Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
REF TMS 7910
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 November 2021
regarding training compensation relating to the registration of the player MATEUS DE
OLIVEIRA RODRIGUES with CS Maritimo (Portugal)
BY:
Frans De Weger (Netherlands), Chairperson of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber of the Football Tribunal
CLAIMANT:
Volta Redonda FC, Brazil
RESPONDENT:
CS Maritimo, Portugal
Page 2 of 11
REF TMS 7910
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Mateus de Oliveira Rodrigues
Date of birth:
3 May 1998
Player passports: (1) issued by the Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) on 3 February 2019:
Season
2013
2014
2015
Birthday
15th
16th
17th
2016
18th
Club
Volta Redonda FC
Volta Redonda FC
Volta Redonda FC
CR Vasco de Gama
CR Vasco de Gama
Registration dates
18/04/13 – 31/12/13
Entire year
01/01/15 – 02/07/15
03/07/15 – 31/12/15
01/01/16 – 03/02/16
Status
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
(2) issued by the Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) on 17 July 2020:
Season
2013
2014
2015
2016
Birthday
15th
16th
17th
17th
18th
2017
2018
19th
20th
Club
Volta Redonda FC
No record found
Tigres do Brasil
CR Vasco de Gama
CR Vasco de Gama
Portuguesa / RJ
No record found
Mageense FC
Registration dates
18/04/13 – 31/12/13
Status
Amateur (permanent)
07/04/15 – 02/07/15
06/07/15 – 31/12/15
01/01/16 – 02/02/16
23/08/16 – 31/12/16
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
Amateur (permanent)
23/07/18 – 31/12/18
Amateur (permanent)
Sporting season:
1 January to 31 December (Brazil)
Date of transfer:
1 February 2019, from CR Vasco de Gama (Brazil) to CS Maritimo (Portugal) as
professional (free agent)
Claimant club:
Volta Redonda FC (Brazil)
Respondent club: CS Maritimo (Portugal)
UEFA, category II (EUR 60,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 2 March 2021, the Claimant claimed training compensation in the amount of EUR 7,039 on
the basis of the first registration as a professional of the player with the Respondent, plus 5 %
interest p.a. as from the date the player became a professional.
Page 3 of 11
REF TMS 7910
2.
The Claimant based its claim on the second player passport according to which the player was
registered with it as from 18 April 2013 until 31 December 2013.
3.
On 25 March 2021, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant.
4.
The Respondent argued that it had acted with due diligence before registering the player in
order to identify any and all clubs to which it may be liable to pay training compensation, and
that to this end it had obtained the first player passport issued by the CBF on 3 February 2019.
5.
In this respect, the Respondent pointed out that the Claimant, one of the player’s training clubs
as per the first player passport, had waived its training compensation rights by way of a
document the Claimant had allegedly signed and stamped on 25 January 2019. Said document
stipulated the following:
“Volta Redonda Futebol Clube
25 January 2019
DECLARATION
VOLTA REDONDA FUTEBOL CLUBE (…) hereby represented by Flavio Horta Cautiero Jardim,
acting as President, declares for all due and legal purposes, to waive the amounts of training
compensation and solidarity contribution that would be due to it by [the Respondent] under the
terms of provisions of annexes 4 and 5 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players, with regard to the player MATEUS DE OLIVEIRA RODRIGUES (…) born on 03/05/1998.”
6.
On 18 May 2021, the Claimant’s chairman, Mr. Jardim, by way of a signed declaration, denied
having signed the above waiver submitted by the Respondent, and declared that the document
was a forgery.
7.
In support of its allegations, the Claimant provided an analysis produced by a graphic expert in
order to demonstrate that the signature of the Claimant’s chairman in the waiver differed from
the usual signature of the individual of reference.
8.
On 7 June 2021, the Respondent rejected the accusations of forgery, and insisted that the
document presented was authentic. The Respondent rejected the graphic analysis submitted by
the Claimant, declaring that its contents were not “binding in any manner”.
9.
In fact, the Respondent explained that it had obtained the waiver form the player directly. To
this end, the Respondent submitted a statement from the player in which he inter alia declared
that it had obtained the waiver himself by way of a letter given by hand by Mr. Horta and that
the player himself delivered the waiver to the Respondent.
10.
In continuation, the Respondent explained that it had obtained the first player passport via TMS
“precisely in order to identify all clubs for which he had been registered with since the sporting
season when he completed his 12th birthday and consequently avoid the present type of claim.”
The Respondent insisted that the claim of the Claimant was fraudulent since it was based on the
Page 4 of 11
REF TMS 7910
second player passport issued by the CBF at a later date and that it had been lodged together
with several claims from the other training clubs that were added by the CBF to the second
player passport.
