Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
REF TMS 11204
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 24 April 2024
regarding training compensation for the player Daniel Mateo RODAS
JIMENEZ
BY:
Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member
CLAIMANT:
TIGRES F.C, Colombia
RESPONDENT:
Orlando City SC, USA
Page 2 of 9
REF TMS 11204
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Daniel Mateo RODAS JIMENEZ
Date of birth:
11 January 1998
Player passport:
issued by Federación Colombiana de Fútbol (COLFUTBOL) on 1 February
2022:
Season
Club
Period
Player Status
Nature of registration
2022
Patriotas
From 03.01.2022
Professional
Permanent
2021
Patriotas
From 04.01.2021
Professional
Permanent
Professional
Permanent
Professional
Permanent
Amateur
Permanent
Amateur
Permanent
Amateur
Permanent
Amateur
Permanent
Amateur
Permanent
to 22.12.2021
2020
Orlando City
From 13.02.2020
to 30.11.2020
2019
Tigres F.C
From 12.02.2019
to 12.12.2019
2019
2018
2017/2018
Barranquilla FC
From 08.02.2018
(Div Inferiores)
to 31.12.2019
Udinese Football
From 07.02.2018
School
to 08.02.2018
Deportivo Cali
From 03.02.2017
(Cantera)
to 03.01.2018
2016/2017 Udinese Football
School
2008/2016 Equidad Seguros
From 28.04.2016
to 18.01.2017
From 04.03.2008
to 25.04.2016
Date of transfer:
18 February 2020 from TIGRES F.C. (Colombia) to Orlando City SC (USA)
(permanent/ free of payment (out of contract)/ as professional)
Claimant club:
TIGRES F.C, Colombia
CONMEBOL, category IV (EUR 2,000 per year)
Respondent club: Orlando City SC, USA
CONCACAF, category IV (EUR 2,000 per year)
Page 3 of 9
REF TMS 11204
Claim and Response:
1.
On 13 September 2022, the Claimant requested the payment of USD 33.315,07 plus 5%
p.a. interest as of the due date as training compensation on the basis of the subsequent
transfer of the player as a professional and the request for re-categorization of the
as a CONCACAF Category IV club and shall be classified as a category II.
2.
Regarding the statute of limitation, the Claimant argued that a first claim was lodged on
16 February 2022 and, according to art. 135 and 137 of the Swiss Code of Obligations,
this fact interrupted the prescriptive period and started a new prescriptive period
counting from the date of submission of the first claim (16 February 2023). Furthermore,
even though the first claim was closed on 17 February 2023, the Claimant stated that the
time elapsed between the lodging of the first claim and the lodging of the second claim
does not surpass the two-year period established on art. 25 par. 5 FIFA RSTP and
therefore the claim is not time-barred.
3.
To support its arguments for reClaimant pointed out that the Respondent (i) has been playing in the Major League
Soccer uninterruptedly since 2015, which corresponds to the first division in the USA; (ii)
has a squad estimated market value of around EUR 35 million and it was sold for over
USD 400 millions; (iii) has attracted several well-known football players during the last
few years such as the Portuguese player Nani and the Uruguayan player Facundo Torres;
and (iv) has a top-quality training center.
4.
On 11 August 2023, the Respondent argued that the statute of limitations has run on
the training compensation claims and requested all claims to be dismissed
5.
In this regard, the Respondent stated that the Player signed a contract with the
Respondent on 1 February 2020 and, in sequence, the Respondent had thirty days after
this date to pay training compensation, i.e. until 2 March 2020. Considering the period
of two years to lodge a claim before the FIFA Football Tribunal, as established in the
RSTP, the Claimant had until 3 March 2022 to lodge a claim against the Respondent for
any outstanding training compensation due to the Claimant and did not submit a claim
in a timely manner.
6.
The Respondent recognized that an initial claim was submitted by the Claimant on 16
February 2022, which was closed by the FIFA general secretariat on 17 February 2022. At
that time, the FIFA general secretariat highlighted that a new claim should have been
entered into the system by the Claimant at the earliest convenience. According to the
Respondent, the Claimant had 15 days from 17 February 2022 to submit its new claim
against the right Respondent (Orlando City B) into FIFA TMS and did not do so. Instead,
the Claimant submitted a new claim only on 12 September 2022, more than two years
after the date of the event that gave rise to this dispute.
Page 4 of 9
REF TMS 11204
7.
