Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
TMS 11442
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 November 2022
regarding training compensation in relation with the registration of the
player Juan Camilo HERNANDEZ SUAREZ
BY:
Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Chairperson of the Dispute Resolution
Chamber of the Football Tribunal
CLAIMANT:
GETAFE CF SAD, Spain
RESPONDENT:
COLUMBUS CREW, USA
Page 2 of 13
TMS 11442
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Juan Camilo HERNANDEZ SUAREZ
Date of birth:
20 April 1999
Player passport: issued by the Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) – relevant
abstract below
Year
Birthday Club(s)
2020
21st
Getafe CF SAD
Registration dates
Status
14/09/20 – 31/12/20
Professional (on loan
from Watford)
2021
22nd
Getafe CF SAD
01/01/21 – 30/06/21
Professional (on loan
from Watford)
Date of transfer: 9 July 2022 from Watford (England) to Columbus Crew (USA) as a
professional
Claimant:
Getafe CF SAD (Spain)
Respondent:
Colombus Crew (USA)
CONCACAF cat. IV (USD 2,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 7 October 2022, the Claimant requested USD 11,945.20 as training
compensation “plus 5% p.a. interest as of the due date, until the date of effective
payment”. The Claimant is basing its claim on the jurisprudence developed by the
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.
2.
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) at the time of registration.
Page 3 of 13
TMS 11442
3.
Nevertheless, the Claimant pointed out that the Respondent was a team
competing in the first professional division in the USA, i.e. the Major League
Soccer (MLS) for “almost thirty years”.
4.
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,
the highest category available in the USA.
5.
As such, the Claimant argued that the Respondent was de facto a category II
CONCACAF club when registering a player before the end of the season of his
23rd birthday, and that as a consequence training compensation was due.
6.
On 24 October 2022, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant.
7.
The Respondent argued that, as per clause 6.2. of the loan agreement signed by
the Claimant and Watford, the Claimant expressly waived any future entitlement
to solidarity contribution and/or training compensation in relation to the time the
player was registered with the Claimant.
8.
In support, the Respondent provided an abstract of the said loan agreement.
9.
On 3 November 2022, the Claimant contested that clause 6.2. of the loan
agreement was to be considered a waiver of training compensation.
10. On 9 November 2022, the FIFA administration gave to the Respondent until 15
November 2022 to reply to the latest correspondence of the Claimant.
11. The Respondent did not upload any correspondence in TMS within the aforesaid
time limit.
12. On 15 November 2022, the Respondent sent an email to the FIFA administration,
indicating that “Due to difficulty filing a response in TMS”, the Respondent
communicated its reply by email.
13. According to the information available in TMS, the player was loaned from
Watford to the Claimant on 21 August 2020. In this respect, the clubs entered
into a loan agreement inter alia stipulating the following:
“6.2. [The Claimant] acknowledges and agrees that for the purposes of the calculation
of any amounts payable to the parties in the future in connection with the Player
under any applicable rules and regulations of the PL, the EFL and/or The FA (the
‘Domestic Regulations’) and/or the rules and regulations of UEFA and/or the FIFA
Page 4 of 13
TMS 11442
Regulations (the ‘International Regulations’), including (without limitation) any
payment for Training Compensation and/or Solidarity and/or any participation in
international football (or any similar or related or replacement obligations thereto)
(a ‘Player Payment’), Watford shall be deemed as having held the Player’s registration
for the Loan Period and any rights to such Player Payment which arise in the future
for such period, whether under the Domestic Regulations or the International
Regulations, shall accrue solely for the benefit of Watford and not [the Claimant]. If,
notwithstanding such agreement, [the Claimant] or any party on behalf of or for the
benefit of [the Claimant], makes any claim for or otherwise receives any such Player
Payment in respect of the Loan, [the Claimant] shall immediately notify Watford of
such receipt and pay to Watford an amount equal to the amount of such Player
Payment received.”
Page 5 of 13
TMS 11442
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): July 2022
edition
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (Procedural
Rules): June 2022 edition
Decision:
1.
The Respondent filed its duplica by email on 15 November 2022, that is to say
before the expiry of the deadline to do so.
2.
Art. 27 and 28 of the Procedural Rules, any submission made in the context of a
training reward dispute shall be made via TMS.
3.
The Respondent referred to alleged technical issues when sending its duplica via
email, without providing any evidence in support, such as screenshot of any
potential error message and/or proof that it had contacted the TMS Helpdesk to
report any issue with the TMS claim system.
4.
Therefore, the correspondence sent by the Respondent as duplica on 15
November 2022 shall not be taken into account.
5.
The claim of the Claimant is based on the subsequent registration of the player
as a professional with the Respondent.
6.
As per the RFEF player passport, the player was registered with the Claimant as
from 14 September 2020 until 30 June 2021, that is to say inter alia for 109 days
of the year of his 21st birthday.
7.
The player registered as a professional with the Respondent on 9 July 2022, that
is to say during the year of his 23rd birthday, transferring from Watford, where he
was registered as a professional.
8.
According to art. 2 par. 1 lit. b) of Annexe 4 RSTP, training compensation is due
when a professional is transferred between clubs of two different associations
(whether during or at the end of his contract) before the end of the calendar year
of his 23rd birthday.
