Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
TMS 6115
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 20 May 2021,
regarding training compensation for the player Filipe Pachtmann
COMPOSITION:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Michelle Colucci (Italy), member
Pavel Pivovarov (Russia), member
CLAIMANT:
Fluminense FC de Joinville (SC), Brazil
RESPONDENT:
PFC Lviv, Ukraine
Page 2 of 9
TMS 6115
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Filipe Pachtmann
Date of birth:
11 April 2000
Player passport:
issued by the Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) on 22 July 2019
Season
2015
Birthday
15t h
2016
16t h
2016
16t h
Clubs
Atletico
Clube
Imbituba
Atletico
Clube
Imbituba
Santa Catarina Clube
2017
17t h
n/a
2018
18t h
2018
18t h
2019
19t h
Liga Imbitubense de
Futebol
Fluminense FC de
Joinville (SC)
Fluminense FC de
Joinville (SC)
Registration dates
27.07.15 – 30.12.15
01.01.16 – 23.01.16
08.05.16 – 24.11.16
n/a
25.06.18 – 14.09.18
21.09.18 – 31.12.18
01.01.19 – 21.09.19
Status
Amateur
(permanent)
Amateur
(permanent)
Amateur
(permanent)
Amateur
(permanent)
Amateur
(permanent)
Amateur
(permanent)
Amateur
(permanent)
Sporting season:
1 January to 31 December (Brazil)
Date of transfer:
28 August 2019, from Fluminense FC (Brazil) to PFC Lviv (Ukraine) as
professional
Claimant club:
Fluminense FC de Joinville (SC) (Brazil)
Respondent club:
PFC Lviv (Ukraine)
UEFA, category II (EUR 60,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 29 May 2020, the Claimant requested the payment of training compensation in the amount
of EUR 60,000 in relation to the player’s first registration as a professional with the Respondent,
plus 5% interest p.a. as from the date of registration.
2.
In its calculation, the Claimant took into consideration that the Respondent was categorised as
category II when registering with the Respondent, and multiplied the relevant indicative number,
i.e. EUR 60,000, by the 365 days it considered that the player was registered with it, i.e. as from
21 September 2018 until 21 September 2019.
Page 3 of 9
TMS 6115
3.
On 19 June 2020, the FIFA administration issued a proposal to the parties in line with art. 13 of
the Procedural Rules, suggesting that in the present matter, the Respondent shall pay to the
Claimant EUR 56,219.17 as training compensation for the first registration of the player as a
professional with the Respondent.
4.
In particular, the FIFA administration considered that the player was continuously registered with
the Claimant as from 21 September 2018 up until 28 August 2019, which was multiplied pro
rata by the amount foreseen by the training category II of the Respondent, i.e. EUR 60,000 per
year.
5.
The Claimant accepted the proposal.
6.
On 8 July 2020, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant.
7.
The Respondent indicated that the Claimant had waived its training compensation entitlement.
8.
In this respect, the Respondent provided with a letter allegedly signed by the Claimant’s
chairman, and in which it is declared the following:
“we inform to who it may concerm thet mustnotpay (sic) any value to training compensation for
us about the player Felipe Patchmann (sic), birth 11/04/2000”.
9.
On 15 September 2020, the Claimant contested the authenticity and the validity of the waiver.
10.
The Claimant’s chairman vehemently denied having signed the waiver. In this respect, the
Claimant’s chairman inter alia stated that he would have never signed such document but was
of the understanding the Respondent may have been misled by intermediaries.
11.
In addition, the Claimant provided an expert report which concluded that the signature of the
Claimant’s chairman had been forged.
12.
On 29 November 2020, the Respondent confirmed that the waiver had been provided by an
intermediary agency with which it had an agreement in place to represent the player. The
Respondent provided a copy of the representation agreement along with emails in support.
13.
Then, the Respondent alleged that during a telephone conversation, the Claimant originally
denied having signed the waiver, but under the insistence of the intermediary agency, later
confirmed that this document had been issued by the Claimant but was destined to a different
club.
14.
With regards to the forgery of the Claimant’s chairman signature, the Respondent pointed out
that the analysis of the authenticity of a signature required the study of the original of the
document, thus contested the validity of such expert report.
15.
The Respondent reiterated its request for relief.
Page 4 of 9
TMS 6115
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): June 2019 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 is requesting training compensation for the first registration of the player as a
professional with the Respondent, whilst the Respondent is rejecting the claim of the Claimant
on the basis that the Claimant allegedly waived its entitlement.
2.
It is undisputed that the player signed his first professional contract with the Respondent on 28
August 2019, that is to say during the course of the season of the player’s 19 t h birthday.
3.
Thus, 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 (in casu the Respondent) to all the clubs where the player
was registered as from the beginning of the season of the player’s 12t h birthday up until the end
of the season of his 21st birthday.
4.
