Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
TMS 9736
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 20 May 2022
regarding training compensation in relation with the registration of the player
Dayonn Harris with Real Monarchs SLC (Real Salt Lake) (USA)
BY:
Mario Flores Chemor (Mexico), member of the Dispute Resolution
Chamber of the Football Tribunal
CLAIMANT:
Woodbridge Soccer Club, Canada
RESPONDENT:
Real Monarchs SLC (Real Salt Lake), USA
Page 2 of 13
TMS 9736
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Dayonn Harris
Date of birth:
29 August 1997
Player passport:
issued by the Canadian Soccer Association (CSA) at an unknown date
Season Birthday
2010
13
th
2011
14
th
2012
15th
2013
16th
Club(s)
Registration dates
Status
Woodbridge Soccer
20/01/2010 –
Amateur
Club
31/12/2010
(Permanent)
Woodbridge Soccer
28/04/2011 –
Amateur
Club
31/12/2011
(Permanent)
Woodbridge Soccer
10/04/2012 –
Amateur
Club
31/12/2012
(Permanent)
Woodbridge Soccer
02/04/2013 –
Amateur
Club
31/12/2013
(Permanent)
Sporting season
of the CSA:
January to December
Date of transfer:
17 February 2020, from Vaughan SC (Canada) to Real Monarchs SLC (USA)
as a professional (free agent)
Claimant club:
Woodbridge Soccer Club (Canada)
Respondent club:
Real Monarchs SLC (Real Salt Lake) (USA)
CONCACAF, category IV (USD 2,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 20 January 2022, the Claimant requested USD 34,739.72 as training compensation
“plus 5% p.a. interest as of the due date, until the date of effective payment”. Alternatively, it
requested USD 12,219.17. The Claimant based its claim on the first registration of the
player as a professional with Real Monarchs SLC.
2.
In this respect, the Claimant argued that the player was registered with it for 1134 days
as follows:
a. 346 days of the season of the player’s 13th birthday;
b. 248 days of the season of the player’s 14th birthday;
Page 3 of 13
TMS 9736
c. 266 days of the season of the player’s 15th birthday; and
d. 274 days of the season of the player’s 16th birthday.
3.
For the purpose of its calculation, the Claimant acknowledged that Real Monarchs SLC
was classified as a training category IV club by the US Soccer Federation (USSF).
Nevertheless, the Claimant pointed out that because of Real Monarchs SLC’s Parent
Club, i.e. Real Salt Lake, participation in First Division (the MLS) and its investment in the
training and development of players, Real Monarchs SLC should be classified as a
CONCACAF category II club, or alternatively, a category III.
4.
In this respect, the Claimant held inter alia that “the Real Salt Lake, which drafted the Player,
plays in the national first division. Subsequently, it transferred the Player to the Real
Monarchs SLC, which plays in the second division. Nonetheless, Real Monarchs participates
in the USL as Real Salt Lake’s B team and as a fully MLS operated club, which means that, just
as the CAS held, every team is part of one club, and thus whether a specific player plays in a
club’s A team or in any other team of the club does not influence the total investment made
by the club and does not alter the category in which the club is classified. What is more, in the
upcoming 2022 season, the Respondent will participate in the MLS Next Pro. (…) in essence,
the Respondent and Real Salt Lake are the same entity.” In this context, the Claimant
referred mostly to the information found on the internet page of the Real Salt Lake.
5.
Thus, since training categories II, III and IV are available in the USA, the Claimant
considered that Real Monarchs SLC should be reclassified under training category II in
CONCACAF for the purpose of training compensation, in line with the jurisprudence of
the DRC and CAS and alternatively, as category III.
6.
The Claimant added that the FIFA Circular 1249, allows the DRC to recategorize a club by
establishing that when assigning their clubs to the various training categories available
and that football associations should proceed in full respect of its criteria.
7.
The Claimant maintained that the aforementioned Circular equally stresses that “there
is an increasing number of cases in which there has been a manifest discrepancy between the
above-mentioned guidelines and the actual assignment of a specific respondent club as a
way of avoiding paying training compensation through the mistaken application of Annexe 4,
art. 2, par. 2 ii. of FIFA RSTP.”
8.
