Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
TMS 8560
Decision of the
Single Judge of the sub-committee of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 August 2021
regarding training compensation related to the registration of the player LEONARDO
FERREIRA MONTEZELLO LEITAO with PFC Lviv
BY:
Stefano La Porta (Italy), Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber
CLAIMANT:
AD Guarulhos, Brazil
RESPONDENT:
PFC Lviv, Ukraine
Page 2 of 10
TMS 8560
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
LEONARDO FERREIRA MONTEZELLO LEITAO
Date of birth:
21 January 2001
Player passport:
- issued by the CONFEDERAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE FUTEBOL (“CBF”) on 7 June 2021:
Season
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2019
Club(s)
/
São Caetano / SP
/
Independente Futebol
Clube / SP
Guarulhos / SP
Guarulhos / SP
Guarulhos / SP
Fc Lokomotiva Kosice
(Slovakia)
Registration dates
/
01.04.2014 – 31.12.2014
/
25.03.2016 – 31.12.2016
Type
/
Permanent
/
Permanent
Status
/
Amateur
/
Amateur
17.03.2017 – 31.12.2017
01.01.2018 – 31.12.2018
01.01.2019 – 02.01.2019
27.02.2019 – onwards
Permanent
Permanent
Permanent
Permanent
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Type
Permanent
Status
Amateur
- issued by the Slovak Football Association (“SFZ”) on 23 July 2019:
Season
2019 /
2020
Club(s)
FC Lokomotiva Kosice
Registration dates
15.02.2019 - onwards
Sporting season:
1 January to 31 December (Brazil)
Date of transfer:
23 July 2019
From FC Lokomotiva Kosice (Slovakia) to PFC Lviv (Ukraine)
Claimant club:
AD Guarulhos (Brazil)
Respondent club:
PFC Lviv (Ukraine)
UEFA, category II (EUR 60,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 26 June 2021, the Claimant claimed the payment of EUR 108,666.66 as training
compensation from the Respondent for the player’s first registration as a professional with the
latter, plus 5% interest per annum as from the due date.
Page 3 of 10
TMS 8560
2.
In its calculations, the Claimant took into account the training category of the Respondent at
the moment the player was transferred to its club, i.e. category II within UEFA (EUR 60,000 per
year), and multiplied it pro rata by the period of time the player was registered with it.
3.
On 21 July 2021, the FIFA Administration submitted a proposal to the parties by means of which
it was of the opinion that the amount of EUR 108,000, plus 5% interest per annum as from 23
August 2019 until the date of effective payment, was payable as training compensation by the
Respondent to the Claimant.
4.
The proposal was accepted by the Claimant and rejected by the Respondent.
5.
On 4 and 9 August 2021, the Respondent rejected the claim alleging, inter alia, that on 14
January 2019, the Claimant provided the Respondent with two documents regarding the player
and explained that the Claimant issued “a document on the absence of financial claims to [the
Respondent] regarding the payment of training compensation in connection with the
registration of [the player]”.
6.
In this respect, the Claimant provided and referred to the following documentation:
- a document entitled “Proof signed by former club that there is no TPO of the player’s economic
rights”, dated 14 January 2019, signed by the Claimant on its letterhead and according to which
the latter had not entered into an agreement with a third party regarding the player ;
- a document entitled “Proof signed by former club that there is no TPO of the player’s economic
rights”, dated 14 January 2019, signed by the Claimant on its letterhead and according to which
the latter had allegedly waived its right to receive training compensation. In particular, the said
document stated the following:
“This is to confirm employment contract between [the Claimant], and [the
player], expired on 31/12/2018.
The club does not have any complains and will not claim training or the
financial compensation from [the Respondent], exclusively, for this hiring of
the player to the present document”.
Claimant’s comments on the alleged waiver:
7.
The Claimant highlighted that the alleged waiver referred to a transfer which did not happen.
8.
In particular, the Claimant referred to the contents of the player passport issued by the CBF on
7 June 2021 according to which, after having been registered as an amateur with the Claimant,
the player was registered, still as an amateur, with the Slovakian club FC Lokomotiva Kosice, i.e.
the former club, before joining the Respondent as a professional. As such, the alleged waiver
could not de facto refer to the player’s transfer from the Claimant to the Respondent, which did
not happen.
Page 4 of 10
TMS 8560
9.
In continuation, the Claimant held that “Even if it has once agreed to not receive any amount
for such compensation, (…) , that kind of waiver would only be applicable if the move of the
Player to the Respondent had indeed occurred promptly after the end of his relationship with
[the Claimant], viz., around 14th January 2019, what never happened.”
10.
Finally, in support to the above, the Claimant provided an extract of the website
www.transfermarkt.co.uk reflecting the player’s move from it to the former club on 15 February
2019 and from the former club to the Respondent on 23 July 2019.
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): 2021 edition.
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested.
Admissible:
Yes, uncontested.
Decision:
1.
The Claimant is requesting training compensation on the basis of the first registration of the
player as a professional.
2.
The Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim alleging, inter alia, that the latter had waived its
training compensation entitlement in relation to the registration of the player with the former.
In support of its allegation, the Respondent provided a copy of an alleged waiver signed by the
Claimant on 14 January 2019 (cf. see point I./6.above).
3.
The Claimant contested having intended to waive its right to receive training compensation. As
per the Claimant, the “Proof signed by former club that there is no TPO of the player’s economic
rights” submitted by the Respondent was not a waiver of the Claimant’s entitlement because it
referred to a transfer which did not happen.
4.
In continuation, according to the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), the
validity of a conventional waiver is subject to a clear and unequivocal declaration by the party
concerned, requiring clear language reflecting the party’s clear intention to renounce its rights.
