Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
REF TMS 13316
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 16 October 2023
regarding training compensation for the
player Roland GEREBENITS
BY:
Ms. Lívia Silva Kägi (Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Football Tribunal
CLAIMANT:
RESPONDENT:
ENOSI NEON PARALIMNIOU, Cyprus
Page 2 of 13
REF TMS 13316
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Roland GEREBENITS
Date of birth:
7 May 2000
Player passport (s): issued by the Slovak Football Association (SFZ):
Season
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Birthday Club(s)
th
th
th
th
th
th
th
th
th
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Registration dates
Status
MSK Zilina
01/01/12
31/12/12
Amateur
MSK Zilina
01/01/13
31/12/13
Amateur
MSK Zilina
01/01/14
31/12/14
Amateur
MSK Zilina
01/01/15
31/12/15
Amateur
MSK Zilina
01/01/16
31/12/16
Amateur
MSK Zilina
01/01/17
31/12/17
Professional
MSK Zilina
01/01/18
31/12/18
Professional
MSK Zilina
01/01/19
31/12/19
Professional
MSK Zilina
01/01/20
10/02/20
Professional
FK POHRONIE Ziar nad
11/02/20
17/07/20
Professional
Hronom Dolna Zdana
MSK Zilina
(on loan)
18/07/20
13/08/20
Professional
14/08/20
31/12/20
Professional
Podbrezová
2021
st
21
(on loan)
01/01/21
30/06/21
Podbrezová
2022
22
nd
Professional
(on loan)
MSK Zilina
01/07/21
31/12/21
Professional
MSK Zilina
01/01/22
18/01/22
Professional
ENOSI NEON
19/01/22
00/00/00
Professional
PARALIMNIOU (Cyprus)
Date of registration:
on 19 January 2022 from MSK Zilina (Slovakia) to ENOSI NEON
PARALIMNIOU (Cyprus) as a professional
Claimant club:
(Slovakia)
UEFA, category III (EUR 30,000 per year)
Respondent club: ENOSI NEON PARALIMNIOU (Cyprus)
UEFA, category III (EUR 30,000 per year)
Page 3 of 13
REF TMS 13316
Claim and Response:
1.
On 10 August 2023, the Claimant requested the amount of EUR 26,383.57 as training
compensation on the basis of the subsequent registration as a professional of the player
with the Respondent, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due date of payment.
2.
The Claimant based its claim on the jurisprudence developed by the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (DRC) according to which a club which had the player on loan from its parent
lub
should the player be registered permanently as a professional.
3.
In continuation, for the purpose of its calculations, the Claimant took into consideration
II within UEFA,
i.e. EUR
30,000 per year, which it multiplied pro rata by the 321 days it deemed having had the
player registered with, i.e. between 14 August 2020 and 30 June 2021.
4.
On 14 August 2023, the FIFA administration issued a proposal for the Respondent to pay
to the Claimant the amount EUR 26,383.56 as training compensation plus 5% interest
p.a. as from the due date of payment.
5.
On 29 August 2023, the Respondent rejected the abovementioned proposal under the
argument that the player terminated his training period by signing a professional contract
with MSK Zilina before joining the Claimant.
6.
Moreover, the Respondent stated that, prior to registering as a professional, the player
had already participated in official matches in Slovakia 1st and 2nd divisions, with 10
games at the former and 63 at the latter.
7.
After becoming a professional at MSK Zilina, and still before being loaned by the latter
nd
to the Claimant,
division.
8.
education, and, for that reason, the only club entitled to training compensation would
be the one that truly developed the player, i.e. MSK Zilina.
9.
In addition, the Respondent is of the opinion that the Claimant should have offered the
player a contract to safeguard its training compensation entitlement, in accordance with
art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(RSTP).
10.
Even though the Claimant had the player on loan, the Respondent understands that it
was in a position to offer the player a contract as his engagement with MSK Zilina was
due to finish supposedly less than six months after the end date of the loan agreement.
Page 4 of 13
REF TMS 13316
11.
At last, the Respondent stated that the Claimant waived any potential training
compensation towards MSK Zilina via the loan agreement celebrated between these
two.
12.
On 21 September 2023, the Claimant, on its replica,
argument by saying that the jurisprudence of the DRC and of the Court of Arbitration for
Sport (CAS) determine that
the training of a player to be considered as completed .
13.
It continued by arguing that the CAS award nr. 2018/A/5513 stablished that:
terminated. It always has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Even though regular
not
necessarily constitute the only and decisive factor. There are further factors that are
a player is paid, in the loan fee that is achieved for his service
club if established as a regular or even holding the captaincy, his regular inclusion in the
national team and so forth. FIFA applies a strict approach as to the completion of training,
so as not to jeopardise the right of training clubs to receive training compensation. The
burden of proof to establish a completion of training lies with
14.