11.
Finally, the Respondent sent the document it had received from the player to the FIFA
administration in its original version.
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): June 2018 edition
Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (Procedural Rules): January 2021 edition
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested.
Admissible:
Yes, uncontested.
Decision:
1.
The Claimant requested the payment of training compensation for the first registration of the
player as a professional with the Respondent.
2.
It is undisputed that the player was registered for the first time as professional with the
Respondent on 1 February 2019.
3.
According to art. 1 and art. 2 par. 1 lit. i) of Annexe 4 RTSP in combination with art. 3 par. 1 of
Annexe 4 RSTP, training compensation is in principle payable by the club registering the player
as professional for the first time to all the clubs where the player was registered as from the
beginning of the season of the player’s 12th birthday up until the end of the season of his 21st
birthday.
4.
It is undisputed that the player had been registered with the Claimant.
5.
The Respondent argued that when it had registered the player it had acted with due diligence
and obtained the first player passport from the CBF.
6.
The first player passport was uploaded by the CBF on 3 February 2019 in the context of the
transfer of the player to the Respondent and does include the Claimant as training club,
indicating that the player was registered with the latter as from 18 April 2013 until 2 July 2015.
7.
Furthermore, the ITC issued at the time of the player’s transfer to the Respondent indicated CR
Vasco da Gama as the last club of the player which corroborates the content of the first player
passport.
Page 5 of 11
REF TMS 7910
8.
The second player passport was issued in 2020 more than one year after the transfer and
includes the Claimant as training club of the player for the period between 18 April 2013 to 31
December 2013, registration dates upon which the Claimant is basing its claim.
9.
In view of the aforementioned and irrespective of the subsequent confirmation of the CBF with
regard to the validity of the information included in the second player passport, at the time the
transfer occurred, the only two clubs entitled in principle to receive training compensation as per
the first player passport were CR Vasco do Gama and the Claimant.
10.
In line with the jurisprudence of the DRC in similar cases, considering that at the time of the
transfer the Respondent was only in possession of the first player passport, the latter could rely
in good faith on the information included in such document and reasonably assume that the
player had not been trained by any other club than Vasco do Gama and the Claimant.
11.
This is in line with the approach adopted by the DRC in two training compensation disputes
lodged by some of the Brazilian clubs which had lodged a claim against the Respondent for the
registration of reference on the basis of the second player passport issued by the CBF.
12.
In view of the above, it is established that the first player passport should be the player passport
relied upon in relation to any training compensation matter related to the first registration of the
player with the Respondent on 1 February 2019.
13.
In addition, the Respondent alleged that the Claimant had waived its right to receive training
compensation by means of a document issued on 25 January 2019.
14.
The validity and authenticity of the waiver presented by the Respondent is disputed by the
Claimant.
15.
As per the jurisprudence of the DRC, the validity of a waiver in the context of the entitlement to
receive training compensation is subject to a clear and unequivocal declaration by the party
concerned and requires a clear language which reflects such party’s intention to renounce its
rights.
16.
In other words, the above jurisprudence requires a document:
a. Containing a clear and unequivocal renouncement to training compensation; and
b. Issued by the party concerned by such renouncement.
17.
The alleged waiver stipulates that no training compensation is required for the player of
reference.
18.
As such, the first prerequisite of a valid waiver is met, i.e. a clear and unequivocal renouncement
to training compensation.
Page 6 of 11
REF TMS 7910
19.
As to the issuance of the waiver, the Claimant is denying having produced such document, and
declared that the signature of its chairman had been forged.
20.
On the other hand, the Respondent is stating that the document was duly issued and signed by
a senior club official of the Claimant, Mr. Horta, and that this individual had provided the waiver
by hand to the player before he registered with the Respondent.
21.
The Respondent sent what is alleged to be the original version of the document to the FIFA
administration.
22.
The Claimant submitted an expert report in which it is stipulated that the signature in the waiver
does not match the signature of Mr. Horta, the Claimant’s chairman.
23.
The analysis of the original version of the document provided by hand by the player to the
Respondent does not permit to establish that the document was indeed issued either directly or
indirectly by the Claimant.
24.
What is more, there is no evidence on file that would prove that the waiver had been issued by
the Claimant directly or indirectly.
25.
The Respondent did not contact the Claimant to ensure that the waiver had been issued by one
of the Claimant’s club officials.
26.
Therefore, the second prerequisite of a valid waiver is not met, i.e. it cannot be established that
the alleged waiver was issued by the party concerned by such renouncement.
