Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
REF TMS 10724
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 22 August 2022
regarding training compensation for the transfer of the player Jeanpiero Antonio
Antequera Zacchey
BY:
Frans de
Chairperson
Weger
(the
Netherlands),
CLAIMANT:
Portuguesa FC, Venezuela
RESPONDENT:
Mosta, Malta
Page 2 of 11
REF TMS 10724
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Jeanpiero Antonio Antequera Zacchey
Date of birth:
18 June 2002
Player passport issued on 23 November 2021 by the Federación Venezolana de Fútbol (FVF):
Year
Birthday Club(s)
2014-2017
12 –
Academia
15th
Richard
th
Registration dates
Status
28.09.2014-07.03.2017
Amateur
(Permanent)
Bolivar
2017
15
th
2018
16
th
Portuguesa FC
07.03.2017-31.12.2017
Amateur
(Permanent)
Portuguesa FC
01.01.2018-31.12.2018
Amateur
(Permanent)
2019
17th
Portuguesa FC
20.02.2019-31.12.2019
Amateur
(Permanent)
2020
18th
Academia
14.02.2020-11.09.2020
Richard
Amateur
(Permanent)
Bolivar
Season: from 1 January until 31 December (Venezuela)
Date of transfer:
17 September 2020 from Academia de Futbol Richard Bolivar (Venezuela)
to Mosta FC (Malta). Instruction in TMS “engage permanently (out of
contract)”
Claimant club:
Portuguesa FC, Venezuela
Respondent club:
Mosta (Malta), UEFA training category IV, EUR 10,000 per year
Claim and Response:
1.
On 6 July 2022, the Claimant requested the payment of EUR 64,109 from the Respondent
as training compensation, on the basis of the first registration of the player as
professional with the latter, plus 5% interests p.a. as from the relevant due date.
2.
The Claimant requested FIFA to consider the Respondent a UEFA category III club.
Page 3 of 11
REF TMS 10724
3.
In this respect, the Claimant referred to art. 5 par. 4 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP in
accordance with which the DRC may review disputes concerning the amount of training
compensation payable and shall have discretion to adjust this amount if it is clearly
disproportionate to the case under review.
4.
The Claimant referred to the circular 1249 of 6 December 2010 as well as to the FIFA
Circular no. 1726 dated 30 July 2020, which indicates that the Malta could classify its
affiliated clubs in two categories, i.e. III and IV, and pointed out that because the
Respondent participated in the first division in Malta it should be considered a UEFA
training category III.
5.
In this context, the Claimant referred to a decision of the Single Judge of the DRC dated
14 February 2020 “in a dispute between Canon Yaounde, Cameroon and SC Rheindord
Altach, Austria” where the latter was recategorized from a UEFA category IV to a UEFA
category II club.
6.
According to the Claimant, “in the case at hand should the Respondent be considered a
Category 4 club (..) 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 subsequently
registered the player, a professional club in its country and one of the first division clubs in
Austria, a country were all First Division clubs should in principle be considered as Category
II, on the basis that said new club is wrongly categorized by its National Association in FIFATMS.”
7.
The Claimant further stated that “this situation will allow the Respondent which has a
professional structure and marked value of around EUR 2,490,000 (..) to benefit of the
training provided by the Claimant without paying any training rewards.”
8.
As per the Claimant, “(..) it is important to point out that the Respondent has several partners
and sponsors (..). the Respondent also had several sponsors in 2014. This shows that even
though the specific sponsors have changed, the Respondent benefits from a continuous
support from sponsors rather than a sporadic one.”
9.
According to the Claimant, “the philosophy of Mosta FC is their commitment to prioritize
player development (…)”. The Claimant added that the Respondent had obtained the
Category A license by the Youth & Grassroots Committee of the MFA for the season 20212022 and clarified that in order to receive such license it had to “comply with the Section
XII Regulations for Youth Football of the MFA, and more precisely the Regulations for the
Licensing of Football Academies enacted by the MFA. Mosta FC is required to have at least
one group of registered players for the under 9,11, 13, 15 and 17 categories.”
10.
The Claimant deemed that the mentioned license indicated clearly that the Respondent
had a well-established academy for the recruitment and development of young players.
Page 4 of 11
REF TMS 10724
11.
