Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
TMS 9504
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 31 January 2022
regarding training compensation in relation with the registration of the player Matko
Mijael Miljevic
BY:
Mario Flores Chemor (Mexico), member
CLAIMANT:
AA Argentinos Juniors, Argentina
RESPONDENT:
CF Montréal, Canada
Page 2 of 10
TMS 9504
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Matko Mijael Miljevic
Date of birth:
9 May 2001
Player passport:
issued by the Asociación de Futbol Argentino (AFA) on 20 August 2021
ear
Year
Birthday Club(s)
Registration dates
Status
th
2013
12
Argentinos Juniors
19.10.2013-31.12.2013
Amateur
th
2014
13
Argentinos Juniors
01.01.2014-31.12.2013
Amateur
th
2015
14
Argentinos Juniors
01.01.2015-31.12.2015
Amateur
2016
15th
Argentinos Juniors
01.01.2016-31.12.2016
Amateur
th
2017
16
Argentinos Juniors
01.01.2017-31.12.2017
Amateur
th
2018
17
Argentinos Juniors
01.01.2018-31.04.2018
Amateur
th
2018
17
Argentinos Juniors
11.04.2018-31.04.2018
Professional
th
2019
18
Argentinos Juniors
01.01.2019-31.12.2019
Professional
th
2020
19
Argentinos Juniors
01.01.2020-31.12.2020
Professional
th
2021
20
Argentinos Juniors
01.01.2021-30.06.2021
Professional
Sportive season:
edition of the RSTP
Calendar year to be taken into account in accordance with the February 2021
Date of transfer:
19 August 2021, from AA Argentinos Juniors (Argentina) to CF Montréal
(Canada). Transfer instruction: Permanently (out of contract)
Claimant club:
AA Argentinos Juniors, Argentina
Respondent club:
CF Montréal, Canada
CONCACAF, category IV (USD 2,000 per year) (according to the information
included in TMS, until 14 May 2018, the club was a category II CONCACAF)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 29 November 2021, the Claimant requested USD 186,406 as training compensation plus
interests as from 31st day after the player’s registration with the Respondent.
2.
The Claimant is basing its claim on the first registration of the player as a professional with the
Respondent.
3.
For the purpose of its calculation, the Claimant acknowledged that the Respondent was
classified as a training category IV club by the Canadian Soccer Association (CSA).
Page 3 of 10
TMS 9504
4.
Nevertheless, the Claimant argued that because the Respondent was competing in the MLS, the
highest level in the USA, it was to be considered as a club of CONCACAF Category II in line with
the FIFA Circular 1763 of 30 June 2021.
5.
From the Claimant’s point of view, any other categorization would properly not reflect reality.
6.
The Claimant deemed that the Respondent’s categorization as a club IV CONCACAF had no
legal basis.
7.
The Claimant added that the Respondent did not compete in the Canadian Premier League and
that there was no second division league in Canada. The Claimant explained that the
Respondent played in the Canadian Championship which was a championship co-organized by
CONCACAF that aimed at allowing its winner to take part in another championship organized
by CONCACAF.
8.
In view of the above, the Claimant was of the opinion that the Respondent did not compete
regularly in Canada and that, therefore, it could only be considered as a category II CONCACAF
club for participating in the MLS.
9.
In this context, the Claimant referred to several decisions of the DRC in which the categorization
of a club as category IV was deemed unjustified.
10.
From the Claimant’s point of view, allowing the Respondent to avoid paying training
compensation would grant to the latter an unjustified economic advantage in comparison to the
other clubs competing in the MLS.
11.
Finally, the Claimant provided the following calculation as to the claimed amount: USD 20,000
for 6 months that the player was registered with it in 2021; USD 160,000 for the four complete
seasons during which the player had been registered with it between his 16th and 19th birthday
(2017, 2018, 2019 and 2010); USD 6,000 for the complete season of his 13th, 14th and 15th
birthday (2014, 2015 and 2016) as well as USD 406 for the 74 days that the player was registered
with it during the season of his 12th birthday (2013).