In the Claimant’s opinion if Real Monarchs SLC were to be considered as a Category IV
club it “would mean that the Claimant would have effectively trained the player without
receiving any compensation. In such scenario, the training club (i.e. the Claimant) would be
deprived of receiving any training rewards from the club that signed the first professional
contract of the player, a professional club in its country, a country where all first division clubs
should, in principle, be considered as Category 2, on the basis that said new club is wrongly
categorized by its National Association in FIFA-TMS. ”
Page 4 of 13
TMS 9736
9.
In continuation, the Claimant stressed that “this situation will allows“ Real Monarchs SLC,
which has a market value of around USD 1,820,000 and its Parent Club which has a
professional structure and a market value of around USD 23,270,000, to benefit of the
training provided by the Claimant, without paying any training rewards.
10.
The Claimant sustained that even if Real Monarchs SLC has a different category on the
FIFA TMS platform, the evidence provided demonstrate that it shall be considered a
CONCACAF Category II club.
11.
On 24 January 2022, the FIFA General Secretariat notified the claim to the TMS account
8343 belonging to Real Monarchs SLC. At that time, such account was active with two
TMS users, Messrs Daniel Egner and Chase Rusden. At the same time, Real Monarchs
SLC was invited to submit its position to the Claimant’s claim by no later than 13 February
2022 in TMS in accordance with art. 13 par. 3 and 5 of the Procedural Rules Governing
the Football Tribunal.
12.
Real Monarchs SLC did not reply to the claim.
13.
On 18 February 2022, the FIFA General Secretariat informed the parties that no
correspondence had been received from Real Monarchs SLC in response to the
Claimant’s claim and that, therefore, the investigation-phase has been closed. Likewise,
the parties were informed that the matter would be submitted to the Judge of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Football Tribunal, Mr Mario Flores Chemor (Mexico),
for consideration and a formal decision in due course. Real Monarchs SLC was notified
of this correspondence via its TMS account 8343.
14.
On 25 February 2022, the USSF requested FIFA to move the two TMS active users
mentioned above, i.e. Mr Egner and Mr Rusden, from Real Monarchs SLC’s account to
the TMS account 1492 belonging to Real Salt Lake, request which was completed by FIFA
on 2 March 2022.
15.
On 2 March 2022, FIFA reassigned the above TMS users, Mr Daniel Egner and Mr Chase
Rusden, to Real Salt Lake’s account as requested by the USSF.
16.
On 31 May 2022, the findings of the decision were notified to the parties.
17.
On 6 June 2022, Real Monarchs SLC requested the grounds of the decision.
18.
On 8 July 2022, Real Monarchs SLC submitted an “appeal” against the findings of the
decision.
Page 5 of 13
TMS 9736
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): January 2020
edition
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (Procedural Rules):
October 2021 edition
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested
Admissibility:
Yes, uncontested
Decision:
1.
The claim of the Claimant is based on the first registration of the player as a professional
with Real Monarchs SLC.
2.
However, before entering into the merits of the present matter, the Single Judge
considered that it was necessary to address the issue of the notification of the claim to
Real Monarchs SLC. Indeed, it would seem that during the proceedings, the TMS account
of it became inactive and its users were assigned to the account of Real Salt Lake.
3.
In doing so, the Single Judge first emphasized that when the claim was notified on 24
January 2022, the TMS account of Real Monarchs SLC was active, with two users being
assigned to it, namely Messrs Daniel Egner and Chase Rusden. Such account was also
active on 18 February 2022, when the FIFA General Secretariat informed the parties that
no reply had been received by Real Monarchs SLC and thus the investigation phased of
this matter was closed.
4.
With that in mind, the Single Judge referred to Art. 10 of the Procedural Rules which
stipulates, as is relevant, as follows:
1. Communications may be undertaken via email or the Transfer Matching System
(TMS). The specific procedural rules govern the form of communication used in a
procedure.
2. Communication by these methods is considered a valid means of
communication and sufficient to establish time limits and their observance
(…)
4. … Parties with a TMS account must ensure that their contact details are always
up to date.
5. Parties with a TMS account must review the respective tabs in TMS daily for
any communications from FIFA… (emphasis added).
Page 6 of 13
TMS 9736
5.
In view of the above considerations, the Single Judge is satisfied that the claim was
properly notified to Real Monarchs SLC in accordance with the applicable procedural
rules and that Real Monarchs SLC had the possibility to submit on time its respective
reply. Indeed, when the claim was notified, Real Monarchs SLC’s account was active with
two assigned users who must have had the possibility of becoming aware of it.
