Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
REF TMS 11957
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 October 2024
regarding training compensation for the player Lukas Maximiliano
GONZALEZ JACKSON
BY:
Ms. Lívia Silva Kägi (Brazil & Switzerland), Chairwoman;
Mr. Tomislav Kasalo (Croatia), Member; and
Mr. Khalid Al-Thebity (Saudi Arabia), Member.
CLAIMANT:
RIVER PLATE - SALTO, Uruguay
RESPONDENT:
C.F. Fuenlabrada SAD, Spain
Page 2 of 16
REF TMS 11957
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Lukas Maximiliano GONZALEZ JACKSON
Date of birth:
11 February 2002
Player passports:
- issued by the Asociación Uruguaya de Fútbol (AUF):
Year
Birthday
Club(s)
Registration dates
Status
12
th
2014
RIVER PLATE
01/01/14
31/12/14
Amateur
2015
13
th
RIVER PLATE
01/01/15
31/12/15
Amateur
2016
14
th
RIVER PLATE
SALTO
22/01/16
31/12/16
Amateur
2017
15th
RIVER PLATE
SALTO
01/01/17
31/12/17
Amateur
2018
16
th
RIVER PLATE
SALTO
01/01/18
31/12/18
Amateur
2019
17
th
RIVER PLATE
SALTO
01/01/19
31/12/19
Amateur
2020
18
th
RIVER PLATE
SALTO
01/01/20
31/12/20
Amateur
2021
19
th
RIVER PLATE
SALTO
01/01/21
03/02/21
Amateur
- issued by the Real Federación Española de Fútbol (RFEF):
Year
Birthday
2021
19
19
Club(s)
Registration dates
th
C.F. Fuenlabrada SAD
26/02/21
30/06/21
Professional
th
C.F.
01/03/21
01/03/21
Professional
Trivial
Valderas
Status
Alcorcon
Date of registration:
26 February 2021 with C.F. Fuenlabrada SAD (Spain)
Claimant club:
RIVER PLATE
Respondent club:
C.F. Fuenlabrada SAD (Spain)
SALTO (Uruguay)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 5 December 2022, the Claimant lodged the present claim and requested for the
payment of EUR 224,792.62 as training compensation plus 5% interest p.a. as from the
due date of payment.
2.
This claim was filed after the FIFA administration administratively closed TMS 10430,
given the existence of a waiver in the TMS transfer instruction from the Claimant to the
Respondent.
Page 3 of 16
REF TMS 11957
3.
The Claimant is of the opinion that the waiver uploaded in the TMS transfer instruction
is a forged document.
4.
The Claimant stated it celebrated an agreement with the Spanish club PARACUELLOS for
the transfer of another one of its players, i.e. Mr. Alan Deavids ARANDA FREITAS.
5.
The Claimant highlighted that the financial conditions for the transfer of the
abovementioned third player was a 10% sell-on with a minimum payment of USD
160,000.
6.
The transfer agreement allegedly celebrated between the Claimant and PARACUELLOS
is provided by the former as evidence.
7.
Moreover, the Claimant provided a waiver towards PARACUELLOS which states:
A quien corresponda,
River Plate F.C. deja constancia que renuncia a reclamar al club CDB Paracuellos
Altamira o al Club este indique, los derechos de formación del jugador Alan Deavids
Aranda Freitas, tal como surge del contrato de transferencia que firmó con el
referido club.
Por River Plate FC
Julio Rodriguez
8.
The Claimant continues its argumentation by stating that on 28 August 2020, it
celebrated with PARACUELLOS an agreement for the transfer of the player involved in
the present dispute.
9.
The financial conditions of the abovementioned agreement, allegedly celebrated with
PARACUELLOS, was a 25% sell-on with a minimum payment of USD 417,000.
10.
The transfer agreement allegedly celebrated between the Claimant and PARACUELLOS
is provided by the former as evidence.
11.
The Claimant mentions it does not recall having issued a waiver towards PARACUELLOS
regarding the player involved in the present dispute.
12.
