Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
REF TMS 12873
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 24 August 2023
regarding training compensation for the
player Sivert August Felde HAUGLI
BY:
Mr. Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Single Judge of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Football Tribunal
CLAIMANT:
Bærum SK, Norway
RESPONDENT:
Portland Timbers, USA
Page 2 of 16
REF TMS 12873
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Sivert August Felde HAUGLI
Date of birth:
8 May 1999
Player passports:
-
issued by the Norwegian Football Federation (NFF) and by the United States Soccer
Federation (USSF):
Year
2011
2012
Birthday
Club(s)
Registration dates
Status
th
Snarøya SK
01/01/2011
31/12/2011
Amateur
th
Snarøya SK
01/01/2012
09/04/2012
Amateur
Stabæk Fotball
10/04/2012
31/12/2012
Amateur
12
13
2013
14th
Stabæk Fotball
01/01/2013
31/12/2013
Amateur
2014
th
Stabæk Fotball
01/01/2014
31/12/2014
Amateur
th
Stabæk Fotball
01/01/2015
31/12/2015
Amateur
th
Stabæk Fotball
01/01/2016
14/01/2016
Amateur
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
15
16
17
Bærum SK
15/01/2016
31/12/2016
Amateur
th
Bærum SK
01/01/2017
31/12/2017
Amateur
th
Bærum SK
01/01/2018
31/12/2018
Amateur
th
Bærum SK
01/01/2019
31/12/2019
Amateur
st
Bærum SK
01/01/2020
31/12/2020
Amateur
nd
Bærum SK
01/01/2021
06/04/2021
Amateur
Des Moines
07/04/2021
18
19
20
21
22
Amateur
Menace (USA)
2022
23rd
MLS-NP_Portland
01/03/2022
17/04/2022
Professional
18/04/2022
05/08/2022
Pro on loan from
Timbers 2 (USA)
Phoenix Rising FC
(USA)
2020
22
nd
MLS-NP_Portland
Portland Timbers2
06/08/2022
31/12/2022
Professional
Timbers 2 (USA)
Date of registration:
1 March 2022 with Portland Timbers 2
The player signed an employment contract with Portland Timbers
2 valid as from 1 March 2022 until 31 December 2022. The
contract also contained an option for Portland Timbers 2 to
Page 3 of 16
REF TMS 12873
extend the contract for an additional year, from 1 January 2023
until 31 December 2023.
The contract stipulates that Portland Timbers 2 competes in Major
League Soccer (MLS) Next Pro.
A letter issued by the Manager of Player Status at the U.S. Soccer
Federation, Mr. Mike Dragovoja, on 28 June 2023, stated This is an
official letter from the United States Soccer Federation (USSF)
confirming that the player Sivert Haugli (May-5-1999) did not turn Pro
when he played with the Des Moines Menace in 2021 in the USA. He
first turned Pro in the USA with Portland Timbers, namely when he
was registered in MLS-Next Pro to play for Portland Timbers 2 on
March 1, 2022, exactly as it is confirmed in the USSF player passport .
Claimant club:
Bærum SK (Norway)
Respondent club:
Portland Timbers (USA)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 8 May 2023, the Claimant
plus
5% p.a. interest as of the due date, until the date of effective payment
basing its claim on the first registration of the player as a professional with the
Respondent.
2.
Alternatively, the Claimant requested USD 52,275.02 of training compensation.
3.
The Claimant argued that the player was registered with it for 1,910 days from the
th
4.
until his 22nd birthday.
For the purpose of its calculation, the Claimant acknowledged that the Respondent was
classified as a training category IV club by the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF).
5.
in reality part of the same entity as
the Portland Timbers. They have nearly the same name, and in their own website there is a
link to check news from Timbers 2
an e-
employee replies and speaks on behalf of Portland Timbers 2
Page 4 of 16
REF TMS 12873
6.
An e-mail exchange with Mr. Nick Mansueto, a TMS user registered with Portland
Timbers, regarding TMS 9981, in which the Respondent was ordered to pay amounts, is
shown as evidence.
7.
in training young players, and that said websites indicated that the Respondent was part
pathway
step of said pathway.
8.
The Claimant, referring to CAS jurisprudence, asserted that since training categories are
based on the investment on training young players is made by a club as a whole, the
category of the main team should apply to each and every team of said club.
9.
Since Portland Timbers had such high market value and had at its disposal leading
training facilities, and that said wealth and infrastructures de facto benefited the
Respondent, the Claimant concluded that the Respondent should be classified under the
same category as Portland Timbers.
10.
On this particular topic, the Claimant referred to FIFA Circular 1249 and indicated that
any club competing in MLS shall be considered a CONCACAF category II club.
11.
As such, the Claimant argued that the Respondent was also a CONCACAF category II club
when registering a player before the end of the season of his 23 rd birthday, and that, as
a consequence, training compensation was due.