The Claimant further mentioned that the Respondent had allocated “to the Mosta
Football Nursery moneys during the years 2019 and 2020, 2021.”
12.
In this context, the Claimant referred to a financial report of the Respondent and
additionally pointed out that it also indicated “which are the income and profit that Mosta
FC obtained from investing in the youth academy in the years 2019 and 2020. The income
obtained in 2019 was of EUR 52,515 which increased in 2020 to EUR 59,943.”
13.
The Claimant also deemed that “this shows that in order to have a considerable profit, the
Respondent had to make a considerable financial investment first to achieve the latter return.
Moreover the increase in the return on investment can generate the expectation that Mosta
FC will increase their investment in the youth academy in order to reach a higher income and
profit in the future.”
14.
The Claimant addionally mentioned that the Respondent was fined by the MFA Control
and Disciplinary Board in 2017 “for making undue payments to a player that was registered
as amateur with the MFA” and indication that the Respondent “in fact invests in training
players (..).”
15.
In continuation, the Claimant alleged that because the Respondent had played in the
first round of the UEFA Conference League qualifiers in the 2021/2022 season it
complied with “Section XIII Rules Governing Member Clubs Part A: MFA Club Licensing
Regulations for Participation in UEFA Club Competitions. This results in further youth
academy investment obligations for Mosta FC.”
16.
In the opinion of the Claimant, the above indicated that the Respondent “must have a
youth development programme for the following three to seven years starting from 21/22
season” and has to meet the following minimum requirements: “for youth academy teams,
with one coach assigned to each team responsible for football matters, one doctor or
physiotherapist responsible for medical care of the youth academy and appropriate facilities
for training and playing matches. Furthermore, Mosta FC is obliged to provide football
education to develop playing, technical, tactical and physical skills and also education
programmes concerning Laws of the Game anti-doping integrity anti-racism.”
17.
As further alleged by the Claimant, “In order to comply with the abovementioned
requirements, Mosta FC is obliged to allocate substantial amount of financial resources (..).”
18.
Finally, the Claimant provided the following calculation:
Page 5 of 11
REF TMS 10724
Age
Registered with Duration
the Claimant
15
07.03.201731.12.2017
0101.01.201831.12.2018
20.02.201931.12.2019
16
17
Total:
300 days
Training costs Training
p.a. (Cat. II of compensation
UEFA)
EUR 10,000
EUR 8,219
365 days
EUR 30,000
EUR 30,000
315 days
EUR 30,000
EUR 25,890
980 days
EUR 64,109
19.
The Respondent rejected the claim arguing that it had been correctly categorized by its
association as a UEFA category IV training club.
20.
The Respondent pointed out that its only source of income were sponsors and that the
data provided by the Claimant in this regard were irrelevant as they concerned the years
2014 and 2017.
21.
The Respondent added that it was a non profit organization run by volunteers and that
it was “administered as a dilettante, voluntary organization.”
22.
In continuation, the Respondent alleged that the player had never been fielded by it.
From its point of view it would be “absurd and goes against the principle of proportionality
to exceed to the request of the claiming club to impugn the categorization (..) and
subsequently to afford any form of training compensation to the claiming club, when the
respondent did not benefit in any shape or form from such registration.”
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): July 2020
edition.
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (Procedural Rules):
June 2022edition.
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested
Admissible:
Yes, uncontested
Page 6 of 11
REF TMS 10724
Decision:
1.
The Claimant is requesting the payment of EUR 64,109 as training compensation for the
first registration of the player as professional with the Respondent.
2.
It remained uncontested that the player was registered for the first time as professional
with the Respondent.
3.
In line with art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 to the RSTP, training compensation shall be payable,
as a general rule, up to the age of 23 for training incurred up to the age of 21.
4.
As per art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 to the RSTP, on registering a player as professional for
the first time the club with which the player is registered is responsible for paying
training compensation to every club with which the player has previously been
registered and that has contributed to his training from the calendar year of his 12th
birthday.
5.
According to art. 2 par. 2 lit. ii) of Annexe 4 RSTP, no training compensation is due to the
former club of the player when said player was subsequently registered with a category
IV club.
6.
The Respondent was classified as a training category IV club upon registering the player
as a professional.