The Claimant emphasized that neither the transfer of Alan Deavids ARANDA FREITAS nor
the one of the player in the present dispute was concluded and that both players
returned to the Claimant after training sessions with PARACUELLOS.
Page 4 of 16
REF TMS 11957
13.
The Claimant provided as evidence of the return of the player a match sheet with him
involved in a match the Claimant on 17 December 2020.
14.
For comparison of documents, the Claimant presents as evidence the waiver it sent to
PARACUELLOS for Alan Deavids ARANDA FREITAS, and what it alleges being counterfeits
for the same player and for the one in the present dispute.
15.
These read:
- Original waiver issued for the benefit of PARACUELLOS:
A quien corresponda,
River Plate F.C. deja constancia que renuncia a reclamar al club CDB Paracuellos Altamira
o al Club este indique, los derechos de formación del jugador Alan Deavids Aranda Freitas,
tal como surge del contrato de transferencia que firmó con el referido club.
- Alleged counterfeit regarding Alan Deavids ARANDA FREITAS:
Salto, 31 de julio de 2020.
A quien corresponda,
River Plate F.C. deja constancia que renuncia a reclamar los derechos de formación del
jugador Alan Deavids Aranda Freitas, tal como surge del contrato de transferencia que
firmó.
- Alleged counterfeit regarding the player of the present dispute:
A quien corresponda,
River Plate F.C. deja constancia que renuncia a reclamar los derechos de formación del
jugador Lukas Maximiliano Gonzalez, tal como surge del contrato de transferencia que
firmó.
Page 5 of 16
REF TMS 11957
16.
Firstly, the Claimant emphasized that on its opinion while the original waiver contains its
email, phone number and address on the bottom, the alleged counterfeit ones do not.
17.
Secondly, the Claimant stated that the original is in red colour and the alleged
counterfeits in orange.
18.
Thirdly, the Claimant emphasizes that the original maintains the same text format, size
tone than the rest of the text as if they were included a posteriori.
19.
Fourthly, the original waiver provides the full name of Alan Deavids ARANDA FREITAS,
and the alleged counterfeit does not present the full name of the player in the present
dispute as it would not fit the same space.
20.
Fifthly, the alleged counterfeit presents the same date of the original waiver regarding
another player, even if the transfer agreement between Claimant and PARACUELLOS for
the player of the present dispute was only celebrated on 28 August 2020.
21.
tal como surge
del contrato de transferencia que firmó
transfer agreement with the Respondent.
22.
Lastly, the Claimant provided the analysis of an alleged expert who concluded that the
alleged counterfeits were false documents.
23.
In conclusion, the Claimant emphasized it never negotiated the abovementioned players
with the Respondent and that it never issued any document for the benefit of the latter
and that it is entitled to receive as training compensation the amount of EUR 224,792.62
5% interest p.a. as from the due date of payment.
24.
In its reply to the claim, the Respondent that it received the waivers contested by the
Claimant from intermediaries stating to represent the latter.
25.
The Respondent states that these same intermediaries were involved in the transfer
attempt of both players referred above to PARACUELLOS.
26.
The Respondent is of the opinion that the presentation of the false waivers may have
been coordinated with the Claimant to have the Respondent sign the players and later
claim the receipt of training compensation.
27.
quien proporcionaron dichos documentos
apócrifos y al ser indagado telefónicamente, fue el mismo William quien se incriminó al
Page 6 of 16
REF TMS 11957
se ofreció a firmar una declaración, donde él mismo se hiciera responsable de lo sucedido y
donde dejara constancia que ante una eventual disputa judicial, el Club uruguayo fuera
contra él y no contra el Fuenlabrada
28.
The Respondent emphasizes it was misled by the Claimant with the presentation of the
waivers and that only for this reason it registered the players as professionals.
29.
The Respondent states that it registered the players with an employment contract valid
from 27 January 2021 until 30 June 2021.
30.
However, the player was only registered with the Respondent by the RFEF on 26
level, three days later he was transferred to C.F. Trivial Valderas Alcorcon, where he
allegedly stayed until 30 June 2021, when he returned to Uruguay.