12.
The player was registered with the Claimant for 1,910 days, between 15 January 2016
and 6 April 2021, from the calendar year of his 17 th until his 22nd birthday, and the
amount set for category II clubs in CONCACAF, as per art. 5 of Annex 4 of the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP).
13.
Alternatively, should the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) consider that the
Respondent should be categorized under CONCACAF category III, the Claimant
category III clubs in CONCACAF, as per art. 5 par. 3 of Annex 4 RSTP.
14.
On 10 June 2023, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant.
Page 5 of 16
REF TMS 12873
15.
As to the facts, the Respondent indicated that it competes since 2022 in MLS Next Pro,
which corresponds to the US third division and that, before then, it participated in the
United Soccer League Championship.
16.
The Respondent confirmed that it controls its TMS account and the one of Portland
Timbers, but that these are distinct clubs, and the player was only registered with the
former.
17.
The player signed a contract with the Respondent valid as from 1 March 2022 until 31
December 2022.
18.
The Respondent is of the opinion that the Claimant failed to prove that the player was
not registered beforehand as a professional in accordance with art. 2 par. 2 RSTP. The
s
first team should result on the player being considered as a professional and asks that
the Claimant discloses eventual agreements it signed with the player.
19.
Regarding the registration period with the Claimant, the Respondent states that the
player attended college in the US between 2018 and 2021, a period that overlaps with
the information contained on the NFF player passport. To support its statement, the
Respondent presents contents from the webpage of Virginia Tech Athletics as well as
information about the player available on Wikipedia.
20.
In addition, the Respondent highlights that the Claimant requests to receive training
nd
birthday, which is not
in compliance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 RSTP, that limits the entitlement for the
education and development received until the 21st birthday.
21.
The Respondent rejected the assertions made by the Claimant regarding the fact that it
should be considered as part of the same entity as Portland Timbers. In fact, the
Respondent pointed out that when registering the player, it was participating in
competitions under membership of MLS Next Pro, whilst Portland Timbers was and is
registration, there was no direct pathway from the Respondent to Portland Timbers.
22.
Alternatively, should the DRC consider that training compensation is due, the
Respondent argued that the training costs shall be based on costs for CONCACAF
category III clubs, and that therefore the Claimant shall be entitled to receive training
compensation of USD 26,082.19.
Page 6 of 16
REF TMS 12873
23.
On 30 June 2023, the Claimant, in replica, excluded the registration period of the 22 nd
birthday of the player and adjusted its request to USD 198,469.94 of training
compensation.
24.
Subsidiarily, if its registration period is subtracted of the months shown at Virgina Tech
169,209.67 of training compensation.
25.
Lastly, if the Respondent is considered a CONCACAF category III club, then the amount
due would be of USD 49,617.49.
26.
Regarding the status of the player while registered with the Claimant, the latter pointed
out that the information presented on the NFF player passport is to be considered as
valid. It adds that a party asserting a fact has the burden of proving it, so this should be
27.
The Claimant reinforced points previously highlighted on the claim and said that no
relevant evidence was presented regarding the: i. different structures of the Respondent
and Portland Timbers; and ii. registration period with Virginia Tech Athletics.
28.
The Claimant also provided a letter signed by Mr. Mike Dragovoja, Manager of Player
Status of the USSF
the player Sivert Haugli (May-5-
Pro in the USA with Portland Timbers, namely, when he was registered in MLS-Next Pro to play
for Portland Timbers 2
29.
On 17 July 2023, the Respondent, in duplica, stated it is not able to prove if the player
was registered with the Claimant as a professional, and that this should be responsibility
of the latter.
30.
Regarding the registration period with Virginia Tech Athletics, as the latter is not affiliated
to FIFA, this registration period cannot be made available in a player passport issued by
the relevant Member Association.
31.
After reinforcing elements presented on its reply, the Respondent asked the claim to be
rejected. Alternatively, and in that order, if training compensation is considered due, that
it should be limited to:
a. USD 26,082.19, considering the Respondent under CONCACAF category III, and
awarding it for the period before the registration with Virginia Tech Athletics;
and
Page 7 of 16
REF TMS 12873
b. USD 104,328.77, considering the Respondent under CONCACAF category II, and
awarding it for the period before the registration with Virginia Tech Athletics.
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): March 2022
edition.
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (Procedural Rules):
March 2023 edition.
Decision:
1.
The claim of the Claimant is based on the first registration of the player as a professional
with the Respondent.
2.
The Respondent disputes that it was the first to register the player as a professional.
3.
Art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal stablish that
.
4.
The Respondent claims that the player could have been considered a professional at the
Claimant in accordance with art. 2 par. 2 RSTP.
5.
