Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
TMS 10845
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 September 2022
regarding training compensation in relation with the registration of the player
Christián HERC
BY:
Johan van Gaalen (South Africa)
CLAIMANT:
FK DAC 1904 Dunajská Streda (Slovakia)
RESPONDENT:
Grasshopper Club Zürich (SFL) (Switzerland)
Page 2 of 12
TMS 10845
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Christián HERC
Date of birth:
30 September 1998
Player passports:
issued by the The Football Association Ltd. (The FA) on 11 January 2022,
by the Slovenský futbalový zväz (SFZ) on 5 April 2022, and by the
Fotbalové asociace České republiky (FACR) on 11 January 2022 –
combined relevant abstracts below:
Season Birthday Club(s)
Registration dates
Status
17/18
01/07/17 – 02/02/18
Professional
19
th
Wolverhampton
Wanderers
FC
(Permanent)
(England)
17/18
19
th
FK
DAC
1904
Dunajská
Streda
05/02/18 – 15/06/18
Professional
(On loan from
(Slovakia)
Wolverhampton
Wanderers FC)
18/19
20th
FK
DAC
1904
Dunajská
Streda
06/07/18 – 15/06/19
Professional
(On loan from
(Slovakia)
Wolverhampton
Wanderers FC)
19/20
21
st
Wolverhampton
Wanderers
01/07/19 – 01/07/19
FC
Professional
(Permanent)
(England)
19/20
21
st
FC Viktoria Plzen
01/07/19 – 30/06/20
(Czech Republic)
Professional
(On loan from
Wolverhampton
Wanderers FC)
20/21
22
nd
Wolverhampton
Wanderers
28/08/20 – 28/08/20
FC
Professional
(Permanent)
(England)
20/21
22
nd
MFK Karvina a.s.
(Czech Republic)
21/08/20 – 30/06/21
Professional
(On loan from
Wolverhampton
Wanderers FC)
Page 3 of 12
TMS 10845
21/22
23rd
Wolverhampton
Wanderers
07/07/21 – onwards
FC
Professional
(Permanent)
(England)
Date of registration:
20 July 2021, from Wolverhampton Wanderers FC (England) to
Grasshopper Club Zürich (SFL) (Switzerland) as a professional (engage
against payment)
Financial conditions:
The transfer agreement provided for a sell-on fee of 25% of the
compensation received by Grasshoppers from any other club in case of
a subsequent permanent or temporary transfer.
Claimant club:
FK DAC 1904 Dunajská Streda (Slovakia)
Respondent club:
Grasshopper Club Zürich (SFL) (Switzerland)
UEFA, category II (EUR 60,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 1 August 2022, the Claimant requested the amount of EUR 85,000 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 1 August 2021 until the date of
effective 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
club is in principle entitled to claim training compensation from the player’s next club
should the player be registered permanently as a professional.
3.
In addition, the Claimant held that the player has not terminated his training period
before the age of 21 when joining it on loan from the former club given that 1) the aim
of loaning young players is to be seen as part of the education and training process of a
player ; and 2) the player was playing in the former club’s U-23 team prior to the loan
taking place.
4.
In continuation, for the purpose of its calculations, the Claimant took into consideration
the Respondent’s training category II within UEFA, i.e. EUR 60,000 per year, which it
Page 4 of 12
TMS 10845
multiplied pro rata by the 17 months it deemed having had the player registered with,
i.e. as from 1 February 2018 until 30 June 2019.
5.
On 4 August 2022, the FIFA general secretariat notified the claim to the Respondent.
6.
On 5 September 2022, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant.
7.
The Respondent first held that, to the contrary of the Claimant’s allegations, the player
had actually terminated its training upon joining the latter because “this was not a player
who was actually trained, but rather a complete player who no longer required any training
with the Claimant and who was also not trained; rather, the Player was used from the
beginning and with full intensity as a regular player of the Claimant.”
8.
In particular, the Respondent referred to the player’s statistics with the Claimant (which
it submitted a copy of along its reply to the claim) and underlined the following:
- the player played in 13 league matches (7 times in the starting eleven) in the second
half of the 17/18 Slovakian top league and appeared in one cup match;
- the player played in the starting eleven in all 4 of the Claimant’s Uefa Europa League
qualifiers at the beginning of the 18/19 season;
- the player played in the starting eleven in all 22 league matches of the 18/19 Slovakian
top league (to the contrary of the Claimant’s captain, Thomas Huk, the statistics of which
were also submitted);
- the player appeared in 7 out of the 10 games during the championship phase of the
18/19 Slovakian top league and was in the starting eleven in 3 out of 4 cup matches
making him one with the most overall appearances within the Claimant’s team;
- the player was used in such a large number of matches in the 18/19 season that only
one other player (at the similar position) achieved the same, i.e. Máté Vida, the statistics
of which were also submitted);
- the player was in the squad for all matches of the U-21 national team (missing 1 match
due to an injury) and became captain of the U-21 national team of Slovakia during his
time with the Claimant;
- before joining the Respondent, the player had been loaned once more, to the Czech
club FC Viktoria Plzen, which competed in a league of higher level than the Claimant’s
league according to the UEFA ranking.