31.
by presenting a news report from an Uruguayan website from 12 February 2021 in which
Desde los dirigentes del River
un señal por el jugador
32.
The Respondent stated it started criminal proceedings against the intermediaries in
Uruguay and it asked the FIFA to suspend these proceedings until a national court
decision is issued.
33.
Subsidiarily, given the recognition of the validity of the waiver provided to PARACUELLOS
regarding the player Alan Deavids, the Respondent states it was designated by the latter
as beneficiary of such a waiver for both this player and the one of the present dispute,
so no training compensation would be due.
34.
The Respondent provided as evidence a document allegedly issued by PARACUELLOS, in
which the latter transfers the waiver it received from the Claimant to the Respondent.
35.
Alternatively, the Respondent states the player was already a professional at the
Claimant and that as from 31 August 2020, and that any training compensation due
should be limited between then and the registration of the player with the Respondent.
36.
In replica, the Claimant emphasized the Respondent did not contest the waivers it
presented could be false ones.
37.
Moreover, it stated that the Respondent should be more due diligent and contact the
Claimant directly instead of taking the word of an alleged intermediary. Also, the
Claimant highlighted that any dispute between the Respondent and the intermediaries
it mentions, do not regard the Claimant.
Page 7 of 16
REF TMS 11957
38.
The Claimant said that it is unsure about the issuance of a waiver to PARACUELLOS
regarding the player involved in the present dispute. Moreover, it highlighted neither
party provided it as evidence.
39.
The Claimant is of the opinion that even if it had issued such a waiver towards
PARACUELLOS, that this document could not have been transferred for the benefit of
the Respondent.
40.
The Claimant stated the interview referred by the Respondent regarded the expected
move of the players to PARACUELLOS with no fixed payment, but only a sell-on, which
was not concluded.
41.
The Claimant also emphasized that it was not aware about the registration of the players
by the Respondent when the news report was published.
42.
tal como surge del
contrato de transferencia que firmó
Respondent, which would increase the evidence of the document being allegedly false.
43.
In final allegations, the Respondent argued that the previously mentioned news report
clearly referred to the registration of the players with it.
44.
The Respondent claimed that the Claimant should be considered involved in the
falsification of the waivers that mislead it.
45.
The Respondent argued it is entitled to have transferred the alleged waiver attributed to
PARACUELLOS.
46.
Alternatively, the Respondent is of the opinion that it should only pay training
compensation regarding the period in which the player was a professional with the
Claimant, that is between 31 August 2020 and the registration of the player in Spain on
26 February 2021.
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): 2021 edition
Rules
the Dispute Resolution Chamber (Procedural Rules): March 2023 edition
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested
Admissible:
Yes, uncontested
Page 8 of 16
REF TMS 11957
Decision:
1.
The claim of the Claimant is based on the first registration of the player as a professional
with the Respondent.
2.
Art. 2 par. 1 lit. i) of Annexe 4 RSTP stipulates that training compensation is due when a
player is registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of
his 23rd birthday.
3.
Art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 RSTP foresees that on registering as a professional for the first
time, the club with which the player is registered is responsible for paying training
compensation within 30 days of registration to every club with which the player has
the player passport) and that has contributed to his training starting from 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.
4.
Even if the Respondent provided a statement from the Claimant stating the player was
registered as a professional with the latter, the AUF player passport showed the player
uninterruptedly registered as an amateur from the age of 12 until the age of 19.
5.
Moreover, in the event the player would have been registered as a professional with the
Claimant, he would still have been uninterruptedly registered with the latter since the
age of 12, meaning training compensation would be due for the whole registration
period and not only for an eventual last one as a professional in accordance with the
provisions of Article 20 and Annex 4 RSTP.
6.
Thus, based on the above, it is determined that the registration of the player with the
Respondent constituted a first professional registration in the sense of the RSTP.
7.
