Training Compensation (TMS claims)
Texto da decisão
TMS 14780
Decision of the
Single Judge of the sub-committee of
The Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 April 2025
regarding training compensation for the player
Stanislav KOVAL
BY:
Ms. Lívia Silva Kägi (Brazil and Switzerland), Deputy
Chairwoman of the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Football
Tribunal
CLAIMANT:
FC Polissia Zhytomyr, Ukraine
RESPONDENT:
St. Louis City SC, USA
Page 2 of 13
TMS 14780
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Stanislav KOVAL
Date of birth:
1 May 2002
Player passports:
- issued by the Ukrainian Association of Football (UAF):
Season Birthday
Club(s)
Registration dates
Status
2015
13th
SDIUSSHOR Uzhhorod
07/09/15 – 31/12/15
Amateur
2016
th
14
SDIUSSHOR Uzhhorod
01/01/16 – 31/12/16
Amateur
2017
15th
SDIUSSHOR Uzhhorod
01/01/17 – 31/12/17
Amateur
2018
th
SDIUSSHOR Uzhhorod
01/01/18 – 31/12/18
Amateur
th
SDIUSSHOR Uzhhorod
01/01/19 – 30/06/19
Amateur
th
FC Kolos Kovalivka
06/08/19 – 31/12/19
Professional
2020
th
18
FC Kolos Kovalivka
01/01/20 – 31/12/20
Professional
2021
19th
FC Kolos Kovalivka
01/01/21 – 15/02/21
Professional
19
FC Polissia Zhytomyr
16/02/21 – 30/06/21
Pro (on loan)
19th
FC Kolos Kovalivka
01/07/21 – 05/07/21
Professional
FC Podillia
06/07/21 – 30/11/21
Pro (on loan)
2019
16
17
17
th
th
19
Khmelnytskyi
th
FC Kolos Kovalivka
01/12/21 – 31/12/21
Professional
th
20
FC Kolos Kovalivka
01/01/22 – 25/08/22
Professional
20th
Transfer to USA
21/11/2022
19
2022
- issued by the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF):
Season Birthday
2022
Club(s)
Registration dates
Status
th
St. Louis City SC
21/11/22 – 31/12/22
Amateur
st
St. Louis City SC
27/02/23 – 31/12/23
Professional
Cleveland SC
21/05/24 – 31.12.24
Amateur
20
2023
21
2024
22nd
Date of registration:
27 February 2023 with St. Louis City SC (USA) as a professional
Page 3 of 13
TMS 14780
Claimant club:
FC Polissia Zhytomyr (Ukraine)
Respondent club:
St. Louis City SC (USA)
CONCACAF, category IV (USD 2,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 21 November 2024, the Claimant requested “training compensation for the
abovementioned player in the amount of USD 14,794.52 (based on Category II of CONCACAF),
or subsidiarily in the amount of USD 3,698.63 (based on category III of CONCACAF), plus 5%
p.a. interest as of the due date, until the date of effective payment.”
2.
The Claimant based its claim on the subsequent registration of the player as a
professional with the Respondent.
3.
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.
4.
In this respect, the Claimant argued that the player was registered with it for 135 days,
between 16 February 2021 until 30 June 2021, before the end of the calendar year of the
player’s 21st birthday.
5.
For the purpose of its calculation, the Claimant acknowledged that the Respondent was
classified as a training category IV club by the USSF.
6.
Nevertheless, the Claimant pointed out that St. Louis City SC II, with whom the player
was registered, is the same entity as the Respondent, a club participating in First Division,
Major League Soccer (MLS), and that in light of the latter’s investment in the training and
development of players, the Respondent should be classified as a CONCACAF category
II club.
7.
Thus, since training categories II, III and IV are available in the USA, the Claimant
considered that the Respondent should be reclassified under training category II in
CONCACAF for the purpose of training compensation, in line with the jurisprudence of
the DRC and CAS.
8.
The Claimant added that the FIFA Circular 1249, allows the DRC to recategorize a club by
establishing that when assigning their clubs to the various training categories available
and that football associations should proceed in full respect of its criteria.
9.
The Claimant provides online sources to state that the St. Louis City SC Academy, St.
Louis City SC II and the Respondent are connected, as such the clubs’ websites, Wikipedia
Page 4 of 13
TMS 14780
page, and even the TMS account (under the name of the Respondent) are shared
between the three clubs.
10.
Moreover, the Claimant emphasizes that “the Respondent operates the St. Louis CITY SC
Academy, a fully funded elite youth development program (…) the Academy program is
designed to identify and develop players that can ultimately play meaningful minutes for the
St. Louis CITY SC first team”, and that several players have taken the path through St. Louis
City SC Academy, St. Louis City SV II, and the Respondent, an MLS team.
11.
The Claimant sustained that the evidence such as the monetary level of investments,
high standard infrastructure, and specialized staff, demonstrates that the Respondent
shall be considered a CONCACAF category II club even if currently categorized by its
member association as a CONCACAF category IV club.
12.
St. Louis City SC II was the one replying to the claim and it first indicated that it is a
separate entity from Respondent.
13.