CAS award 2019/A/6096 is also referred by the Claimant to highlight:
The burden of proof to establish that the player completed his training period before his
training period
21st birthday. The wording of Article 1(1) Annex 4 FIFA RSTP makes it clear that such
exception should not be accepted lightly, as it requires that it is evident that a player has
terminated his training period before his 21st birthday for an exception to be made. The
exception can therefore only apply in truly exceptional cases. Regular appearance in the Ateam of a club does not necessarily constitute the only and decisive factor for the completion
the salary a
at national and international level, (v) his position at the club if established as a regular or
even holding the captaincy, (vi) the level of games (the fact to play in A or B series), (vii) the
ational team, and so forth
15.
The Claimant pointed out that "the situations of training completed usually occur in cases
where the player is exceptionally talented and widely recognised as an important player,
Page 5 of 13
REF TMS 13316
participates in every young national team and/or moved considerable amounts of transfer
fees at a young age .
16.
The Claimant emphasized that the player was never called up to his national team and
that MSK Zilina loaned him a couple of times so he would develop more.
17.
Moreover, the Claimant argued that even the Respondent, after registering the player,
put him to play at its second team, so he would continue his training and education.
18.
Regarding a potential training compensation waiver of the Claimant towards MSK Zilina,
the former highlighted that the Respondent had the burden of presenting such an
agreement, in accordance with art. 13, par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, and it did not.
19.
On 2 October 2023, the Respondent reinforced that the player terminated his training
period before joining the Claimant, emphasized that the latter did not contribute to his
development and education, and highlighted a contract should have been offered by the
Claimant to the player for safeguarding any training compensation entitlement.
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): August 2021
edition.
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (Procedural Rules):
March 2023 edition.
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested
Admissible:
Yes, uncontested
Decision:
1.
professional with the Respondent.
2.
The Respondent rejected the claim arguing that, in its opinion: 1) the player had
terminated his training education before being registered with the Claimant; 2) the
Claimant had waived its entitlement to training compensation it in the loan agreement
concluded with MSK Zilina; and 3) the Claimant did not offer a contract to the player to
safeguard any training entitlement in accordance with art. 6, par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP.
Page 6 of 13
REF TMS 13316
3.
It is established through the SFZ player passport that the player was registered with the
Claimant as a professional, on loan from MSK Zilina, as from 14 August 2020 until 30
June 2021, during 321 days of the calendar years of his 20th and 21st birthdays.
4.
It is undisputed that the player registered on 19 January 2022 with the Respondent, as a
professional and coming directly from MSK Zilina, during the course of the calendar year
of his 23rd birthday.
5.
place between the ages of 12 and 23. Training compensation shall be payable, as a
general rule, up to the age of 23 for training incurred up to the age of 21, unless it is
evident that a player has already terminated his training period before the age of 21.
6.
According to the jurisprudence of the DRC, the use of the term
in the
Regulations indicates that the player can only be considered to have completed his
training if there is absolutely no room for doubt. In particular, following its strict
approach on the aforementioned principle, the DRC has listed several indicators in order
to establish that a young player has completed his training such as, but not limited to:
a. Number of appearances with the senior team of a club;
b.
fee paid by loaning clubs, transfer fee paid);
c. Appearances at international level;
d. Number of loans when at the former club; and
e.
7.
In particular, the DRC has established in the past that it will not generally agree that a
player is fully trained unless a combination of relevant circumstances applies
simultaneously, i.e. meeting just one of the criteria is not usually considered sufficient
evidence.
8.
Art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules indicates that a party that asserts a fact has the
burden of proving it.
9.
In casu
signature of a professional contract with
MSK Zilina, and on the number of matches played with the latter before registering with
the Claimant on loan.
Page 7 of 13
REF TMS 13316
10.
According to the SFZ player passport and to the information available on TMS, while
registered with MSK Zilina, the player was domestically loaned to the Claimant, from a
lower division, and to another club.
11.
It appears that by means of loaning the player the aim of MSK Zilina was to offer the
player some playing time in competitions of equal or lower level than its own.
12.
In this respect, it can be noted that by loaning the player, he did not show effective
progress in order for MSK Zilina to use his playing skills among its squad within the frame
of its competitions.
13.
Furthermore, it appears that the player joined the Respondent on a transfer free of
payment. As such, it is established that MSK Zilina did not expect to receive amounts for
the player.
14.
Fi
period of time, he could be classified as an unusually talented young player, which is
rarely encountered, and known globally for his exceptional talents, who is regular on a
club and national level and who is frequently the focus of transfer agreements to the
worldwide known player.
15.
Given all the above, it is established that that it is not evident that the player has
terminated his training period before the age of 21. Therefore, the argument of the
Respondent in this sense shall be rejected.
16.
