Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
TMS 8841
Decision of the Single Judge of the
sub-committee of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 22 September 2021
regarding training compensation in relation with the registration of the player
CHRISTIAN ANTHONY GOMEZ VARGAS with Hartford Athletic (USA)
BY:
Tomislav Kasalo (Croatia), Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC
CLAIMANT:
AC Mineros de Guayana, Venezuela
RESPONDENT:
Hartford Athletic, USA
Page 2 of 11
TMS 8841
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
CHRISTIAN ANTHONY GOMEZ VARGAS
Date of birth:
23 February 1999
Player passport:
issued by the Federación Venezolana de Fútbol (FVF) on 17 May 2021:
Season
2013
Birthday
14
Club(s)
Mineros de Guayana
Registration dates
21/10/13 – 31/12/13
2014
15
Mineros de Guayana
01/01/14 – 31/05/14
2014
15
Mineros de Guayana
19/09/14 – 31/12/14
2015
16
Mineros de Guayana
01/01/15 – 15/05/15
2015
16
Mineros de Guayana
18/08/15 – 31/12/15
2016
17
Mineros de Guayana
01/01/16 – 31/12/16
2017
18
Mineros de Guayana
01/01/17 – 31/12/17
2018
19
Mineros de Guayana
01/01/18 – 31/12/18
2019
20
Mineros de Guayana
01/01/19 – 22/01/19
2019
20
Mineros de Guayana
11/02/19 – 31/12/19
2020
21
Mineros de Guayana
14/01/20 – 31/12/20
Status
Amateur
(Permanent)
Amateur
(Permanent)
Amateur
(Permanent)
Amateur
(Permanent)
Professional
(Permanent)
Professional
(Permanent)
Professional
(Permanent)
Professional
(Permanent)
Professional
(Permanent)
Professional
(Permanent)
Professional
(Permanent)
Sporting season:
January to December (Venezuela)
Date of transfer:
19 May 2021, from AC Mineros de Guayana (Venezuela) to Hartford Athletic
(USA) as a professional (free agent)
Claimant club:
AC Mineros de Guayana (Venezuela)
Respondent club:
Hartford Athletic (USA)
CONCACAF, category IV (USD 2,000 per year)
Page 3 of 11
TMS 8841
Claim and Response:
1.
On 20 August 2021, the Claimant requested USD 58,367.12 as training compensation “plus
5% p.a. interest as of the due date, until the date of effective payment”. The Claimant is basing
his claim on the subsequent registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent.
2.
In this respect, the Claimant argued that the player was registered with it as follows:
a. As from 21 October until 31 December 2013, i.e. 72 days of the calendar year of the
player’s 14th birthday;
b. As from 1 January until 31 May 2014 and as from 19 September until 31 December
2014, i.e. 255 days of the calendar year of the player’s 15th birthday;
c. As from 1 January until 15 May 2015 and as from 18 August until 31 December 2015,
i.e. 271 days of the calendar year of the player’s 16th birthday;
d. The entire calendar years of the player’s 17th, 18th and 19th birthdays;
e. As from 1 until 22 January 2019 and as from 11 February until 31 December 2019, i.e.
346 days of the calendar year of the player’s 20th birthday; and
f. As from 14 January until 31 December 2020, i.e. 353 days of the calendar year of the
player’s 21st birthday.
3.
For the purpose of its calculation, the Claimant acknowledged that the Respondent was
classified as a training category IV club by the US Soccer Federation (USSF). Nevertheless, the
Claimant pointed out that the club was competing in the second professional division in the
USA, i.e. the USL Championship, thus it considered that the Respondent should be reclassified
under training category III in CONCACAF for the purpose of training compensation, in line with
the jurisprudence of the DRC.
4.