8.
9.
Furthermore, the Respondent stated that the player was registered with USL1 on 13
February 2020 and therefore Claimant had until 15 March 2022 to lodge a claim claiming
their entitlement to training compensation. In this respect, although an initial claim was
lodged on 16 February 2022, this claim was closed on 17 February 2022 and therefore
the Claimant had twenty-seven days from receiving a response from FIFA to submit a
new claim. However, the new claim was submitted only on 22 September 2022, moment
when the two-year threshold for the Claimant to lodge a claim against the Respondent
had effectively elapsed.
interruption of the prescription based on an interpretation of art. 135 and art. 137 of the
Swiss Code of Obligation. In this matter, the Respondent argued that there is no gap in
the FIFA Regulations with regard to the interpretation of timeliness in submitting a
training compensation claim after the maximum established statute of limitations has
elapsed.
Alternatively, should the claim of the Claimant be considered admissible, the
Respondent confirmed that the registration of the player with it constituted a
birthday. The Respondent, how
considering that the Respondent was correctly classified as a club category IV at the time
of the registration of the player, in particular, due to the fact that the Respondent was
participating in the USL at that time, corresponding to the third division of the USA.
10.
Nevertheless, referring to previous decisions of the DRC regarding training
compensation and US clubs, the Respondent underlined that certain US clubs that were
competing in the USL championship, i.e. the US second division, had been classified
under CONCACAF category III by the DRC. Since the Respondent competed in the USL
League One, i.e. the US third division the tier below, it should therefore be considered
a category IV.
11.
Furthermore, the Respondent pointed out that the Claimant did not demonstrate the
categorization allocated by the USSF in order to justify the re-categorization of the
.
12.
In conclusion, the Respondent argued that it is correctly categorized as a club CONCACAF
category IV, and therefore no training compensation is due to the Claimant.
Page 5 of 9
REF TMS 11204
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):
March 2023
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested
Admissible:
No
Decision:
1.
The claim of the Claimant is based on the subsequent registration of the player as a
professional with the Respondent and the request for re-categorization of the
2.
3.
im.
In accordance with Art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 RSTP, training compensation is to be paid to
the new club.
4.
The player was registered with the Respondent on 18 February 2020. In this respect, any
training compensation triggered by this transfer was therefore to be paid by the
Respondent to the Claimant by 19 March 2020.
5.
As per art. 25 par. 5 RSTP, FIFA shall not hear any case subject to the RSTP if more than
two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute.
6.
In casu, the event giving rise to the dispute was the non-payment by the Respondent on
20 March 2020 of the training compensation due for the subsequent transfer of the
player.
7.
In view of the above, the claim of the Claimant was to be lodged by no later than 20
March 2022, i.e. 2 years and 30 days after 18 February 2020.
8.
The first claim of the Claimant was lodged on 16 February 2022 and it was closed by the
FIFA general secretariat on 17 February 2022 due to the fact that the Claimant indicated
the wrong Respondent club in TMS. At that moment, the clubs Orlando City SC (Id:5994)
and Orlando City B (id: 8748) were two separate, different, and active entities and the
claim was lodged against the wrong Respondent. Furthermore, the FIFA general
secretariat asked the Claimant to enter a new claim into TMS, if they wished so and at
Page 6 of 9
REF TMS 11204
their earliest convenience, indicating the correct Respondent in the system. Finally, the
FIFA general secretariat warned the Claimant about the content of the art. 23 par. 3 of
the RSTP, according to which
regulations if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute.
9.
The second claim of the Claimant was lodged on 13 September 2022, i.e. almost seven
months after the closure of the first claim.
10.
Therefore, any claim in relation to training compensation should have been lodged on
or before the overdue date indicated above.
11.
As a result, the claim of the Claimant is not admissible.
12.
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
the proceedings (art. 25 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules).
13.
In consideration of the amount claimed by the Claimant, costs of the current
proceedings shall be set at USD 3,000.
14.
In view of the fact that the claim of the Claimant is not admissible, the procedural costs
shall be borne in full by the Claimant
Page 7 of 9
REF TMS 11204
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, TIGRES F.C, is inadmissible.
2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of USD 3,000 are to be paid by the
Claimant to FIFA with reference to case no. TMS 11204 (cf. note relating to the payment
of the procedural costs below).
For the Football Tribunal
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 8 of 9
REF TMS 11204
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 9 of 9