As a consequence, training compensation is due to every club with which the player has
the player passport) and that has contributed to his training starting from the year of his
12th birthday, and on a pro rata basis if less than one year (cf. art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4
RSTP).
8.
In this respect, according to the player passport issued by AUF, the player was registered
with the Claimant as from 1 January 2014 until 3 February 2021, that is to say during:
a. The entire year of his 12th birthday;
Page 9 of 16
REF TMS 11957
b. The entire year of his 13th birthday;
c. 343 days of his 14th birthday;
d. The entire year of his 15th birthday;
e. The entire year of his 16th birthday;
f.
The entire year of his 17th birthday;
g. The entire year of his 18th birthday; and
h. 34 days of the year of his 19th birthday.
9.
In accordance with the RFEF player passport, the player registered as a professional with
the Respondent on 26 February 2021, i.e. year of his 19th birthday.
10.
In view of the above, training compensation is in principle due to the Claimant.
11.
The Respondent alleged that the Claimant had waived its right to receive training
compensation by means of a document issued on 31 July 2020, uploaded by the
Respondent in TMS.
12.
The validity and authenticity of the aforementioned waiver presented by the Respondent
is disputed by the Claimant.
13.
As per the jurisprudence of the DRC, the validity of a waiver in the context of the
entitlement to receive training compensation is subject to a clear and unequivocal
declaration by the party concerned and requires a clear language which reflects such
part
14.
In other words, the above jurisprudence requires a document:
a. Containing a clear and unequivocal renouncement to training compensation;
and
b. Issued by the party concerned by such renouncement.
15.
The alleged waiver is considered to be potentially a counterfeit by both the Claimant and
the Respondent.
16.
The Claimant attributes the counterfeit to the Respondent and the latter to the former.
17.
On the one hand, the Claimant states it provided a waiver, also dated 31 July 2020,
regarding another player (Alan Deavids ARANDA FREITAS) to a third club PARACUELLOS
in addition to the relevant transfer agreement. The Claimant stated that it also
celebrated a transfer agreement for the player of the present dispute with a
Page 10 of 16
REF TMS 11957
PARACUELLOS, but claims a waiver of training compensation was not issued in that
specific transfer. Finally, neither of the players were effectively registered with this third
club, PARACUELLOS, and the transfer contracts did not come into effect.
18.
The Claimant is of the opinion that the waiver for the player Alan Deavids ARANDA
FREITAS in the context of the failed registration with PARACUELLOS was used as a
template for a counterfeit regarding the present dispute.
19.
The Claimant provides an analysis allegedly done by an expert that states the alleged
waiver is a counterfeit.
20.
On the other hand, the Respondent argues the alleged counterfeit waiver may be false
but that it must have been forged with the participation of the Claimant.
21.
Moreover, it argues that a potential waiver, involving the player in this dispute and
attributed to PARACUELLOS was transferred by the latter to the Respondent for its
benefit. A copy of such a waiver, however, was not provided by the Respondent and the
Claimant claims such document does not exist. The only undisputed as to its existence
only
waiver regards another player, Alan Deavids ARANDA FREITAS, in the context of
his failed potential transfer to PARACUELLOS in July 2020.
22.
In accordance with art. 13, par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, a party that asserts a fact has
the burden of proving it. While the Claimant provided evidence and arguments to
question the validity of the waiver provided by the Respondent in TMS, the latter did not
surpass the necessary threshold to have the waiver being confirmed as such.
23.
Moreover, the Respondent is currently suing the intermediaries that provided the TMS
waiver, which indicates the Respondent also understands the waiver as potentially false.
The Respondent, while lodging a criminal claim against the providers of the possibly
counterfeit waiver in TMS and simultaneously defending itself in the training
compensation claim at FIFA based on this very document, contravenes the legal principle
of non venire contra factum proprium.
24.
Furthermore, the Respondent relied on the documentation it received from the alleged
intermediary
not from the Claimant directly
and did not contact the Claimant to
ensure that the waiver had been issued by one of the club officials. Therefore, we
understand that the Respondent did not act with sufficient diligence when verifying the
provenience of the waiver.