On this particular topic, the Claimant pointed out, inter alia, that the current categorization of
the Respondent “which has a professional structure and a market value of around USD
2,260,000 (two million and two hundred and sixty thousand dollars)” would allow it “to benefit
of the training provided by the Claimant, without paying any training rewards”. In addition, the
Claimant underlined that the Respondent “also participates and invests in the training of young
athletes. In that regard, the Respondent has a “Pathway to the pros philosophy” which provides
opportunities for youth athletes to reach their potential, and which gives the players a first team
experience” ; that its “coaching staff are professionals (experienced or licensed) and aligned with
the Hartford Athletic Way and First Team philosophy” ; that it “is participating in the USL
Academy” and that it “has created partnerships to develop young athletes and maximize their
chances to effectively transition to professional level.”
5.
In support of the aforementioned allegations, the Claimant provided several extracts from the
websites www.uslchampionship.com, www.uslsoccer.com. www.transfermarkt.us and the
Respondent’s website, all referring to the latter’s sporting performances, financial and sporting
investments.
6.
Thus, the Claimant took into consideration:
Page 4 of 11
TMS 8841
a. The amount set for category IV clubs in CONCACAF, i.e. USD 2,000 per year for the
time the player was registered with during the course of the calendar years of his 14th
and 15th birthdays; and
b. The amount set for category III clubs in CONCACAF, i.e. USD 10,000 per year for the
time the player was registered with during the course of the calendar years of his 16th,
17th, 18th, 19th ,20th and 21st birthdays.
7.
The Respondent did not reply to the claim.
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): February 2021 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.
2.
The Respondent did not reply to the claim, thus the allegations of the Claimant remained
uncontested.
3.
It is established through the player passport provided by the FVF on 17 May 2021 that the player
was exactly registered with the Claimant as set out in point I./2. above.
4.
It is uncontested that the player registered as a professional with the Respondent on 19 May
2021, during the course of the calendar year of his 22nd birthday.
5.
In view of the above, it is determined that since the player was already a professional with the
Claimant since 18 August 2015, the player was subsequently registered as a professional with
the Respondent.
6.
In accordance with art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP, for subsequent transfers of the
professional, the club with which the player is registered is responsible for paying training
compensation within 30 days of registration only to his former club for the time he was
effectively trained by that club.
Page 5 of 11
TMS 8841
7.
The Respondent was classified as a training category IV club upon registering the player as a
professional.
8.
According to art. 2 par. 2 lit. ii) of Annexe 4 of the RSTP, no training compensation is due to the
former club of the player when said player was subsequently registered with a category IV club.
9.
Thus, no training compensation is in principle due to the Claimant.
10.
Nevertheless, the Claimant argued that the Respondent was wrongly categorized by the USSF,
in view of the fact that the USSF did not apply the training category system to its members. In
this respect, the Claimant was of the opinion that the Respondent’s category should be
considered a category III club since the Respondent was competing in the second tier of
professional football in the USA, the USL, and in consideration of its financial and sporting
investments.
11.
According to art. 5 par. 4 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (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.”
12.
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.
13.
What is more, FIFA Circular 1249 stipulated that “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”.
14.
According to FIFA Circular 1726 of 30 July 2020, CONCACAF member associations may classify
their clubs between three training categories, i.e.:
a. Category II, with training costs of USD 40,000 per year;
b. Category III, with training costs of USD 10,000 per year; and
c. Category IV, with training costs of USD 2,000 per year.
Page 6 of 11
TMS 8841
15.
In the present case, the USSF as member of the CONCACAF has in principle access to the above
three training categories to classify its affiliated clubs.
16.
It is uncontested that the MLS corresponds to the first professional division in the USA, and the
USL Championship is the second professional division in the USA.
17.
It is uncontested that the Respondent competes in the USL Championship.
18.
In view of the above, the Respondent shall be considered a training category III club, which is
the category reserved to all third-division clubs of member associations in category I and all
second-division clubs in all other countries with professional football as per FIFA Circular 1249
in combination with FIFA Circular 1726.
19.
Consequently, training compensation is due to the Claimant on the basis of the subsequent
professional registration of the player with the Respondent.
20.
Art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP stipulates that for subsequent transfers of the professional,
the club with which the player is registered is responsible for paying training compensation
within 30 days of registration only to his former club for the time he was effectively trained by
that club.
21.
In accordance with art. 5 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the 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.
22.