St. Louis City SC II argues it enters into employment contracts directly with its players,
while the MLS is the one engaging players for teams that take part in this first division
league, as the Respondent.
14.
It added that players cannot simply move from St. Louis City SC II to the Respondent. For
such a transfer, an agreement between St. Louis City SC II and the MLS would be needed
and later the MLS would place the player in the Respondent.
15.
Moreover, St. Louis City SC II states that itself, as well as the Respondent, are duly placed
under CONCACAF category IV.
16.
St. Louis City SC II provides as evidence an employment contract between the player and
GoalHunter LC, i.e. St. Louis City SC II, valid from 27 February 2023 until 31 December
2023, for the rendering of his services on MLS NEXT PRO, a lower division league, which
would be distinct from the contracts celebrated with MLS for placing players in clubs as
the Respondent.
17.
St. Louis City SC II also provides a letter, on the Respondent’s letterhead, informing the
player that the option to extend his contract with St. Louis City SC II will not be exercised.
18.
Lastly, to show St. Louis City SC II and Respondent are different entities, the former
provides loan agreements between St. Louis City SC II and the MLS for the movement of
other players.
19.
In replica, the Claimant argued that the USSF player passport clearly shows the player
registered as a professional with the Respondent and not any other team and it
emphasizes that “The raison d’être of the concept of a player passport is inextricably linked
to the training reward regimes. A player passport contains the key data about a player’s career
Page 5 of 13
TMS 14780
history, based on which relevant training rewards are calculated. The accuracy of player
registration data contained in a player passport is thus crucial for the good functioning of the
training reward system established by the Regulations. Therefore, the information contained
in the Player Passports of USSF has the presumption to be accurate. The party arguing that
the information is incorrect has the burden of demonstrating the flaws in the Player
Passports”.
20.
The Claimant emphasizes that it is the Respondent providing structure and personnel
for the full pathway that starts at the St. Louis City SC Academy, it passes by St. Louis City
SC II, and it reaches the Respondent.
21.
In addition, the Claimant argues that the loan agreements between St. Louis City SC II
and the Respondent, provided by the latter, fall under a set of affiliate short term
agreements that are determined by the MLS Roster Rules for the temporarily move of
players between an affiliate team and its senior team.
22.
In its duplica, the Respondent argues that the relationship between St. Louis City SC II
and the Respondent should be viewed as something similar to what occurs within the
City Group (headed by Man City) or the Red Bull Group, and not to be seen as single
entity.
23.
Moreover, it argues that the need of a loan agreement between affiliated clubs and MLS
clubs should reinforce they are not the same and that the information on the USSF
player passport should not be taken as truthful as the document is not signed.
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): 2022 edition
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (Procedural Rules):
March 2023 edition
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested
Admissibility:
Yes, uncontested
Decision:
1.
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), any club(s) that may have had the
Page 6 of 13
TMS 14780
player on loan from the player’s former club (in casu the Claimant) should be entitled to claim
training compensation from the new club (in casu the Respondent).
2.
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.
3.
As such, the Claimant is in principle entitled to receive training compensation for the
subsequent professional registration of the player with the Respondent.
4.
The claim of the Claimant is based on the subsequent registration of the player as a
professional with the Respondent.
5.
The parties are in dispute as to the question whether St. Louis City II and Respondent are to
be considered the same entity.
6.
Having analysed the documentation on file and the arguments of the parties, the Single Judge
initially referred to the DRC’s recent jurisprudence in similar cases, namely TMS cases 9733,
9736, 13508, 12873, 12794, 13200, and 12162, in which the connected clubs, based on the
documentation provided, share the same TMS users, website under the MLS umbrella, and
training facilities/staff.
7.
Moreover, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant, on the one hand, provides a USSF player
passport showing the player registered exclusively with St. Louis City SC, the Respondent,
without any mention to affiliated Academy or II.
8.
The Claimant also provides additional documentation showing some other players moving
from Academy, to II, to the Respondent.
9.
Lastly, the Claimant argues that the MLS Rules allow players to be loaned between affiliated
teams and the main one for short periods, which on its understanding should increase the
evidence that they are the same.
10.
On the other hand, the Respondent argued that its affiliated teams are separate clubs, similar
to the structure of the multi-ownership groups of City and Red Bull.
11.
In addition, it argues that the USSF player passport is not signed, which should decrease its
validity.
Page 7 of 13
TMS 14780
12.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber is aware that players may either celebrate direct
employment agreement with MLS B teams or MLS contracts if they are to act for first division
teams.
13.
CAS jurisprudence on CAS 2014/A/3710, providing clarity to cases as the present one and the
previously mentioned ones, highlight that “102. The Panel observes that the FIFA Regulations and
FIFA’s circular letters consistently refer to “categorisation of clubs”. The Panel finds that a distinction
must therefore be made between a “club” and a “team”. Whereas a club has multiple teams, every
team is part of only one club. The calculation of the amount of training compensation due in
international transfers is based on the categorisation of the club in question, and thus not on the
particular team within such club.”
14.
