Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
REF TMS 12248
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 4 September 2023
regarding training compensation in relation with the registration of the
player Mark Mampassi
BY:
Frans de Weger (Netherlands), Chairperson of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber of the Football Tribunal
CLAIMANT:
FC MARIUPOL MARIUPOL, Ukraine
RESPONDENT:
FC LOKOMOTIVA MOSCOW, Russia
Page 2 of 9
REF TMS 12248
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Mark MAMPASSI
Date of birth:
12 March 2003
Player passports:
issued by the Ukrainian Association of Football (UAF)
Season Birthday Club(s)
16/17
14th
17/19
15 -16
19/20
Registration dates
Status
FC Shakhtar Donetsk
07.09.2016
30.06.2017
Amateur
Amateur
FC Shakhtar Donetsk
01.07.2017 - 30.06.2019
17
th
FC Shakhtar Donetsk
06.07.2019
30.06.2020
Professional
20/21
18
th
FC Shakhtar Donetsk
06.07.2020
11.02.2021
Professional
20/21
18
th
FC Mariupol Mariupol
12.02.2021
30.06.2021
Professional (loan)
20/22
18th 19th
FC Shakhtar Donetsk
01.07.2021
30.07.2021
Professional
21/22
19
FC Mariupol Mariupol
31.07.2021
10.01.2022
Professional (loan)
th
Transfer:
th
th
28 January 2022, from FC Shakhtar Donetsk (Ukraine) to the club FC
Lokomotiv Moscow (Russia) engaged permanently.
Claimant club:
FC Mariupol Mariupol (Ukraine)
Respondent club: FC Lokomotiva Moscow (Russia)
UEFA, category II (EUR 60,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 27 January 2023, the Claimant lodged the present claim and requested training
compensation of EUR 49,808.22 for the subsequent transfer of the player as a
professional with the Respondent, plus 5% interest until payment.
2.
The Claimant argued that it is entitled to receive training compensation because it had
the player on loan from the former club, which has been considered as one entire
timeframe by the DRC in the past.
3.
On 21 March 2023, the FIFA secretariat proposed for the Respondent to pay to the
Claimant the sum of EUR 49,808.22 as training compensation plus 5% interest per
annum as from 28 February 2022 until the date of effective payment.
Page 3 of 9
REF TMS 12248
4.
The Claimant accepted the proposal; however, the Respondent rejected it.
5.
The Respondent contested the entitlement of the Claimant claiming that
period of the player was obviously terminated before the transfer of the Player to the
Claimant
6.
To support its position, the Respondent manifested that the player was called up for the
youth Ukrainian national teams U16, U17 and U 19. It provided links from transfermarkt
to proof the call ups of the player.
7.
Additionally, it indicated that the player had been loaned between clubs of equal level.
8.
Finally, it concluded that the player had previous employment contracts.
9.
Subsidiarily, the Respondent argued that in case the DRC did not agree with its
reasoning, then it should consider the former club as the one responsible to pay training
compensation.
10.
The Respondent alleged that the loan period of the player with the Claimant, should be
one timeframe
since Shakhtar Donetsk agreed that the transfer fee, it
received, included training compensation, then it should be the former club who pays
the percentage of training rewards to the Claimant.
11.
When giving the opportunity, the Claimant said, regarding the alleged early termination
of training, that indeed the player had been called up to the youth national team,
however, he was not called for the A representative of Ukraine. It agreed that the player
had already a previous employment contract, but this does not automatically indicate
that the player had completed its training.
12.
The Claimant emphasized that
registered with while on loan directly from the previous club in the strict sense, shall also be
entitled
13.
Lastly, the Claimant manifested that the transfer fee paid only to former club - FC Shakhtar
Donetsk
. The
negotiation between the Respondent and the former club did not include the Claimant
and as such, the terms agreed cannot be applied to it.
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): August 2021
edition
Page 4 of 9
REF TMS 12248
Decision:
1.
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (Procedural Rules):
October 2022 edition
The claim of the Claimant is based on the
subsequent transfer as a professional
with the Respondent.
2.
The Respondent questioned the entitlement of the Claimant and the period of training
of the player.
3.
According to the Respondent, since the player had been called up to the youth national
teams of Ukraine and it had previously signed an employment contract it had terminated
its training early.
4.
In the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), the use of the term
in the Regulations indicates that the player can only be considered to have
completed his training if there is absolutely no room for doubt and the Single Judge
notes that the threshold is high. In particular, following such strict approach on the
aforementioned principle, the DRC has listed several indicators in order to establish that
a young player has completed his training such as, but not limited to:
a. Number of appearances with the senior team of a club;
b.
fee paid by loaning clubs, transfer fee paid);
c. Appearances at international level;
d. Number of loans when at the former club;
e.