In addition, according to art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP, the training costs for players for
the calendar years of their 12th and 15th birthdays (i.e. four seasons) shall be based on the training
and education costs of category 4 clubs.
23.
As established above, the Respondent is considered to be a training category III club. Training
costs for category III clubs within CONCACAF are set at USD 10,000 per year and at USD 2,000
per year for category IV clubs.
24.
Art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the 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.
25.
As established under point II./3., the player was exactly registered with the Claimant as described
by the latter in point I./2. above.
26.
Consequently, the Claimant is entitled to training compensation for the following period of
training of the player:
(i) 2013 season (calendar year of the players’ 14th birthday): 72 days;
(ii) 2014 season (calendar year of the players’ 15th birthday): 255 days;
(iii) 2015 season (calendar year of the players’ 16th birthday): 271 days;
Page 7 of 11
TMS 8841
(iv) 2016 season (calendar year of the players’ 17th birthday): 365 days;
(v) 2017 season (calendar year of the players’ 18th birthday): 365 days;
(vi) 2018 season (calendar year of the players’ 19th birthday): 365 days;
(vii) 2019 season (calendar year of the players’ 20th birthday): 346 days; and
(viii) 2020 season (calendar year of the players’ 21st birthday): 353 days.
27.
The training costs are calculated as follows:
(i) 2013 season - on the basis of a category IV club, i.e. for CONCACAF, USD 2,000 per
year:
USD 2,000 x (72 / 365) = USD 394.52;
(ii) 2014 season - on the basis of a category IV club, i.e. for CONCACAF, USD 2,000 per
year:
USD 2,000 x (255 / 365) = USD 1,397.26;
(iii) 2015 season - on the basis of a category III club, i.e. for CONCACAF, USD 10,000 per
year:
USD 10,000 x (271 / 365) = USD 7,424.66;
(iv) 2016 season - on the basis of a category III club, i.e. for CONCACAF, USD 10,000 per
year: USD 10,000;
(v) 2017 season - on the basis of a category III club, i.e. for CONCACAF, USD 10,000 per
year: USD 10,000;
(vi) 2018 season - on the basis of a category III club, i.e. for CONCACAF, USD 10,000 per
year: USD 10,000;
(vii) 2019 season - on the basis of a category III club, i.e. for CONCACAF, USD 10,000 per
year:
USD 10,000 x (346 / 365) = USD 9,479.45; and
(viii) 2020 season - on the basis of a category III club, i.e. for CONCACAF, USD 10,000 per
year:
USD 10,000 x (353 / 365) = USD 9,671.23.
28.
The Claimant is entitled to receive USD 58,367.12 as training compensation.
Page 8 of 11
TMS 8841
29.
Furthermore, the Claimant requested to be awarded interest amounting to 5% per annum, “as
of the due date”.
30.
Taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as the well-established jurisprudence of
the DRC with regard to interest, the Claimant is 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 19 June 2021 until the date of effective payment.
31.
In view of all the above, the claim of the Claimant is accepted and the Claimant is entitled to
receive USD 58,367.12 as training compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. on that amount, as from
19 June 2021 until the date of effective payment.
32.
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).
33.
The amount claimed by the Claimant is between CHF 50,000 and CHF 100,000. Therefore,
procedural costs levied in this respect shall not exceed the sum of CHF 10,000 (art. 1 of Annexe
A of the Procedural Rules).
34.
In consideration of the amount claimed by the Claimant, costs of the current proceedings shall
be set at CHF 5,000.
35.
In view of the fact that the claim of the Claimant is accepted, said costs shall be borne by the
Respondent in full.
36.
The provisions of art. 24bis of the RSTP are applicable.
Page 9 of 11
TMS 8841
III. DECISION
1. The claim of the Claimant, AC Mineros de Guayana, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Hartford Athletic, has to pay to the Claimant USD 58,367.12 as training
compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. on that amount, as from 19 June 2021 until the date of
effective payment.
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 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), 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 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 24bis paragraphs 7 and 8 of the RSTP.
6.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 5,000 are to be paid by the Respondent
to FIFA with reference to case no. TMS 8841 (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 10 of 11
TMS 8841
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 11 of 11