The player passport, as determined by art. 7 RSTP has its
linked to the
training rewards and only a player passport issued and confirmed by a member
association will be considered by the DRC in case of a dispute.
6.
In accordance with the information available on the player passports issued by the NFF
and by the USSF
of Player Status, Mr. Mike
the player Sivert Haugli (May-5-1999)
first turned Pro in the
USA with Portland Timbers, namely, when he was registered in MLS-Next Pro to play for
Portland Timbers 2
7.
.
The Respondent failed to provide relevant evidence that could lead to the understanding
that the player was registered as a professional before then.
Page 8 of 16
REF TMS 12873
8.
According to art. 2 par. 1 lit. i) of Annex 4 RSTP, training compensation is due when a
player is registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the calendar
year of his 23rd birthday.
9.
In light of the above, it is determined that the player was first registered as a professional
rd
birthday.
10.
In accordance with art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of Annex 4 RSTP, training compensation is to be
paid 30 days following the registration of the player with the new association.
11.
According to art. 25 par. 5 RSTP, the DRC shall not hear any case subject to these
regulations if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the
dispute.
12.
In the present matter, any club wishing to claim training compensation in relation to the
registration of the player with the Respondent on 1 March 2022 has up until 1 April 2024
to do so.
13.
The Claimant lodged its claim on 8 May 2023.
14.
Consequently, the claim of the Claimant is admissible.
15.
As indicated above, the player registered as a professional for the first time with the
Respondent on 1 March 2022, i.e. during the course of his 23rd birthday.
16.
As such, in line with art. 2 par. 1 lit. i) of Annexe 4 RSTP, training compensation is in
principle due.
17.
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 from the start of the
calendar year of his 12th birthday until the end of the calendar year of his 21st birthday.
The amount payable is calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of training
that the player spent with each club.
18.
The Respondent disputes that the player was registered with the Claimant
uninterruptedly from 15 January 2016 until 6 April 2021.
Page 9 of 16
REF TMS 12873
19.
The Respondent states that during part of the registration period above, the player was
actually playing for Virgina Tech Athletics, a college team in the US.
20.
In accordance with art. 7 RSTP, only a player passport issued and confirmed by a
member association will be considered in case of a dispute. Because of that, the DRC
can only take into consideration the information reflected on the player passport, and
this document shows the player registered with the Claimant, until the end of the
calendar year of his 21st birthday, as an amateur as follows:
a. 352 days on the year of the 17th birthday;
b. 365 days on the year of the 18th birthday;
c. 365 days on the year of the 19th birthday;
d. 365 days on the year of the 20th birthday; and
e. 365 days on the year of the 21st birthday.
21.
The Respondent was however classified as a training category IV club upon registering
the player as a professional.
22.
According to art. 2 par. 2 lit. ii) of Annexe 4 RSTP, no training compensation is due when
a player registers with a category IV club.
23.
Thus, no training compensation is in principle due to the Claimant.
24.
Nevertheless, the Claimant argued that the Respondent was wrongly categorized by the
USSF, since the Respondent was part of the MLS club Portland Timbers, and that as such,
the Respondent should be categorized under the same category as Portland Timbers,
i.e. training category II.
25.
Art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules stipulates that a party that asserts a fact has the
burden of proving it. The Claimant carries the burden of proving that the Respondent is
part of the same entity as Portland Timbers.
26.
The Claimant submitted abstract of online sources to demonstrate that Portland
Timbers and the Respondent were the same entity.
27.
The Respondent was part of MLS Next Pro, when registering the player, whilst Portland
Timbers competed in the MLS, the US first division.
Page 10 of 16
REF TMS 12873
28.
The employment contract signed between the player and the Respondent stipulated the
rendering of services on MLS Next Pro, which the Respondent states to constitute US
third division.
29.
The player registered with Portland Timbers on TMS. This is shown by the issuance of
the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) on 2 May 2023, when the player left the
Portland Timbers towards Moss FK, in Norway. In addition, there is no separate user for
the Respondent.
30.
Because of the above, TMS users of Portland Timbers act in claims involving the
Respondent.
31.
Analogically applying art. 25 RSTP to the present case, Respondent and Portland Timbers
share the same website, name, team colours, personnel, such as TMS users, and both
32.
The Respondent states that it signs contracts directly with players whilst Portland
Timbers players are employed by the MLS, and that stakeholders and addresses of both
clubs do not coincide.
33.
No sufficient evidence is presented with regarded to the different administrative
structure of both clubs.
34.
The address attributed to the Respondent on the contract signed between the latter and
the player, on 1 March 2022, is 1844 SW Morrison
35.
That is
Lastly and most importantly, the U.S. Soccer Federation, via a document on its
letterhead, and signed by its Manager of Player Status, Mr. Mike Dragovoja, stated that
Sivert Haugli (May-5-1999)
first turned Pro in the USA with Portland Timbers namely
when he was registered in MLS-Next Pro to play for Portland Timbers 2 on March 1, 2022,
exactly as it is confirmed in the USSF player passport .