Page 11 of 16
REF TMS 11957
25.
Therefore, it cannot be established that the alleged waiver was duly issued by Claimant
to the Respondent.
26.
In other words, based on the evidence on file, it appears that the Respondent registered
the player as a professional for the first time and assumed that the Claimant would not
seek training compensation on the basis of a document he received directly from an
alleged intermediary, without any possibility to trace said document directly or indirectly
back from to the alleged issuer, i.e. the Claimant.
27.
confirmation from the Claimant, the Respondent acted with negligence.
28.
One would expect from an established professional club in Spain to ensure that, before
registering a player as a professional for the first time, it would seek to obtain
would be claimed.
29.
Consequently, the Respondent shall bear the legal consequences of its lack of due
diligence, and training compensation is due to the Claimant on the basis of the first
professional registration of the player with the Respondent.
30.
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.
31.
At the time of registration, the Respondent was classified as a training category II club.
Training costs for category II clubs within UEFA are set at EUR 60,000 per year.
32.
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. Art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP stipulates that ensure
that training compensation for very young players is not set at unreasonably high levels,
the training costs for players for the seasons between their 12th and 15th birthdays (i.e.
four seasons) shall be based on the training and education costs of category IV clubs.
33.
Training costs for category IV clubs within UEFA are set at EUR 10,000 per year.
Page 12 of 16
REF TMS 11957
34.
Consequently, on the basis of the first registration of the player as a professional with
the Respondent, the Claimant should in principle be entitled to receive training
compensation in the amount of EUR 224,986.30:
a. EUR 10,000 for the training and education of the player during the full year of
his 12th birthday;
b. EUR 10,000 for the training and education of the player during the full year of
his 13th birthday;
c. EUR 9,397.26 for the training and education of the player during the full year
of his 14th birthday;
d. EUR 10,000 for the training and education of the player during the full year of
his 15th birthday;
e. EUR 60,000 for the training and education of the player during the full year of
his 16th birthday;
f.
EUR 60,000 for the training and education of the player during the full year of
his 17th birthday;
g. EUR 60,000 for the training and education of the player during the full year of
his 18th birthday; and
h. EUR 5,589.04 for the training and education of the player during 34 days of his
19th birthday.
35.
Nevertheless, the Claimant limited its claim to EUR 224,792.62.
36.
Consequently, in line with the legal principle of non ultra petita, the claim of the Claimant
is accepted and the Claimant shall be awarded EUR 224,792.62.
37.
Furthermore, the Claimant requested to be awarded interest amounting to 5% per
annum as from the due date of payment.
38.
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 26 March 2021 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 EUR 224,792.62 as training compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. on that
amount, as from 26 March 2021 until the date of effective payment.
Page 13 of 16
REF TMS 11957
40.
According to art. 25 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, procedural costs are payable for
disputes between clubs regarding the payment of training rewards.
41.
The Claimant claimed the amount of EUR 224,792.62. Thus, the amount claimed by the
Claimant corresponds to an amount higher than USD 200,000.
42.
Therefore, procedural costs levied in this respect are fixed at USD 25,000 (cf. art. 2 of
Annexe 1 to the Procedural Rules.
43.
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.
44.
In view the specific circumstances of the case, procedural costs shall be set at USD
25,000.
45.
In view of the outcome of the claim, said costs shall be borne by the Respondent in full.
Page 14 of 16
REF TMS 11957
III. DECISION
1.
The claim of the Claimant, RIVER PLATE SALTO, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, C.F. Fuenlabrada SAD, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of
USD 224,792.62 as as training compensation plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26 March 2021,
until the date of effective payment.
3.
Full payment 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 in accordance
with article 24 paragraphs 7 and 8 and article 25 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players.
6.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of USD 25,000.00 are to be paid by the
Respondent to FIFA reference to case no. TMS 11957 (cf. note relating to the payment of
the procedural costs below).
For the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 15 of 16
REF TMS 11957
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 Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 16 of 16
www.fi