9.
Moreover, the Respondent argued that following a strict application of art. 2 par. 1 lit b)
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), no distinction is to be
made between loan and permanent transfers and as such, the Claimant can only claim
training compensation from the “next club”, irrespective of whether this transfer is a loan
transfer or a permanent transfer. As such, not being the “next club”, the Respondent held
that it did not owe training compensation to the Claimant.
10.
In continuation, the Respondent held that in the case of a loan transfer of the player
from the home club to the loaning club and in the case of the return of the player to his
Page 5 of 12
TMS 10845
home club at the end of the loan, training compensation is only payable if the loan
agreement between the clubs explicitly provides for this.
11.
As such, basing itself on the contents of the loan agreements of 1 February and 21 May
2018 concluded between the Claimant and the former club, the Respondent argued that
the said clubs did not explicitly provide for a “reservation” on the training compensation
and as such, the Claimant had waived the right to claim training compensation for the
period of the loan of the player.
12.
Finally, should the claim be accepted, the Respondent held that the player having been
registered with the Claimant during 131 days of the calendar year of his 20th birthday
and 345 days of the calendar year of his 21st birthday, i.e. total of 476 days, the due
amount of training compensation (if any) corresponded to EUR 78,000 only.
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): February 2021
edition
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (Procedural Rules):
June 2022 edition
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested
Admissibility:
Yes, uncontested
Decision:
1.
The claim of the Claimant is based on the player’s subsequent registration as a
professional with the Respondent.
2.
The Respondent rejected the claim arguing that, in its opinion: 1) the player had
terminated his training education while registered with the Claimant; 2) the Respondent
not being the player’s next club after the Claimant, no training compensation is due; and
3) the Claimant had waived its entitlement to training compensation by not explicitly
safeguarding said entitlement it in the loan agreements concluded with the former club.
3.
It is established through the SFZ and The FA player passports that the player was
registered with the Claimant as a professional, on loan from the former club
(Wolverhampton Wanderers FC), as from 5 February 2018 until 15 June 2018, as from 6
July 2018 until 31 December 2018, and as from 1 January 2019 until 15 June 2019,
respectively during 310 days of the calendar year of his 20th birthday and during 166
days of the calendar year of his 21st birthday, i.e. a total of 476 days.
Page 6 of 12
TMS 10845
4.
It is undisputed that the player registered on 20 July 2021 with the Respondent, as a
professional and coming directly from the former club, during the course of the calendar
year of his 23rd birthday.
5.
According to art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP, a player’s training and education takes
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 Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), the use of the
term “evident” 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. The player’s value at the former club (established through the salary, any loan
fee paid by loaning clubs, transfer fee paid);
c. Appearances at international level;
d. Number of loans when at the former club;
e. The player’s notoriety and reputation.
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, the Respondent relied on the player’s number of matches played while
registered with the Claimant, on his participation in Slovakia’s U-21 team before and
during his time with the Claimant and on his subsequent loan to a club competing in a
league of higher level than the one of the Claimant.
10.
Art. 13 par. 4 indicates that a chamber may consider and rely on any evidence not
presented by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within TMS.
11.
According to TMS, while registered with the former club, the player has been loaned to
the Claimant on two occasions and to the Czech club FC Viktoria Plzen on a free of
payment basis. Later on, the player has been loaned a third time to the Czech club MFK
Karvina a.s. against a fixed loan fee EUR 51,774.
Page 7 of 12
TMS 10845
12.
In other words, the former club has loaned the player to three different clubs, against
the payment of one and only loan fee, of a rather low financial level, and only after the
player had been registered with the Claimant.
13.
What is more, it appears that by means of loaning the player on three different occasions
without payment (or with a loan fee of a relatively low amount after the player had been
registered with the Claimant), the aim of the former club was to offer the player some
playing time in leagues of much lower level than the one of his parent club.
14.
In this respect, it can be noted that by loaning the player to three different clubs, the
player did not show effective progress in order for the former club to use his playing
skills among its squad within the frame of its national (and eventually international)
competitions.
15.