Implied waivers are not recognized. Accordingly, and given that training compensation is a right
stipulated in the RSTP, the existence of a waiver of this right may only be assumed in case it was
unmistakable that the renouncing club has indeed intended to waive its right to training
compensation.
Page 5 of 10
TMS 8560
5.
The alleged waiver, i.e. the “Proof signed by former club that there is no TPO of the player’s
economic rights” dated 14 January 2019, indicates that the Claimant “confirm[s] employment
contract between [the Claimant], and [the player], expired on 31/12/2018. The club does not
have any complains and will not claim training or the financial compensation from [the
Respondent], exclusively, for this hiring of the player to the present document”.
6.
In casu, the alleged waiver provided by the Respondent met the following criteria: (i) it bears the
letterhead of the Claimant and has been signed; (ii) it is referring to the training compensation;
and (iii) it clearly refers to the player at stake.
7.
However, the said document bears the date of 14 January 2019, i.e. more than 6 months before
the player’s registration with the Respondent (registration at the basis of which the Claimant
requests its entitlement). In addition, said document refers unmistakably to the Claimant’s will
of waiving its entitlement “exclusively” for the player’s “hiring” with the Respondent.
8.
What is more, the said document explicitly refers as per its own title as the player’s former club
declaration of “No Third party Ownership” as well as to the expiration of the player’s
employment contract with the Claimant on 31 December 2018.
9.
As such, the said document refers to the expiration of the player’s employment contract with
the Claimant which did not happen as the former was registered as an amateur with the latter
as provided by the player passport issued by the CBF on 7 June 2021. In fact, the player has
always been registered in Brazil as an amateur.
10.
In addition, the alleged waiver is explicitly referring to the players’ registration with the
Respondent and can as such only be understood as if the player would have been subsequently
transferred, as a professional, from the Claimant to the Respondent on or around 14 January
2019. This did not happen in the present matter in accordance with the information available in
TMS.
11.
Finally, according to TMS, the alleged waiver has not been uploaded in the relevant transfer
instruction and, in line with the principle of the burden of proof of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural
Rules, the Respondent did not provide any evidence of the notification of the said document by
the Claimant.
12.
Following all the above, despite the fact that the alleged waiver could at first sight create
legitimate and reasonable expectations on the Respondent that it had no longer the obligation
to pay training compensation to the Claimant, it appears that it does not refer to the Claimant’s
unmistakable renouncement to its right to training compensation within the context of the
player’s first registration as a professional with the Respondent occurred on 23 July 2019.
13.
Following the above, it cannot be determined that the Claimant waived its right to receive
training compensation for the player’s transfer to the Respondent.
Page 6 of 10
TMS 8560
14.
On account of all the above-mentioned considerations, it was considered that, the Respondent
was liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe
4 of the RSTP.
15.
It is undisputed that the player was registered with the Claimant as from as from 17 March 2017
until 2 January 2019, i.e. during the 290 days of the player’s 16th birthday, the entire season of
his 17th birthday and during 2 days of the player’s 18th birthday season.
16.
In accordance with art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP, on registering a player as a professional
for the first time, the club with which the player is registered is responsible for paying training
compensation within 30 days of the registration to every club with which the player has
previously been registered on a pro rata basis (in accordance with the players’ career history as
provided in the player passport).
17.
In accordance with art. 5 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP, the first time a player registered as a
professional, the training compensation payable by the new club to the training club(s) of the
player is calculated by taking the training costs of the new club multiplied by the number of
years with the training club(s).
18.
The Respondent is considered to be a training category II club. Training costs for category II clubs
within UEFA are set at EUR 60,000 per year.
19.
As such and in line with point II./15, the Claimant is entitled to training compensation for the
following period of training of the player:
2017 season (season of the Player’s 16th birthday): EUR 47,671.23;
2018 season (season of the Player’s 17th birthday): EUR 60,000; and
2019 season (season of the Player’s 18th birthday): EUR 328.77.
20.
Consequently, on the basis of the player’s first registration as a professional with the
Respondent, the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation in the amount of EUR
108,000.
21.
Furthermore, the Claimant requested to be awarded interest amounting to 5% per annum “as
from the due date”.
22.
Taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the 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 moment in
which the ABFF confirmed receipt of the player’s ITC, in casu as from 23 August 2019 until the
date of effective payment.
23.
In view of all the above, the claim of the Claimant is accepted and the Claimant is entitled to
receive EUR 108,000 as training compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. on that amount, as from
23 August 2019 until the date of effective payment.
Page 7 of 10
TMS 8560
24.
Art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules stipulates that costs in the maximum amount of CHF
25,000 are levied in connection with proceedings before the DRC 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.
25.
The succeeding party is the Claimant and the amount claimed in the present dispute
corresponded to EUR 108,666.66. Therefore, procedural costs levied in this respect shall not
exceed CHF 15,000 (cf. Annexe A of the Procedural Rules).
26.
Taking into account that the Claimant’s claim is partially accepted, procedural costs in the
amount of CHF 8,000 are to be paid by the Respondent.
27.
The relevant provisions of art. 24bis of the RSTP are applicable to the present matter.
Page 8 of 10
TMS 8560
III. DECISION OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The of the Claimant, AD Guarulhos, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, PFC Lviv, has to pay to the Claimant EUR 108,000 as training compensation,
plus 5% interest per annum on that amount as from 23 August 2019, until the date of effective
payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are 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:
7.
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.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 8,000 are to be paid by the Respondent.
These final costs of the proceedings shall be paid to FIFA with reference to case no. TMS 8560
(cf. note relating to the payment of the procedural costs below).
For the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 9 of 10
TMS 8560
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