27.
Although it is not possible to establish the above, it is undisputed that the waiver was given by
the player to the Respondent, as explained in its replica.
28.
In other words, based on the evidence on file, it appears that the Respondent registered the
player as a professional for the first time and assumed that the Claimant would not seek training
compensation on the basis of a document he received directly by hand from the player, without
any possibility to trace said document directly or indirectly back from to the alleged issuer, i.e.
the Claimant.
29.
By only relying on the player’s account and without seeking any further confirmation from the
Claimant, the Respondent acted with negligence.
30.
One would expect from an established professional club in Portugal to ensure that, before
registering a player as a professional for the first time, it would seek to obtain confirmation
directly from the player’s training club(s) that no training compensation would be claimed.
31.
Consequently, the Respondent shall bear the legal consequences of its lack of due diligence, and
training compensation is due to the Claimant on the basis of the first professional registration
of the player with the Respondent.
Page 7 of 11
REF TMS 7910
32.
Art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 RSTP stipulates that for first registration of the professional, the
registering club shall pay training compensation within 30 days of registration to every club with
which the player has previously been registered starting from the start of the season of his 12th
birthday.
33.
As established above., the player was registered with the Claimant as from 18 April 2013 until
2 July 2015, that is to say:
a. As from 18 April 2013 until 31 December 2013, i.e. 258 days of the season of the
player’s 15th birthday;
b. For the entire year 2014, i.e. the entire season of the player’s 16th birthday; and
c. As from 1 January 2015 until 2 July 2015, i.e. 183 days of the season of the player’s
17th birthday.
34.
In accordance with art. 5 par. 2 of Annexe 4 RSTP, in the case of first professional registration,
training compensation is calculated based on the training costs of the new club multiplied by
the number of years of training with each training club.
35.
At the time of registration, the Respondent was classified as a training category II club. Training
costs for category II clubs within UEFA are set at EUR 60,000 per year.
36.
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.
37.
Art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP stipulates that ensure that training compensation for very young
players is not set at unreasonably high levels, the training costs for players for the seasons
between their 12th and 15th birthdays (i.e. four seasons) shall be based on the training and
education costs of category 4 clubs.
38.
Training costs for category IV clubs within UEFA are set at EUR 10,000 per year.
39.
Consequently, on the basis of the first registration of the player as a professional with the
Respondent, the Claimant should in principle be entitled to receive training compensation in the
amount of EUR 97,150.68, corresponding to:
-
40.
EUR 7,068.49 for training and education provided during the 258 days of season of the
player’s 15th birthday;
EUR 60,000 for training and education provided during the entire season of the player’s 16th
birthday; and
EUR 30,082.19 for the training education provided during the 183 days of the season of the
player’s 17th birthday.
Nevertheless, the Claimant limited its claim to EUR 7,039.
Page 8 of 11
REF TMS 7910
41.
Consequently, in line with the legal principle of non ultra petita, the claim of the Claimant is
accepted and the Claimant shall be awarded EUR 7,039 as training compensation.
42.
Furthermore, the Claimant requested to be awarded interest amounting to 5% per annum as
from the date of registration, i.e. as from 1 February 2019.
43.
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 4 March 2019 until the date of effective payment.
44.
In view of all the above, the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and the Claimant is
entitled to receive EUR 7,039 as training compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. on that amount,
as from 4 March 2019 until the date of effective payment.
45.
Any further claim of the Claimant is rejected.
46.
According to art. 25 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, procedural costs are payable for disputes
between clubs regarding the payment of training rewards.
47.
The Claimant claimed the amount of EUR 7,039.
48.
Thus, the amount claimed by the Claimant corresponds to an amount lower than USD 49,999.
Therefore, procedural costs levied in this respect are fixed at USD 5,000 (cf. art. 2 of Annexe 1
to the Procedural Rules.
49.
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.
50.
In view the specific circumstances of the case, procedural costs shall be set at USD 1,000.
51.
In view of the outcome of the claim, said costs shall be borne by the Respondent in full.
52.
Art. 24bis RSTP applies.
Page 9 of 11
REF TMS 7910
III.
DECISION
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Volta Redonda FC, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, CS Maritimo, shall pay to the Claimant EUR 7,039 as training compensation,
plus 5% interest per annum on that amount as from 4 March 2019, until the date of effective
payment.
3.
Any further claims lodged by the Claimant are 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 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 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of USD 1,000 are to be paid by the Respondent
to FIFA with reference to case no. TMS 7910 (cf. note relating to the payment of the procedural
costs below).
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 10 of 11
REF TMS 7910
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 11 of 11