12.
In spite of having been asked to do so, the Respondent did not reply to the claim.
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
2021 edition
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested
Admissibility:
Yes, uncontested
Page 4 of 10
TMS 9504
Decision:
1.
The claim of the Claimant is based on the registration of the player as a professional with the
Respondent.
2.
It is undisputed that the player was registered with the Claimant from 19 October 2013 until 30
June 2021, as indicated in the player passport issued by AFA.
3.
It is uncontested that the player was registered as a professional with the Respondent on 19
August 2021, during the course of the calendar year of his 20th birthday.
4.
As such, the Single Judge of the DRC found that, in principle, the Claimant is indeed entitled to
receive training compensation from the Respondent.
5.
The above notwithstanding, the Single Judge of the DRC noted that he Respondent was
classified as a CONCACAF training category IV club upon registering the player as a professional.
In that regard, the Single Judge of the DRC recalled that, 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.
However, the Single Judge of the DRC also noted that the Claimant disputed such allocation of
the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant argued that the Respondent was wrongly
categorized by the Canadian Soccer Association and that the latter should be considered a
CONCACAF category II club, as it was a professional club competing in the first tier of
professional football in the USA, the MLS.
7.
According to art. 5 par. 4 of Annexe 4 RSTP, the 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.”
8.
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 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;
c. Category III: All third-division clubs of member associations in category I and all seconddivision clubs in all other countries with professional football;
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.
Page 5 of 10
TMS 9504
9.
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” (emphasis added).
10.
Consequently, the Single Judge of the DRC considered that in order to reclassify the category of
the Respondent, there has to exist a manifest discrepancy between the guidelines established in
the Circular 1249 and the category assigned by the relevant national association.
11.
In analysing whether such discrepancy exists, the Single Judge of the DRC pointed out that it is
uncontested that the MLS corresponds to the first professional division in the USA and that the
Respondent competes in such League, which is one of the Leagues with more resources in the
CONCACAF region. Furthermore, the Single Judge of the DRC noted that it is of public
knowledge that the Respondent has won the Canadian Championship on several occasions in
the past years.
12.
On account of the foregoing, the Single Judge of the DRC was comfortably satisfied that the
allocation of the Respondent to the CONCACAF category IV constituted a manifest discrepancy
with the guidelines established in Circular 1249.
13.
The Single Judge of the DRC felt comforted with his conclusion as the allocation of the
Respondent to category IV seems to be the result of a pattern of MLS clubs being categorized
as such on the basis of an alleged legal prohibition by the MLS or the United States Soccer
Federation to implement FIFA’s training reward system. The Single Judge of the DRC underlined
that, leaving aside the fact that the Respondent is a Canadian club, such argument has been
rejected by the DRC in the recent past.
14.
Having established the above, the Single Judge of the DRC proceeded to analyse to which
category the Respondent should be allocated.
15.
First, the Single Judge of the DRC noted that according to FIFA Circular no. 1763 of 1 July 2021,
CONCACAF member associations may classify their clubs between three training categories, i.e.:
a. Category II, with training costs of USD 40,000 per year;
b. Category III, with training costs of USD 10,000 per year; and
c. Category IV, with training costs of USD 2,000 per year.
16.
The same circular also indicates that Canadian clubs are to be allocated either in category III or
IV.
17.
The Claimant requested the recategorization of the Respondent as category II CONCACAF in
view of its participation in the MLS. However, the Single Judge of the DRC rejected such position.
Indeed, whilst Article 5 para. 4 of Annexe 4 RSTP in combination with Circular 1249 grants him
Page 6 of 10
TMS 9504
the power to recategorize a club, there is no rule or regulation which would allow the Single
Judge of the DRC to allocate a club to a category which, in fact, does not exist in the relevant
national association.
18.