6.
The Single Judge was not blind to the fact that the findings of the decision were notified
to Real Monarchs SLC at a time where its TMS account was already inactive with no
assigned users. However, Real Monarchs SLC was able to properly request the grounds
of the decision. As such, it suffered no harm.
7.
On account of all the above, it has to be considered that Real Monarchs SLC simply
decided not to reply to the claim, thus the allegations of the Claimant remained
uncontested and the decision shall be taken on the basis of the documentation on file
(cf. art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules). Evidently, the “appeal” submitted by Real
Monarchs SLC on 8 July 2022, i.e. after this decision had already been passed, cannot be
taken into consideration.
8.
After having determined the above, the Single Judge proceeded with the analysis of the
merits of the case.
9.
It is established through the player passport provided by the CSA that the player was
always registered as an amateur in Canada, including with the Claimant during the
seasons of the player’s 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th birthday, that is to say:
a.
b.
c.
d.
346 days of the season of the player’s 13th birthday;
248 days of the season of the player’s 14th birthday;
266 days of the season of the player’s 15th birthday; and
274 days of the season of the player’s 16th birthday.
10.
It is uncontested that the player registered as a professional with Real Monarchs SLC on
17 February 2020, during the course of the season of his 23rd birthday.
11.
In view of the above, it is determined that the registration of the player with Real
Monarchs SLC constituted his first professional registration, which occurred before the
end of the season of his 23rd birthday.
12.
In accordance with art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 RSTP, for first registration of a professional,
the registering club shall pay training compensation within 30 days of registration to
every club with which the player has previously been registered starting from the start
of the season of his 12th birthday. The amount payable is calculated on a pro rata basis
according to the period of training that the player spent with each club.
Page 7 of 13
TMS 9736
13.
The Single Judge recalled at this point that both Real Monarchs SLC and Real Salt Lake
were classified by the USSF as a category IV.
14.
Likewise, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant argued that Real Monarchs SLC was
wrongly categorised by the USSF as a Category IV club and that the latter should be
classified as a CONCACAF category II club instead. In this respect, the Claimant based its
reasoning on the fact that Real Monarchs SLC participates in the USL as Real Salt Lake’s
B team, which is a professional club competing in the first tier of professional football in
the USA, the MLS, as well as its overall investment in the training of players. In particular,
the Claimant considered that the Real Monarchs SLC and Real Salt Lake should be
considered as the same club, and submitted certain pieces of evidence to support such
allegation.
15.
With the above principles and facts in mind, the Single Judge was of the opinion that the
two core issues to resolve in this matter were: i) on the basis of the evidence on file, what
is the relationship between Real Monarchs SLC and Real Salt Lake?; and ii) is training
compensation due despite Real Monarchs SLC and Real Salt Lake being assigned to the
category IV? (in which case no training compensation would be due).
16.
While addressing the first point, the Single Judge referred to the definition of “club” as
provided in the FIFA Statutes, which provides that a club is “a member of an association
(that is a member association of FIFA) or a member of a league recognised by a member
association that enters at least one team in a competition” (emphasis added).
17.
Along those lines, it has to be emphasized that the various provisions related to the
training compensation always refer to the term “club”, and clearly establish that it is the
responsibility of the new club to pay the training compensation which is calculated based
on the categories into which all associations divide their clubs in accordance with the
clubs’ financial investments. Equally, has to be recalled that the training costs are
established on a confederation basis for each category of clubs.
18.
On the basis of the above, the Single Judge considered – on the basis of the documents
on file, and notably given the lack of reply by Real Monarchs SLC – that the Claimant was
able to prove that Real Monarchs SLC is simply the “B” team of Real Salt Lake, which thus
means that both “teams” have to be considered as one “club” as explained in the
preceding paragraphs.
19.
Indeed, in accordance with Real Salt Lake’s own website, Real Monarchs SLC appears to
be Real Salt Lake’s USL PRO team. Such conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the USSF
itself requested that the TMS users of the Real Monarchs SLC’s account be assigned to
that of Real Salt Lake.
20.
It follows therefore that, for the purposes of Article 20 and Annexe 4 of the RSTP, Real
Monarchs SLC and Real Salt Lake have to be considered as the same club in the sense
(hereinafter, the decision will simply refer to both as “the Respondent”).