5.
In particular, the DRC has established in the past that it will not agree to easily that a
player is fully trained unless a combination of relevant circumstances applies
simultaneously. However, meeting just one of the criteria will not generally not be
considered sufficient evidence.
6.
Art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules indicates that a party that asserts a fact has the
burden of proving it.
7.
In casu, the Respondent relied on the fact that the player participated with the Ukrainian
U16, U17 and U19 before and during his time with the Claimant.
8.
Considering the above, the Single Judge finds that the single argument that the player
participated in such youth teams is not sufficient in order to establish that the player has
terminated his training period before the age of 21. Therefore, the argument of the
Respondent in this sense shall be rejected.
Page 5 of 9
REF TMS 12248
9.
Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the period the player was registered with the
Claimant on loan, should be seen as one timeframe with the former club and thus the
former club should be the responsible one to pay training compensation.
10.
According to art. 2 par. 1 lit. ii) of Annexe 4 of the RSTP, training compensation is due
when a professional is transferred between clubs of two different associations before
rd
birthday.
11.
As such training compensation is in principle due.
12.
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.
13.
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 FC
Shakhtar Donetsk)
former club should be entitled to claim training compensation from the new club (in casu
the Claimant).
14.
with the former club did not interrupt the chain of entitlement of training compensation.
In other words, the period starting
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.
15.
As a result, despite the Claimant not being the former club stricto sensu, the
aforementioned jurisprudence applies and the
given by the Respondent shall be rejected.
16.
What is more, the responsibility to pay training compensation is incumbent on the
registering club, in casu the Respondent, and such responsibility cannot be waived by
the content (or not) of a clause contained in the loan agreement agreed between the
former club and the Respondent.
17.
As such, the Single judge determined that the registration of the player with the
Respondent constituted a subsequent registration as a professional in the sense of the
RSTP and the applicable jurisprudence, which occurred before the end of the calendar
year of his 23rd birthday.
18.
The player was registered with the Claimant, on loan from the former club during 303
days of the calendar years of his 18th and 19th birthday.
Page 6 of 9
REF TMS 12248
19.
In accordance with art. 5 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP, in the case of subsequent
transfers, training compensation is calculated based on the training costs of the new
club multiplied by the number of years of training with the former club, or, in casu the
Claimant, which had the player directly on loan from the former club.
20.
Upon registering the player, the Respondent was classified as a UEFA category II club.
21.
The amount to be taken into account in casu as training cost is EUR 60,000 per year, i.e.,
the training costs set for UEFA category II clubs.
22.
Consequently, the Claimant is entitled to training compensation of EUR 49,808.22 for the
period of 303 days of training of the player during the calendar years of his 18th and 19th
birthday, i.e., EUR 48,164.38 for the 3293 days of the calendar year of his 18th birthday
and EUR 1,643.84 for the 10 days of the calendar year of his 19th birthday.
23.
Furthermore, the Claimant requested to be awarded 5% interest p.a. until the date of
effective payment.
24.
as well as the well-established
jurisprudence of the DRC with regard to interest, the Claimant is in principle entitled to
receive 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 28 February 2022 until the
date of effective payment.
25.
In view of all the above, the claim of the Claimant is accepted and the Claimant is entitled
to receive EUR 49,808.22 as training compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. on that amount,
as from 28 February 2022, until the date of effective payment.
26.
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
mecha
the proceedings (art. 25 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules).
27.
The succeeding party is the Claimant and the amount claimed in the present dispute
corresponded to EUR 49,808.22. Therefore, procedural costs levied in this respect shall
not exceed USD 5,000 (cf. art. 2 of Annexe 1 of the Procedural Rules).
28.
29.
of USD 500 are to be paid by the Respondent.
The relevant provisions of art. 24, par. 7 and 8 of the RSTP are applicable to the present
matter.
Page 7 of 9
REF TMS 12248
III. DECISION
1.
The claim of the Claimant, FC Mariupol Mariupol, is accepted.
2. The Respondent, FC Lokomotiv Moscow, shall pay to the Claimant EUR 49,808.22 as
training compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. on that amount, as from 28 February 2022,
until the date of effective payment.
3. Any further claim of the Claimant is rejected.
4. Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5. 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.
6. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant.
7. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of USD 500 are to be paid by the
Respondent to FIFA with reference to case no. TMS 12248 (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 12248
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