In this respect, the player was, according to the player passport issued by the CBF, registered
with the Claimant as from 21 September 2018 until 21 September 2019. The player however
registered with the Respondent on 28 August 2019, thus it shall be considered that the player
was effectively registered with the Claimant as from 21 September 2018 until 27 August 2019,
that is to say for 102 days of the season of the player’s 18 t h birthday and 239 days of the season
of the player’s 19t h birthday.
5.
As such, the Claimant shall in principle be entitled to receive training compensation for the
training and education it provided to the player during the above timeframe.
6.
Nevertheless, the Respondent is arguing that the Claimant waived its training compensation
entitlement by way of a signed document.
7.
The validity of the waiver presented by the Respondent is disputed by the Claimant.
8.
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.
Page 5 of 9
TMS 6115
9.
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.
10.
The alleged waiver stipulates that no training compensation is required for the player of
reference.
11.
As such, the first prerequisite of a valid waiver is met, i.e. a clear and unequivocal renouncement
to training compensation.
12.
As to the issuance of the waiver, the Claimant is denying having signed it, and is claiming that
the document is forged.
13.
On the other hand, the Respondent is stating that the document had been provided by an
intermediary agency, and that the Claimant had confirmed having issued it via a telephone
conversation.
14.
It is undisputed that the Respondent received the alleged waiver directly from an intermediary
agency.
15.
There is no evidence that permits to establish that the Claimant sent the waiver to the
Respondent, nor sent the waiver to the intermediaries that had negotiated the player’s signature
with the Respondent.
16.
Thus, there is no evidence on file which would permit to establish a link between this document
and the Claimant.
17.
A registering club shall act with due diligence when signing a player. In this respect, it would be
under the responsibility of the Respondent to ensure that the information it obtained regarding
the previous registration of the player was accurate and genuine.
18.
Therefore, the second prerequisite of a valid waiver is not met, i.e. it cannot be established that
the document was issued by the party concerned by such renouncement.
19.
In view of the above, it is determined that training compensation is due to the Claimant for the
first registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent.
20.
According to art. 5 par. 1 of Annexe 4 RSTP, to calculate the training compensation due to a
player’s former club(s), it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the
new club if it had trained the player itself.
21.
What is more, 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.
Page 6 of 9
TMS 6115
22.
The Respondent was classified under training category II (UEFA indicative amount of EUR 60,000
per season) when registering the player.
23.
As indicated above, the player was registered with the Claimant for 102 days of the season of
the player’s 18t h birthday and 239 days of the season of the player’s 19t h birthday
24.
Therefore, the Claimant is entitled to receive the amount of EUR 56,054.79 as training
compensation from the Respondent, corresponding to:
a. EUR 16,767.12 for the training and education it provided the player during the season
of his 18t h birthday; and
b. EUR 39,287.67 for the training and education it provided the player during the season
of his 19t h birthday.
25.
Furthermore, the Claimant requested the award of interest rate of 5% per annum, “as per the
due date”.
26.
In accordance with the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC, interest are applied as from
the first overdue day for the payment of training compensation.
27.
In this respect, the player was registered with the Respondent on 28 August 2019. According to
art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 RSTP, the Respondent had 30 days after said date to pay training
compensation to the Claimant, i.e. up until 27 September 2019.
28.
As a result, the Claimant shall receive interest in the rate of 5% per annum as from the date at
which training compensation became overdue to the Claimant, that is to say as from 28
September 2019.
29.
The interest rate of 5% per annum on EUR 56,054.79 shall apply until the date of effective
payment of the outstanding training compensation and its applicable interest.
30.
In view of all the above, the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and the Respondent shall
pay training compensation in the amount of EUR 56,054.79, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 28
September 2019 until effective payment.
31.
Any further claim of the Claimant is rejected.
32.
No procedural costs to be imposed in line with art. 18 par. 1 lit. ii) in combination with art. 17
par. 1 of the Procedural Rules.
Page 7 of 9
TMS 6115
III.
DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Fluminense FC de Joinville (SC), is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, PFC Lviv, shall pay to the Claimant EUR 56,054.79 as training compensation,
plus 5% interest per annum on that amount as from 28 September 2019, until the date of
effective payment.
3.
Any further claim of the Claimant is rejected.
4.
The Claimant shall immediately inform the Respondent of the bank account to which the
Respondent must pay the due amount (including all applicable interest).
5.
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).
6.
If the due amount (including all applicable interest) is not paid by the Respondent within 45 days
as from notification of the bank account details, 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 and for the maximum duration of three
entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The ban will be lifted immediately, and prior to its complete serving, following confirmation
that the due amount (including all applicable interest) has been received by the Claimant.
3. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end of
the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
7.
No procedural costs are payable (cf. arts. 17 par. 1 and 18 par. 1 of the Rules Governing the
Procedure of the Players’ Status Committee and Dispute Resolution Chamber).
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 8 of 9
TMS 6115
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 20 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