36.
The elements above determine that Respondent and Portland Timbers are to be
considered as the same entity.
37.
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:
Page 11 of 16
REF TMS 12873
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.
38.
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 .
39.
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
40.
In that regard, the DRC is aware that there are precedents where clubs have been
"recategorized" on the basis of that provision.
41.
recategorize
effective usurp of a power conferred to the national associations by art. 4 par. 1 of Annex
4 RSTP, which, for obvious reasons, are better placed than the DRC to determine what
are the training and education costs of their member clubs.
42.
In fact, the referred FIFA Circular 1249, which establishes certain parameters and
guidelines for national associations to categorize their clubs, states that the DRC will
intervene only in cases of manifest discrepancy between the categorization assigned by
the national association and the actual training costs of a club.
43.
In the present matter, it is undisputed that the Portland Timbers, belonging to the same
entity as the Respondent, is a team participating in the MLS. This is the highest
professional division in North America, a competition itself one of the major professional
leagues in CONCACAF.
44.
A club participating in one of the elite competitions in CONCACAF cannot be at the same
time classified at the lowest training category available in the Confederation. This falls
under the manifest discrepancy criteria.
Page 12 of 16
REF TMS 12873
45.
In view of the foregoing considerations, the DRC decided to accept the Claimant's
recategorize
46.
Portland Timbers is to be considered a well-established MLS club.
47.
The MLS is the highest professional division in North America, including the USA.
48.
The USSF may classify their clubs between three training categories, i.e.:
a. Category II, with training costs of USD 40,000;
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.
49.
Based on all the above, it is determined that the Respondent is to be considered a
CONCACAF training category II club for training compensation purposes. The yearly
amount foreseen for category II CONCACAF clubs is USD 40,000.
50.
The player was registered with the Claimant as follows:
a. 352 days on the year of the 17th birthday;
b. 365 days on the year of the 18th birthday;
c. 365 days on the year of the 19th birthday;
d. 365 days on the year of the 20th birthday; and
e. 365 days on the year of the 21st birthday.
51.
Consequently, the Claimant shall in principle be awarded USD 198,575.34 as training
compensation, corresponding to:
a. USD 38,575.34 for the training and education the player received from the
Claimant during the 352 days on the year of the 17th birthday;
b. USD 40,000 for the training and education the player received from the
Claimant during the 365 days on the year of the 18th birthday;
c. USD 40,000 for the training and education the player received from the
Claimant during the 365 days on the year of the 19th birthday;
d. USD 40,000 for the training and education the player received from the
Claimant during the 365 days on the year of the 20th birthday; and
e. USD 40,000 for the training and education the player received from the
Claimant during the 365 days on the year of the 21st birthday.
Page 13 of 16
REF TMS 12873
52.
53.
The Claimant lowered its request on its replica to USD 198.469,94 . In respect to the
principle of
, the DRC is to limit its analysis to the USD 198,469.94
requested.
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 1 April 2022 until the date of effective
payment.
54.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
55.
Based on the above, it is established that the Respondent shall pay the Claimant training
compensation of USD 198,469.94 as training compensation plus 5 % interest p.a. as from
1 April 2022 until the effective date of payment-
56.
According to art. 25 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, procedural costs are payable for
disputes between clubs regarding the payment of training compensation.
57.
The Claimant claimed the amount of USD 209.100,08.
58.
Thus, the amount claimed by the Claimant corresponds to an amount higher than USD
200,000. Therefore, procedural costs levied in this respect are fixed to USD 25,000 (cf.
art. 2 of Annexe 1 to the Procedural Rules.
59.
According to art. 25 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the chamber will decide the amount
conduct during the procedure, as well as any advance of costs paid. In exceptional
circumstances, the chamber may order that FIFA assumes all procedural costs.
60.
In view the specific circumstances of the case, procedural costs shall be set at USD
20,000. The amount of USD 15,000 shall be borne by the Respondent and USD 5,000
shall be borne by the Claimant.
61.
Art. 24 RSTP is applicable to the matter at hand.
Page 14 of 16
REF TMS 12873
III. DECISION
1. The claim of the Claimant, Bærum SK, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, Portland Timbers, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD
198,469.94 as training compensation plus 5 % interest p.a. as from 1 April 2022 until the
effective date of 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. 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.
6. 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.
7. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of f USD 20,000 are to be paid to FIFA
reference to case no. TMS 12873 (cf. note relating to the payment of the procedural costs
below) as follows:
- the amount of USD 5,000 shall be paid by the Claimant; and
- the amount of USD 15,000 shall be paid by the Respondent.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 15 of 16
REF TMS 12873
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
Pursuant to article 57 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 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 16 of 16