth:
13 December 1996
Player passport:
issued by the Fédération Française de Football (FFF)
Season
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
13/14
14/15
15/16
16/17
17/18
Birthday
12th
13th
14th
15th
16th
17th
18th
19th
20th
21st
Club(s)
Mantois 78 FC
Mantois 78 FC
Mantois 78 FC
Tours FC
Tours FC
Tours FC
Tours FC
Tours FC
Tours FC
Avoine Olympique
Registration dates
01/07/08 – 30/06/09
05/08/09 – 30/06/10
16/07/10 – 30/06/11
01/07/11 – 30/06/12
01/07/12 – 30/06/13
01/07/13 – 30/06/14
01/07/14 – 30/06/15
01/07/15 – 30/06/16
01/07/16 – 30/06/17
02/10/17 – 30/06/18
Status
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Professional
Professional
Professional
Professional
Professional
Professional
Amateur
Sporting season:
1 July to 30 June (France)
Date of transfer:
30 July 2018, from Avoine Olympique (France) to Olimpik Donestk (Ukraine) as
professional
Claimant club:
Tours FC (France)
Respondent club:
Olimpik Donestk (Ukraine)
UEFA, category II (EUR 60,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 27 July 2020, the Claimant requested the payment of the amount of EUR 310,000 as training
compensation, plus 5% interest as of “the due date”.
2.
The Claimant based its claim on art. 3 par. 2 of the RSTP arguing that the player had reacquired
the professional status with the Respondent within 30 months of having lost it.
3.
On 23 September 2020, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant arguing that it had
concluded an agreement with the Claimant by means of which the latter had waived its right to
receive training compensation in connection with the player.
4.
The Respondent provided FIFA with an agreement (agreement) dated 20 March 2020 according
to which the parties had agreed upon the following:
Page 3 of 7
REF TMS 6432
“1.1 The parties agree that [the Claimant] refuses all payments and will not claim solidarity
mechanism or training compensation (in accordance with article 20 and 21 FIFA’s Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players) from [the Respondent].
1.2 Once [the Respondent] thereafter transfers the Player to another club, [the Claimant] shall
be entitled to receive such sum or sums that represent 50% (fifty percent) of the compensation
(minus the cost of [the Respondent] to maintain the player) [the Respondent] will receive from
another club, which shall become due to [the Claimant] on the date such sum or sums will be
effectively paid to [the Respondent].”
5.
On 30 October 2020, the Claimant did not contest having signed the agreement. Nevertheless,
the Claimant deemed that the applicability of the agreement was limited to a transfer of the
player that would occur before the expiry of his contract with the Respondent, i.e. by August
2020 (which corresponded to the end of the Claimant’s alleged entitlement to training
compensation for the registration of the player with the Respondent). The Claimant added that,
because the player’s contract was about to expire and there had not been any indication of a
possible transfer to a third club, it had not had any other option but to lodge a claim in front of
FIFA.
6.
The Claimant argued having intended to agree on a payment plan in installments with regard
to the training compensation due for the player but that the Respondent, benefitting from its
higher bargaining power (by being an elite club in Ukraine whilst the Claimant was a 5th division
club in France) had finally imposed less favorable terms.
7.
As such, and in line with the principle of contra proferentem, the Claimant was of the opinion
that the agreement was to be interpreted against the intentions of the parties.
8.
According to the Claimant its intentions had been to “adapt a payment plan to the Respondent’s
possibilities (…) should the latter transfer the player UNTIL AUGUST 2020, [so that] the Claimant
would exchange its training compensation entitlement for a percentage of the fee of the player’s
transfer to a third club”, and that, in the absence of transfer fee, it would have received “full
training compensation”. From the Claimant’s point of view only this interpretation of the
agreement could be taken into account.
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): June 2018 edition.
Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (Procedural Rules): June 2020 edition.
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested
Admissible:
Yes, uncontested
Page 4 of 7
REF TMS 6432
Decision:
1.
According to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, any party claiming a right on the basis of an
alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof.
2.
It is undisputed that the Claimant signed the agreement. However, the latter alleged having only
agreed to waive its rights to receive training compensation in case the player was transferred
against payment from the Respondent.
3.
In accordance with the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (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.
4.
The agreement clearly indicates the Claimant’s unequivocal intention to waive its hypothetical
entitlement to claim training compensation for the player in exchange for the possibility to
receive 50% of any sum obtained by the Respondent in case of a subsequent transfer of the
player.
5.
In addition, the agreement does not specify that its validity depended on the transfer of the
player occurring before a specific date and the Claimant failed to provide any documentary
evidence in support of its allegation in this respect.
6.
As such, the allegations of the Claimant shall be dismissed as per the provisions set out in art.
12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules.
7.
In view of the content of the agreement, the Claimant waived its rights to receive training
compensation.
8.
Consequently, the claim of the Claimant is rejected.
9.
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 5 of 7
REF TMS 6432
III. DECISION
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Tours FC, 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
REF TMS 6432
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