9.
As such, training compensation is in principle due.
Page 6 of 13
TMS 11442
10. 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.
11. 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 Watford) any club(s) that may have had the player on loan from the
player’s former club (in casu the Claimant) should be entitled to claim training
compensation from the new club.
12. 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.
13. Therefore, training compensation is in principle due to the Claimant.
14. The Respondent was however classified as a training category IV club upon
registering the player as a professional.
15. 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.
16. Thus, no training compensation is in principle due.
17. Nevertheless, the Claimant argued that the Respondent was wrongly categorised
by the USSF, since the Respondent was part of the MLS since its inception in 1996,
and that as such, the Respondent should be categorized under CONCACAF
training category II, as per other MLS clubs based in the US.
18. The Respondent did not contest the Claimant’s request for recategorization.
19. 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 7 of 13
TMS 11442
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.
20. 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”.
21. According to FIFA Circular 1763 of 1 July 2021, the US Soccer Federation (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.
22. According to art. 5 par. 4 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the 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”.
23. In that regard, the DRC is aware that there are precedents where clubs have been
"re-categorised" on the basis of that provision.
24. The DRC held that the standard to “recategorize” a club should be high as it entails
an 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. In
fact, the referred FIFA Circular 1249, which establishes certain parameters and
guidelines for national associations to categorise their clubs, states that the DRC
Page 8 of 13
TMS 11442
will intervene only in cases of manifest discrepancy between the categorisation
assigned by the national association and the actual training costs of a club.
25. In the present matter, it is undisputed that the Respondent registered in TMS the
player as a professional on 9 July 2022, and that the Respondent is a team
participating in the MLS, the highest professional division in North America, a
competition itself one of the major professional leagues in CONCACAF.
26. 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.
27. In view of the foregoing considerations, the DRC decided to accept the Claimant's
request to “recategorize” the Respondent.
28. As to the training category to be assigned to the Respondent for training
compensation purposes, the Respondent has continuously been a member of
the MLS since 1996. As such, the Respondent is to be considered a wellestablished MLS club.
29. The MLS is the highest professional division in North America, including the USA.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. The assignment of category II CONCACAF to the Respondent is in line with recent
decisions of the DRC.
33. The player was inter alia registered with the Claimant as from 14 September 2020
until 31 December 2020, that is to say for 109 days of the year of his 21st birthday.
34. Consequently, the Claimant shall in principle be awarded USD 11,945.20 as
training compensation.
Page 9 of 13
TMS 11442
35. Nevertheless, the Respondent argued that in the context of the loan of the player
from Watford to the Claimant, the said clubs entered into a loan agreement, and
that the loan agreement contained a provision in its clause 6.2. stipulating that
any training reward that the Claimant would be potentially entitled to, after
having registered the player on loan from Watford, would apparently de facto be
due to Watford, and not the Claimant.
36. The loan agreement can only be interpreted against its signatories, that is to say
Watford and the Claimant. Equally, any representation made within the loan
agreement shall only be binding to Watford and the Claimant.
37. The Respondent was not a party to the agreement. Therefore, any provision
foreseen in the loan agreement by Watford and the Claimant cannot be used by
the Respondent as a valid reason to neglect its obligation to pay training
compensation, as established supra.
38. Consequently, in strict application of the provisions set forth in the RSTP, the
Respondent is obliged to pay training compensation to the Claimant even if the
Claimant and Watford had agreed otherwise in the loan agreement by means of
its clause 6.2.
39. In view of all the above, the Claimant shall be awarded USD 11,945.20 as training
compensation for the training and education it provided to the player during the
109 days of registration during the year of his 21st birthday.
40. What is more, in line with the practice of the DRC as well as the request of the
Claimant, it is established that the Respondent shall pay to the Claimant 5%
interest per annum calculated as from the 31st day after the payment of the
second instalment of the transfer fee became due to the Claimant, that is to say
as from 9 August 2022, until effective payment.
41. The claim of the Claimant is accepted.
42. According to art. 25 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, procedural costs are payable
for disputes between clubs regarding the payment of training rewards.
43. The Claimant claimed the amount of USD 11,945.20.
44. Thus, the amount claimed by the Claimant corresponds to an amount lower than
USD 49,999. Therefore, procedural costs levied in this respect are fixed to USD
5,000 (cf. art. 2 of Annexe 1 to the Procedural Rules.
Page 10 of 13
TMS 11442
45. According to art. 25 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the chamber will decide the
amount that each party is due to pay, in consideration of the parties’ degree of
success and their 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.
46. In view the specific circumstances of the case, procedural costs shall be set at
USD 2,000.
47. In view of the outcome of the claim, said costs shall be borne by the Respondent.
48. Art. 24 RSTP is applicable.
Page 11 of 13
TMS 11442
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1. The claim of the Claimant, Getafe CF SAD, is accepted.
2. The Respondent, Columbus Crew, shall pay to the Claimant USD 11,945.20 as
training compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. on that amount, as from 9 August
2022 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 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.
6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of USD 2,000 are to be paid by
the Respondent to FIFA with reference to case no. TMS 11442.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 12 of 13
TMS 11442
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 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