Furthermore, it appears that the player joined the Respondent on the basis of a transfer
against payment, however only on a conditional basis (sell-on fee of 25%). As such, it is
established that when concluding the transfer agreement with the Respondent, i.e. after
his past registrations with the Claimant, the former club did not request the payment of
a transfer fee in order to terminate the employment contract it had with the player.
16.
Finally, it does not appear that, given the player’s public notoriety during the relevant
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
world’s top clubs, misplacing as such to discuss training compensation for such a
worldwide known player.
17.
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, i.e. that there is no room for doubt,
nor that the Claimant made use of “a complete player who no longer required any training
with the Claimant and who was also not trained”. Therefore, the argument of the
Respondent in this sense shall be rejected.
18.
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
the end of the calendar year of the player’s 23rd birthday.
19.
As such training compensation is in principle due.
20.
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.
21.
As established by the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, when a player
registers with a club affiliated to a different member association (i.e. the new club, in
Page 8 of 12
TMS 10845
casu the Respondent) from the one where he was previously registered (i.e. the former
club, in casu Wolverhampton Wanderers FC), any club(s) that may have had the player
on loan from the player’s former club should be entitled to claim training compensation
from the new club (in casu the Claimant).
22.
In particular, it is considered that any loan(s) that took place during a player’s registration
with the former club did not interrupt the chain of entitlement of training compensation.
In other words, the period starting from the player’s original registration 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.
23.
As a result, despite the Claimant not being the former club stricto sensu, the
aforementioned jurisprudence applies and the argument of the Respondent in alleging
that the Claimant shall have no entitlement because the Respondent was not the player’s
“next club” after the Claimant shall be rejected.
24.
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 by means of which such clubs make a “reservation” on the
entitlement to training compensation of the Claimant which may be triggered by a
potential future transfer, in casu the registration with the Respondent.
25.
In other words, should the Claimant have implicitly or explicitly renounced (or not) to
training compensation in the loan agreement concluded with the former club has no
impact on the Claimant’s entitlement to training compensation from the Respondent as
established above.
26.
Therefore, the argument of the Respondent cannot be accepted.
27.
As such, the Single judge 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.
28.
As established in point II./.3. above, the player was registered with the Claimant, on loan
from the former club during 476 days of the calendar years of his 20th and 21st birthday.
29.
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, or, in casu the
Claimant, which had the player directly on loan from the former club.
30.
Upon registering the player, the Respondent was classified as a UEFA category II club.
Page 9 of 12
TMS 10845
31.
The amount to be taken into account in casu as training cost is EUR 60,000 per year, i.e.
the training costs set for UEFA category II clubs.
32.
Consequently, the Claimant is entitled to training compensation of EUR 78,246.57 for the
period of 476 days of training of the player during the calendar years of his 20th and 21st
birthday, i.e. EUR 50,958.90 for the 310 days of the calendar year of his 20th birthday and
EUR 27,287.67 for the 166 days of the calendar year of his 21st birthday.
33.
Furthermore, the Claimant requested to be awarded 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August
2021 until the date of effective payment.
34.
Taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as the well-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 20 August 2021 until the date
of effective payment.
35.
In view of all the above, the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and the Claimant
is entitled to receive EUR 78,246.57 as training compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. on
that amount, as from 20 August 2021 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
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).
37.
The succeeding party is the Claimant and the amount claimed in the present dispute
corresponded to EUR 85,000. Therefore, procedural costs levied in this respect shall not
exceed USD 10,000 (cf. art. 2 of Annexe 1 of the Procedural Rules).
38.
Taking into account that the Claimant’s claim is partially accepted, procedural costs in
the amount of USD 8,500 are to be paid by the parties as follows:
a. The amount of USD 1,000 shall be paid by the Claimant; and
b. The amount of USD 7,500 shall be paid by the Respondent.
39.
The relevant provisions of art. 24bis of the RSTP are applicable to the present matter.
Page 10 of 12
TMS 10845
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
▪
1.
The claim of the Claimant, FK DAC 1904 Dunajská Streda, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Grasshopper Club Zürich (SFL), has to pay to the Claimant EUR 78,246.57
as training compensation plus 5% interest p.a. as from 20 August 2021 until the date of
effective payment.
3.
Any further claim from the Claimant is 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 24bis 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 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 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of USD 8,500 are to be paid by the parties
to FIFA with the TMS reference number 10845 (cf. note relating to the payment of the
procedural costs below) as follows:
a. The amount of USD 1,000 shall be paid by the Claimant; and
b. The amount of USD 7,500 shall be paid by the Respondent.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 11 of 12
TMS 10845
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 par. 2 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 12 of 12