Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
REF TMS 12300
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 28 July 2023
regarding training compensation for the player
BY:
Lívia Silva KÄGI (Brazil and Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
CLAIMANT:
RESPONDENT:
FC Sheriff, Moldova
Page 2 of 9
REF TMS 12300
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Date of birth:
03 April 1998
Player passport:
issued by the Football Association of Serbia (FSS) on 3 February 2023:
Club
Period
Player Status
Basis
RAD
From 05.08.2016 to
Professional
Permanent
Amateur
Loan
Amateur
Permanent
Amateur
Permanent
Amateur
Permanent
Amateur
Permanent
24.12.2020
OFK
From 12.02.2016 to
04.08.2016
RAD
From 01.10.2013 to
11.02.2016
RADNI KI
From 10.08.2012 to
1923
30.09.2013
MIP-
From 20.08.2011 to
MAJDAN
09.08.2012
PRESING
From 11.09.2010 to
19.08.2011
Player passport:
issued by the Football Association of Serbia (FSS) on 19 February 2021
and available on the Transfer Matching System (TMS), transfer reference 362709:
Club
Period
Player Status
Basis
RAD
From 01.07.2017 to
Professional
Permanent
Amateur
Permanent
Amateur
Permanent
Amateur
Permanent
Amateur
Permanent
24.12.2020
OFK
From 05.08.2016 to
31.01.2017
OFK
From 12.02.2016 to
04.08.2016
RAD
From 01.10.2013 to
11.02.2016
RADNI KI
From 10.08.2012 to
1923
30.09.2013
Page 3 of 9
REF TMS 12300
MIP-
From 20.08.2011 to
MAJDAN
09.08.2012
PRESING
From 11.09.2010 to
Amateur
Permanent
Amateur
Permanent
19.08.2011
Date of transfer:
19 February 2021, from RAD (Serbia) to FC Sheriff (Moldova) as a
professional (engage out of contract free of payment)
Claimant club:
, Serbia
Respondent club: FC Sheriff, Moldova
UEFA, category III (EUR 30,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 3 February 2023, the Claimant lodged a claim requesting the payment of EUR
14,383.56 as training compensation on the basis of the subsequent transfer of the player
as a professional, plus 5% interest per annum on said amount as from the date it became
due until the date of effective payment.
2.
The Claimant is basing its claim on the jurisprudence developed by the Dispute
Resolution Chamber (DRC) according to which a club which had the player on loan from
next club should the player be registered permanently as a professional.
3.
On 27 February 2023, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant entirely.
4.
The Respondent highlighted its due diligence and good faith when signing the
professional contract with the player, in particular referring to the player passport
uploaded by the Serbian Football Federation for the relevant transfer of the player,
which established that the player was permanently registered as an amateur with the
Claimant from 12 February 2016 until 31 January 2017 and subsequently signed a
professional contract with RAD from 01 July 2017 until 24 December 2020.
5.
In this respect, the Respondent pointed out that considering the player passport
provided by the FSS, no training compensation is due to the Claimant.
6.
Additionally, the Respondent argued that the information and documents provided by
the FSS and uploaded in TMS for the transfer of the player are reliable and that clubs
and associations are responsible for the information entered in TMS.
7.
The Respondent stated that the player passport submitted by the Claimant
demonstrates that the player was temporarily registered (on loan) with the Claimant as
Page 4 of 9
REF TMS 12300
amateur from 12 February 2016 to 04 August 2016 and, subsequently, signed a
professional contract with RAD. In this regard, the Respondent referred to Art. 10 of the
RSTP and the Commentary to the RSTP to argue that the loan of amateur players is not
allowed by the FIFA Regulations.
8.
In its Replica, the Claimant submitted a translated copy of the loan agreements
concluded with RAD for the temporary transfer of the player to demonstrate that the
player was registered with the Claimant on loan from 10 February 2016 to 30 June 2016
and from 28 July 2016 to 15 January 2017.
9.
Furthermore, the Claimant stated that they did not participate in the proceeding of the
issuance of the ITC in TMS for the relevant transfer of the player and therefore they could
not contest the information submitted on TMS.
10.
The Claimant highlighted that according to CAS jurisprudence, the information available
, according to the
loan agreement, it is demonstrated that
11.