Page 8 of 13
TMS 9736
21.
The Single Judge was conscious that the above conclusion may oversimplify a matter
which could be more complex than what is seems. However, as already explained, the
Single Judge has no other option than to rely on publicly available information and the
evidence presented by the Claimant, from which it transpires in relative clear terms that
indeed, Real Monarchs SLC is nothing more than the “B” team of Real Salt Lake (which
has to be treated as the parent club).
22.
The above conclusion however does not change the fact that, as mentioned, the
Respondent was indeed categorised by the USSF as a CONCACAF Category IV club (as
the USSF classifies all its members due to an alleged impossibility to “enforce” the
training compensation system provided by FIFA).
23.
In that regard, according to art. 5 par. 4 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, 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.”
24.
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
second-division 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.
25.
What is more, FIFA Circular 1249 stipulated that “the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC)
has been facing an increasing number of cases in which there has been a manifest
discrepancy between the above-mentioned guidelines and the actual assignment of a specific
respondent club (..). 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”.
26.
According to FIFA Circular no. 1763 of 1 July 2021, 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;
Page 9 of 13
TMS 9736
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.
27.
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.
28.
It is uncontested that the MLS, where the main team of the Respondent competes,
corresponds to the first professional division in the USA.
29.
Based on the foregoing, the Single Judge considers that the allocation of the Respondent
as a training category IV club constitutes a clearly manifest discrepancy in the sense of
FIFA Circular 1249.
30.
In view of the above, the Respondent shall be considered a training category II club,
which is the category reserved to all second-division clubs of member associations in
category I and all first-division clubs in all other countries with professional football as
per FIFA Circular 1249 in combination with FIFA Circular 1673.
31.
Consequently, training compensation is due to the Claimant on the basis of the first
professional registration of the player with the Respondent.
32.
In accordance with art. 5 par. 2 of Annexe 4 RSTP, in the case of first professional
registration, training compensation is calculated based on the training costs of the new
club multiplied by the number of years of training with each training club.
33.
As established above, the Respondent is considered to be a training category II club.
Training costs for category II clubs within CONCACAF are set at USD 40,000 per year.
34.
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.
35.
As established under point II. 9. above, the player was registered with the Claimant for
1134 days, during the seasons of his 13th until 16th birthday.
36.
Consequently, on the basis of the first registration of the player as a professional with
the Respondent, the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation in the amount
of USD 34,739.72, corresponding to:
a. USD 1,895.89 for the training and education given to the player during the 346
days of the season of his 13th birthday;
b. USD 1,358.90 for the training and education given to the player during the 248
days of the season of his 14th birthday;
c. USD 1,457.53 for the training and education given to the player during the 266
days of the season of his 15th birthday; and
Page 10 of 13
TMS 9736
d. USD 30,027.40 for the training and education given to the player during the 274
days of the season of his 16th birthday;
37.
Furthermore, the Claimant requested to be awarded interest amounting to 5% per
annum, “as per the due date”.
38.
Taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 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 registration of the player with it, i.e. as from 19 March 2020 until the date of effective
payment.
39.
In view of all the above, the claim of the Claimant is accepted and the Claimant is entitled
to receive USD 34,739.72 as training compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. on that amount,
as from 19 March 2020 until the date of effective payment.
40.
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
mechanism. Costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in
the proceedings (art. 25 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules).
41.
The succeeding party is the Claimant and the amount claimed in the present dispute
corresponded to USD 34,739.72. Therefore, procedural costs levied in this respect shall
not exceed USD 5,000 (cf. art. 2 of Annexe 1 of the Procedural Rules).
42.
In consideration of the amount claimed, the costs of the proceedings are set at USD
4,000 and shall be borne in full by the Respondent.
43.
Art. 24bis RSTP is applicable.
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1. The claim of the Claimant, Woodbridge Soccer Club, is accepted.
2. The Respondent, Real Monarchs SLC (Real Salt Lake), has to pay to the Claimant USD
34,739.72 as training compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. on that amount, as from 19
March 2020 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.
Page 11 of 13
TMS 9736
4.
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
and Spanish).
5.
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.
6.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of USD 4,000 are to be paid by the
Respondent to FIFA with reference to case no. TMS 9736 (cf. note relating to the payment
of the procedural costs below).
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 12 of 13
TMS 9736
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
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 17 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