The above conclusion is not changed by the fact that the Respondent participates in a League
affiliated to a national association where category II clubs do exist. The fact of the matter is that
the Respondent is affiliated to the Canadian Football Association which can only allocate clubs
either in category III or IV. In addition, the Single Judge of the DRC underlined that the Claimant
did not present any argument which would allow him to reach a conclusion not permitted by
the applicable regulations.
19.
Consequently, the Single Judge of the DRC decided that he had no other option than to
recategorize the Respondent as a CONCACAF category III club.
20.
Consequently, training compensation is due to the Claimant on the basis of the transfer of the
player as professional to the Respondent.
21.
In accordance with art. 5 par. 2 of Annexe 4 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.
22.
As established above, the Respondent is considered to be a training category III club. Training
costs for category III clubs within CONCACAF are set at USD 10,000 per year.
23.
Art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 RSTP stipulates that the amount payable of training compensation is
calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of training that the player spent with each
club.
24.
As per. Art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP, in case of a subsequent transfer of a professional player
the training compensation is calculated based on the training cost of the new club multiplied by
the number of years of training with the former club.
25.
To ensure that training compensation for very young players is not set at unreasonably high
levels, the training costs for players for the calendar years of their 12th to 15th birthday shall be
based on the training and education costs of category IV clubs. The costs of category IV
CONCACAF clubs is set at USD 2,000 per year.
26.
As established under point II. 3 above, the Claimant trained the player as follows: from 19
October until 31 December 2013, i.e. during 74 days of the calendar year of his 12 th birthday;
the entire season of his 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th birthday as well as from 1 January
until 30 June 2020, corresponding to 181 days of the calendar year of the player’s 20th birthday.
27.
Consequently, on the basis of the transfer as professional of the player with the Respondent (to
be considered a CONCACAF category III club), the Claimant is entitled to receive training
compensation in the amount of USD 51,364.38, i.e. USD 405.48 for the calendar year of his
Page 7 of 10
TMS 9504
12th birthday; USD 2,000 for the calendar year of his 13th, 14th and 15th birthday, USD 10,000
for the calendar year of his 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th birthday as well as USD 4,958.90 for the
calendar year of his 20th birthday.
28.
Furthermore, the Claimant requested to be awarded interest amounting to 5% per annum as
from the 31st day after the registration of the player with the Respondent.
29.
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 19 September 2021 until the date of effective payment.
30.
In view of all the above, the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and the Claimant is
entitled to receive USD 51,364.38 as training compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. on that
amount, as from 19 September 2021 until the date of effective payment.
13.
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).
14.
The amount claimed by the Claimant is less than USD 200,000 but above the amount of
149,999.99.
15.
In consideration of the amount claimed by the Claimant, costs of the current proceedings shall
be set at USD 10,000.
16.
In view of the fact that the claim of the Claimant is only partially accepted, the costs shall be
borne by the Respondent and the Claimant as follows: the Claimant shall pay the amount of
USD 4,000 and the Respondent the amount of USD 6,000 on order to cover the costs of the
present proceedings.
17.
Art. 24 bis RSTP is applicable.
Page 8 of 10
TMS 9504
III. DECISION
1.
The claim of the Claimant, AA Argentinos Juniors, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, CF Montréal, has to pay to the Claimant EUR 51,364.38 as training
compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. on that amount, as from 19 September 2021 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.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of full payment to [email protected]. If applicable, the
evidence shall be translated into an official FIFA language (English, French, German, Spanish).
5.
Pursuant to article 24bis 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 in accordance with
article 24bis paragraphs 7 and 8 and article 24ter of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players.
7. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of USD 10,000 are to be paid to FIFA with
reference to case no. TMS 9504 (cf. note relating to the payment of the procedural costs below)
as follows: the Claimant has to pay the amount USD 4,000 and the Respondent has to pay the
amount of USD 6,000.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 9 of 10
TMS 9504
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
Pursuant to article 57 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 10 of 10