Moreover, “108. The intention behind the categorisation of clubs in the FIFA Regulations is to
classify clubs in four different categories, depending on the total investments made by the club in
youth development in general. Whether a specific player plays in a club’s A team or in any other
team of the club does not influence the total investment made by the club and, as such, does not
alter the category in which the club is classified”.
15.
In light of the above and of the documentation on file, the Single Judge understood there is a
development pathway along the Respondent’s A team, B team, and Academy and a very close
structural connection between them. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the
Respondent’s A team, B team, and Academy are to be considered as one and the same club.
16.
Having established the foregoing, the Single Judge noted that the claim of the Claimant is
based on the subsequent registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent.
17.
However, the Respondent is placed under CONCACAF category 4, which would prevent the
payment of training compensation in accordance with art. 2, par. 2.b) of Annexe 4 RSTP.
18.
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:
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;
Page 8 of 13
TMS 14780
c. Category III: All third-division clubs of member associations in category I and all seconddivision clubs in all other countries with professional football; and
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.
19.
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”.
20.
According to FIFA Circular 1763 of 1 July 2021, the US Soccer Federation (USSF) may classify
their clubs between three training categories, i.e.: II, with training costs of USD 40,000 per year;
III, with training costs of USD 10,000 per year; and IV, with training costs of USD 2,000 per year.
21.
In that regard, the DRC is aware that there are precedents where clubs have been "recategorised" on the basis of that provision.
22.
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 will intervene only in cases of manifest discrepancy between the
categorisation assigned by the national association and the actual training costs of a club.
23.
In the present matter, it is determined that the Respondent registered in TMS the player as a
professional, and that it is part of a club participating in the MLS, the highest professional
division in North America, a competition itself one of the major professional leagues in
CONCACAF.
24.
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. In view of the foregoing considerations, the DRC decided to
accept the Claimant's request to “recategorize” the Respondent.
25.
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. As such, the
Respondent is to be considered a well-established MLS club.
26.
The MLS is the highest professional division in North America, falling under CONCACAF
category II.
27.
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.
Page 9 of 13
TMS 14780
28.
Based on all the above, it is established that training compensation is due.
29.
Art. 20 and Annexe 4 RSTP stipulates that training compensation is due to the previous club,
for the training provided until the calendar year of the 21st birthday, when a player is
registered as a professional before the end of the calendar year of his 23rd birthday.
30.
In this respect, according to the player passport issued by UAF, the player was registered with
the Claimant for 135 days, between 16 February and 30 June 2023, year of the player’s 21st
birthday.
31.
At this point, the single judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 RSTP as well as to the latest jurisprudence
of the FIFA Clearing House in this respect. In particular, the Single Judge underlined that, as
per the most recent jurisprudence, only the club(s) with which the player was registered as an
amateur directly prior to their ’re-registration’ as a professional is (are) entitled to training
compensation. A club that has trained and educated an amateur who is able to reacquire
professional status – by latest the calendar year of his 21st birthday - should be rewarded
accordingly.
32.
The Single Judge noted that, in the case at hand, the player was first registered as an amateur
on 21 November 2022, with the Respondent, which as per the most recent FIFA Clearing House
jurisprudence could have an impact on the entitlement of the Claimant to receive training
compensation.
33.
In the present case, however, considering that the amateur registration occurred for a very
short period of time (approx. 3 months) and that the player soon regained his professional
status with what we have concluded to be the same club, the Claimant’s entitlement to training
compensation was not affected. While the concept of bridge transfer does not technically
apply in the present circumstances, the ratio legis of art. 5bis RSTP can be considered, mutatis
mutandis.
34.
The player was registered with the Claimant for 135 days before the end of the calendar year
of his 21st birthday. Consequently, the Claimant shall be in principle be awarded USD
14,794.52 as training compensation.
35.
Consequently, the Claimant’s claim is accepted, and the Respondent is to play USD 14,794.52
of training compensation. Furthermore, the Claimant requested to be awarded interest
amounting to 5% per annum as from the due date of payment, i.e. 31 days after registration.
36.
Taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 RSTP, 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 30 March 2023, until the date of effective payment.
Page 10 of 13
TMS 14780
37.
In view of all the above, the claim of the Claimant is accepted, and the Claimant is entitled to
receive USD 14,794.52 as training compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. on that amount, as from
30 March 2023 until the date of effective payment.
38.
According to art. 25 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, procedural costs are payable for disputes
between clubs regarding the payment of training rewards.
39.
The amount claimed by the Claimant corresponds to an amount lower than USD 49,999,99.
40.
Therefore, procedural costs levied in this respect are fixed at USD 5,000 (cf. art. 2 of Annexe 1
to the Procedural Rules. 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.
41.
In view the specific circumstances of the case, procedural costs shall be set at USD 3,000.
42.
In view of the outcome of the claim, said costs shall be borne by the Respondent in full.
Page 11 of 13
TMS 14780
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, FC Polissia Zhytomyr, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, St. Louis City SC, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of
USD 14,794.52 as training compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. on that amount, as from
30 March 2023 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 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 3,000.00 are to be paid by the
Respondent to FIFA reference to case no. TMS 14780 (cf. note relating to the payment of
the procedural costs below).
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 12 of 13
TMS 14780
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
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