According to art. 2 par. 1 lit. ii) of Annexe 4 of the RSTP, training compensation is due
when a professional is transferred between clubs of two different associations before
17.
As such training compensation is in principle due.
18.
Art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the 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.
19.
As established by the jurisprudence of the DRC, when a player registers with a club
affiliated to a different member association (i.e. the new club, in casu the Respondent)
from the one where he was previously registered (i.e. the former club, in casu, MSK
Zilina),
Page 8 of 13
REF TMS 13316
should be entitled to claim training compensation from the new club (in casu, the
Claimant).
20.
with the former club did not interrupt the chain of entitlement of training compensation.
ation with the former
club up until his registration with the new club constitutes one timeframe, irrelevant of
any loan(s) that may have taken place during this period.
21.
As a result, despite the Claimant not being the former club stricto sensu, the
aforementioned jurisprudence applies.
22.
What is more, the responsibility to pay training compensation is incumbent on the
registering club, in casu the Respondent, and such responsibility cannot be waived by
the content (or not) of a clause contained in the loan agreement concluded between the
Claimant and the former club. Therefore, the argument of the Respondent in this sense
shall be rejected.
23.
The Respondent states that even if the Claimant received the player on loan, that it
should comply with the requirement of Art. 6.3. of Annexe 4 RSTP and offer the player a
contract to be able to safeguard a potential training compensation entitlement.
24.
Art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules indicates that a party that asserts a fact has the
burden of proving it.
25.
The Respondent does not provide any evidence to support this allegation such as the
employment contract between player and former club, or the loan agreement between
the latter and the Claimant, which could mention the termination date of the registration
with the former club and put the Claimant in a position to offer the player a contract
before the end of the loan period.
26.
As such it is established that the Respondent did not sufficiently demonstrate that the
Claimant was in a position to offer the player a contract to safeguard its training
compensation entitlement as determined by art. 6.3. of Annex 4 RSTP. Therefore, the
argument of the Respondent in this sense shall be rejected.
27.
As such, the Deputy Chairwoman determined that the registration of the player with the
Respondent constituted a subsequent registration as a professional in the sense of the
RSTP and the applicable jurisprudence, which occurred before the end of the calendar
year of his 23rd birthday.
Page 9 of 13
REF TMS 13316
28.
The player was registered with the Claimant, on loan from the former club during 321
days of the calendar years of his 20th and 21st birthdays.
29.
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, or, in casu the
Claimant, which had the player directly on loan from the former club.
30.
Upon registering the player, both the Respondent and the Claimant were classified as
UEFA category III clubs.
31.
The amount to be taken into account in casu as training cost is EUR 30,000 per year, i.e.
the training costs set for UEFA category III clubs.
32.
Consequently, the Claimant is entitled to training compensation of EUR 26,383.56 for the
period of 321 days of training of the player during the calendar years of his 20th and 21st
birthdays.
33.
Furthermore, the Claimant requested to be awarded 5% interest p.a. as from 19
February 2022 until the date of effective payment.
34.
-established
jurisprudence of the DRC with regard to interest, the Claimant is in principle entitled to
receive 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 18 February 2022 until the
date of effective payment.
35.
In view of all the above, the claim of the Claimant is accepted and the Claimant is entitled
to receive EUR 26,383.56 of training compensation plus 5% interest p.a. as from 18
February 2022 until the date of effective payment.
36.
Art. 25 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules stipulates that costs in the maximum amount of
USD 25,000 are levied in connection with proceedings before the DRC of the Football
Tribunal relating to disputes regarding training compensation and the solidarity
mecha
the proceedings (art. 25 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules).
Page 10 of 13
REF TMS 13316
37.
The succeeding party is the Claimant and the amount claimed in the present dispute
corresponded to EUR 26,383.56. Therefore, procedural costs levied in this respect shall
not exceed USD 5,000 (cf. art. 2 of Annexe 1 of the Procedural Rules).
38.
of USD 3,000 are to be paid by the Respondent.
39.
The relevant provisions of art. 24bis of the RSTP are applicable to the present matter.
Page 11 of 13
REF TMS 13316
III. DECISION
1. The claim of the Claimant,
, is accepted.
2. The Respondent, ENOSI NEON PARALIMNIOU, has to pay to the Claimant the amount
EUR 26,383.56 of training compensation plus 5% interest p.a. as from 18 February 2022.
3. Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account
indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4. Pursuant to article 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players if full
payment (including all applicable interest) is not paid within 45 days of notification of
this decision, 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. The maximum duration of the
ban shall be of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still
not paid by the end of the of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
5. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in
accordance with article 24 paragraphs 7 and 8 and article 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of USD 3,000 are to be paid to FIFA
reference to case no. TMS 13316 (cf. note relating to the payment of the procedural costs
below).
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 12 of 13
REF TMS 13316
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 13 of 13