The Claimant referred to the lack of due diligence of the Respondent since according to
public information available online it was possible to identify that the player was
registered on loan with the Claimant.
12.
Finally, the Claimant amended its claim to request to calculate training compensation
primarily according to the player passport submitted by the Respondent (in this case,
the amount due is EUR 29,342.47) and alternatively according to the loan agreements
provided (in this case, the amount due is EUR 25,808.22).
13.
In its Duplica, the Respondent stated that the Claimant did not provide sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that the player was registered as a professional during the
registration period of the player with the Claimant.
14.
The Respondent also referred to the loan agreements submitted by the Claimant and to
tion, Status and Transfer of Players Football Association
15.
The Respondent contested the information contained on the second loan agreement
since during the relevant period (from 28 July 2016 to 15 January 2017), the player was
registered with the club RAD.
16.
Finally, the Respondent provided a statement of the player confirming that he has never
signed a professional employment contract with the Claimant.
Page 5 of 9
REF TMS 12300
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): February 2021
edition
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (Procedural Rules):
October 2022
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested
Admissible:
Yes, uncontested
Decision:
1.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is based on the subsequent registration of the player as a
professional with the Respondent.
on the fact that (i) according to the information provided by the FSS in TMS, the player
was permanently registered as amateur with the Claimant and subsequently signed a
professional contract with RAD; (ii) even considering the player passport submitted by
the Claimant, it is not possible the temporary registration of an amateur player.
3.
The jurisprudence of the DRC established that a registering club shall act with utmost
due diligence when registering a player. More particularly, the DRC has determined that
in instances where a registering club can demonstrate that it acted with due diligence in
attempting to obtain the accurate career history of a player but that the relevant
member association produced multiple contradictory player passports or information
afterwards, the player passport first issued by said member association or the provided
be the one relied upon when determining if and
to whom training compensation is payable.
4.
On the present matter, it seems that the Respondent acted with good faith and due
diligence when registering the player based on the information available in TMS and on
the document provided by the FSS. In this respect, the player passport available in TMS
for the relevant transfer of the player (reference number 362709) did not indicate the
temporary transfer of the player with the Claimant and, according to it, no training
compensation would be due to the Claimant based on the loan jurisprudence.
5.
Additionally, the referred transfer instruction in TMS shows a waiver from the former
club of the player, RAD, to its rights to training compensation, which reinforces the
R
Page 6 of 9
REF TMS 12300
6.
The Respondent also submitted a player passport issued by the FSS on 27 January 2021,
i.e. 23 days before the registration of the player with the Respondent, which is duly
signed and stamped by the representative of the FSS and which indicates the permanent
registration of the player with the Claimant as amateur.
7.
For the sake of completeness, taking into account the player passport provided by the
Claimant, it seems that the player was temporarily registered with the Claimant (on loan)
as amateur before signing a professional contract with the club RAD. In this regard, art.
10 of the RSTP explicitly foresees the loan of professional players and the Claimant did
not submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the player was registered with the
Claimant as a professional.
8.
Therefore, it is determined that the Respondent acted with due diligence and in good
faith when registering the player at a point of time when, given the evidence available,
the Respondent had the legitimate expectation that the player had not been temporarily
registered with the Claimant.
9.
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.
10.
In casu, with regard to the transfer of the player to the Respondent, the Claimant was
not the former club of the player in the sense of the RSTP.
11.
As a consequence, the Claimant is not entitled to training compensation.
12.
Therefore, the claim of the Claimant is rejected.
13.
According to art. 25 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, procedural costs are payable for
disputes between clubs regarding the payment of training rewards.
14.
The Claimant claimed the amount of EUR 29,342.47.
15.
Thus, the amount claimed by the Claimant corresponds to an amount lower than USD
49,999.99. Therefore, procedural costs levied in this respect are fixed at a maximum of
USD 5,000 (cf. art. 2 of Annexe 1 to the Procedural Rules).
16.
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.
17.
In view of the specific circumstances of the case, procedural costs shall be set at USD
2,000.
18.
In view of the outcome of the claim, said costs shall be borne by the Claimant in full.
Page 7 of 9
REF TMS 12300
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant,
, is rejected.
2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of USD 2,000 are to be paid by the
Claimant to FIFA reference to case no. TMS 12300 (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 12300
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