Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
REF TMS 7252
Decision of the
Single Judge of the sub-committee of
The Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 January 2021
regarding training compensation relating to the registration of the player Moctar Bakar
Mo Banaama Diakite with GNK Dinamo Zagreb (Croatia)
BY:
Geoff Thom ps on (England), Single Judge of the sub-committee of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber
CLAIMANT:
MONTROUGE FC 92, France
RESPONDENT:
GNK DINAMO ZAGREB, Croatia
Page 2 of 7
REF TMS 7252
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Moctar Bakar Mo Banaama Diakite
Date of birth:
4 February 2001
Player passport:
issued by the Fédération Française de Football (FFF)
Season
12/13
13/14
14/15
15/16
16/17
17/18
Birthday
12th
13th
14th
15th
16th
17th
Club(s)
Paris 15 (France)
Issy Les Moulineaux
Montrouge FC 92
Montrouge FC 92
Meudon AS
Meudon AS
Registration dates
12/09/12 – 30/06/13
22/11/13 – 30/06/14
15/07/14 – 30/06/15
14/09/15 – 30/06/16
14/07/16 – 30/06/17
09/07/18 – 13/02/19
Status
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Sporting season:
1 July to 30 June (France)
Date of transfer:
15.02.19, from Meudon AS (France) to GNK Dinamo Zagreb (Croatia) as
professional
Claimant club:
Montrouge FC 92 (France)
UEFA, category IV (EUR 10,000 per year)
Respondent club:
GNK Dinamo Zagreb (Croatia)
UEFA, category III (EUR 30,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 21 November 2020, the Claimant requested EUR 20,000 as training compensation on the
basis of the first registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent.
2.
On 23 November 2020, the FIFA administration submitted a proposal to the parties, informing
them that it was of the opinion that the Respondent should pay the amount of EUR 17,534.25
to the Claimant as training compensation.
3.
On 17 November 2020, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant in its entirety.
4.
The Respondent rejected the proposal and the claim of the Claimant arguing that the latter had
not offered a contract to the player and had therefore lost its entitlement to receive training
compensation as per art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP.
Page 3 of 7
REF TMS 7252
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): January 2021.
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested
Admissible:
Yes, uncontested
Decision:
1.
The Claimant is requesting the payment of training compensation on the basis of the first
registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent.
2.
The Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant arguing that the latter had failed to offer the
player a contract in the sense of 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP.
3.
The Claimant is located in France and the Respondent in Croatia, both countries being members
of the European Union (EU), hence art. 6 of Annexe 4 RSTP is applicable as lex specialis to the
matter 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.
4.
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 former club of a player, in order to retain its entitlement to training
compensation, shall evidence that it had made a contract offer to the player during the course
of his registration with it. This provision is without prejudice to the right to training compensation
to the player’s previous club(s).
5.
The former club of the player was Meudon AS and not the Claimant. As a result, art. 6 par. 3 of
Annexe 4 RSTP is in casu not applicable.
6.
It is uncontested that the player was registered with the Claimant 351 days during the season
of his 14th birthday and 291 days during the season of the player’s 15th birthday.
7.
Art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP foresees that the training costs for players for the seasons
between their 12th and 15th birthdays (i.e. four seasons) shall be based on the training and
education costs of category 4 clubs.
8.
The training costs for category IV clubs within UEFA are set at EUR 10,000 per year.
9.
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.
Page 4 of 7
REF TMS 7252
10.
Taking into account the time the player was registered with the Claimant as per point II.6. above,
the latter is entitled to receive EUR 17,534.25 as training compensation, corresponding to:
a. EUR 9,589.04 for the training and education provided to the player during the course
of the season of his 14th birthday; and
b. EUR 7,945.21 for the training and education provided to the player during the course
of the season of his 15th birthday.
11.
As a result, the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and the Claimant shall receive the
amount of EUR 17,534.25 as training compensation from the Respondent.
12.
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).
13.
Art. 24 bis RSTP applies.
Page 5 of 7
REF TMS 7252
III. DECISION
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Montrouge FC 92, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, GNK Dinamo Zagreb, shall pay to the Claimant EUR 17’534.25 as training
compensation.
3.
Any further claim of the Claimant is rejected.
4.
The Claimant shall immediately inform the Respondent of the bank account to which the
Respondent must pay the due amount (including all applicable interest).
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. 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 7252
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