7.
Based on the above, no training compensation should in principle be due to the
Claimant.
8.
The Claimant argued that the Respondent was wrongly categorized by the MFA and that
the latter should be considered an UEFA category III club, as it competes in the Maltese
first division and invests in youth development.
9.
The Respondent contested the allegations of the Claimant.
10.
According to the guidelines, firstly established in FIFA Circular 769 and re-published in
FIFA Circular no. 1249 of 6 December 2010 the national federations should allocate their
affiliated clubs as follows:
a. Category I (top-level, high-quality training center): 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;
Page 7 of 11
REF TMS 10724
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.
11.
The FIFA Circular 1249 additionally indicated 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”.
12.
According to FIFA Circular no. 1726 of 30 July 2020, Malta may classify its clubs between
four training categories, i.e.:
a. Category III, with training costs of EUR 30,000 per year; and
b. Category IV, with training costs of EUR 10,000 per year.
13.
Hence, Malta has access to the above two training categories to classify its affiliated
clubs.
14.
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.”
15.
The DRC has made use of that provision several times in the past in order to
“recategorise” clubs.
16.
In more recent decisions, the DRC has established that when assessing whether a cub
should be “recategorized” or not, the standard should be set higher as it used to be. This
because the recategorisation of a club entails an effective usurp of a power conferred to
the national associations by art. 4 par. 1 of Annex 4 RSTP, which, in the DRC’s opinion,
are in principle better placed to determine what are the training and education costs of
their member clubs.
17.
In fact, the referred FIFA Circular 1249, which establishes certain parameters and
guidelines for national associations to categorise their clubs, clearly states that the DRC
will intervene only in cases of manifest discrepancy between the categorisation assigned
by the national association and the actual training costs of a club.
18.
The argument presented by the Claimant to request the re-categorisation of the
Respondent from Category IV to Category III is mainly that the Respondent participates
in the first division in Malta and that the latter invests in youth development.
Page 8 of 11
REF TMS 10724
19.
In line with the recent jurisprudence of the DRC, such allegations alone, cannot meet the
standard of "manifest discrepancy" between the category given by the MFA and the one
requested by the Claimant.
20.
In support of its allegation, the Claimant only provided several screenshots from the
internet and made reference to several internet pages. From such documentation alone
it cannot be established that we are facing a situation where a well-established first
division club is consistently assigned to a national association’s lowest category, with the
possible aim of protecting it against training compensation claims.
21.
Secondly, the Claimant failed to provide any information and documentation indicating
the training and education costs incurred by the Respondent for its players. As a result,
such costs cannot be established.
22.
In that regard, the Claimant failed to submit enough evidence to suggest that the
Respondent was wrongly categorised by its association, for instance that the club had
first-level training facilities, highly paid youth coaches or achieved considerable sporting
success in the recent past.
23.
In view of the foregoing considerations and because there is no evidence in casu that
would indicate a clear discrepancy of the Respondent’s current categorisation as UEFA
training club IV, the Claimant's request to “recategorize” the Respondent has to be
rejected.
24.
As a result the Respondent is a UEFA training category IV.
25.
Consequently, in line with art. 2 par. 2 lit. ii) of Annexe 4 RSTP, training compensation is
not due for the subsequent registration of the player with the Respondent.
26.
As such, the claim of the Claimant is rejected.
23.
Procedural costs in the maximum amount of USD 25,000 may be levied for decisions
passed by the Single Judge of the DRC in disputes related to solidarity contribution (cf.
art. 2 of Annexe 1 of the Procedural Rules).
24.
The amount claimed by the Claimant is more than 50,000 and less than 99,999.99.
25.
In consideration of the amount claimed by the Claimant, costs of the current
proceedings shall be set at USD 3,000.
26.
In view of the fact that the claim of the Claimant is rejected, the costs shall be borne by
the Claimant.
Page 9 of 11
REF TMS 10724
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Portuguesa FC, is rejected.
2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of USD 3,000 are to be paid to FIFA
with reference to case no. TMS 10724 by the Claimant (cf. note relating to the payment
of the procedural costs below).
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 10 of 11
REF TMS 10724
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
Pursuant to article 57 paragraph 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against
before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) 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 11 of 11