Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
REF TMS 9822
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 July 2022
regarding training compensation in relation with the registration of the player Nauris
PETKEVIČIUS
BY:
Frans De Weger (Netherlands), Chairperson of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
of the Football Tribunal
CLAIMANT:
FC HEGELMANN, Lithuania
RESPONDENT:
SPORTING DU PAYS DE CHARLEROI, Belgium
Page 2 of 10
REF TMS 9822
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Nauris PETKEVIČIUS
Date of birth:
19 February 2000
Player passport:
issued by the Lithuanian Football Federation (LFF) – relevant abstract below
Year
2020
2021
Birthday
20th
21st
Club(s)
FC Hegelmann
FC Hegelmann
Registration dates
14/09/20 – 31/12/20
01/01/21 – 29/11/21
Status
Professional (permanent)
Professional (permanent)
Transfer:
8 January 2022, from FC Hegelmann (Lithuania) to SPORTING DU PAYS DE
CHARLEROI (Belgium) as professional (out of contract)
Claimant club:
FC Hegelmann (Lithuania)
UEFA, category III (EUR 30,000 per year)
Respondent club:
SPORTING DU PAYS DE CHARLEROI (Belgium)
UEFA, category II (EUR 60,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 6 June 2022, the Claimant lodged the present claim and requested EUR 72,657.53 as training
compensation for the subsequent registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent,
plus 5% interest p.a. as from 8 February 2022 until payment.
2.
The Claimant explained that the player was under contract with it until the end of season 2021, which
ended on 30 November 2021 in Lithuania, and that on 18 September 2021, it made a written contract
offer to the player which was of “significantly higher value than the existing contract”.
3.
The Claimant stated that on the day of offer, i.e. 18 September 2021, the player acknowledged
receipt of the offer by countersigning the document, but rejected the offer.
4.
The Claimant provided a copy of the document of reference, containing an handwritten note freely
translated by the Claimant as follows:
“I confirm that I got this proposal by registered mail on the set date. Nauris Petkevičius”
5.
The document offered to the player the following terms:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Contract valid as from 1 November 2021 until the end of season 2022;
EUR 1,500 monthly salary;
EUR 50 per goal scored
EUR 2,000 bonus if the Claimant participates in UEFA competitions in season 2023;
Page 3 of 10
REF TMS 9822
e. EUR 70,000 release clause.
6.
The Claimant additionally provided a copy of the player’s last contract with the Claimant, which was
valid for season 2021, and according to which the player was entitled to a monthly salary equivalent
to the minimum wage in Lithuania.
7.
On 24 June 2022, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant.
8.
First, the Respondent acknowledged that it had been in contact with the Claimant regarding the
payment of training compensation but that, despite its several requests, the Claimant never provided
any proof that it had offered a contract to the player in writing by registered post and/or email to
the player 60 days prior to the expiry of the said contract, as per art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP.
9.
In this regard, the Respondent pointed out that the above article clearly stipulates that any offer
must be made either via registered mail or by email with acknowledged receipt, and that the
Claimant failed to produce neither of these.
10.
What is more, the Respondent noted that the Claimant only produced in the context of the present
dispute an offer of contract that was allegedly delivered in hand to the player.
11.
In this respect, the Respondent underlined that (1) such mean of delivery did not meet the
requirements set out in the RSTP and (2) the fact that the player allegedly confirmed that such offer
was sent by recorded post but that the Claimant did not produce a proof of such recorded delivery
led the Respondent to express doubts as to the validity and/or authenticity of the document.
12.
As to the calculations made by the Claimant, the Respondent maintained that it was a UEFA training
category II club, and that any training compensation that could have been due to the Claimant should
have amounted to EUR 58,972.60.
13.
Finally, the Respondent stated that the player had terminated its training period before registering
with it, since the player was trained in France with Lille LOSC, a first division club, that he was regularly
selected for the Lithuanian U21 squad, and that he played 38 games during seasons 2020 and 2021
with the Claimant.
14.
In summary, the Respondent requested:
a. To reject the claim of the Claimant as the requirements set out in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4
RSTP were not met; or
b. Alternatively, to:
i. Reject the claim as the player terminated his training and education before the age
of 21; or
ii. Limit any amount awarded to EUR 58,972.60 and without any interest due to the
lack of cooperation from the Claimant outside of the present procedure.
Page 4 of 10
REF TMS 9822
15.
According to information available online, the minimum wage in Lithuania amounts to approximately
EUR 600.
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): August 2021 edition
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (Procedural Rules): June 2022
edition
Decision:
1.
The claim of the Claimant is based on the subsequent professional registration of the player with the
Respondent.
2.
As per art. 2 par. 1 lit. b) of Annexe 4 RSTP, training compensation is due when a professional is
transferred between clubs of two different associations (whether during or at the end of his contract)
before the end of the calendar year of his 23rd birthday.
3.
It is uncontested that the player registered as a professional with the Respondent on 8 January 2022,
that is to say during the calendar year of the player’s 22nd birthday.
4.
Therefore, training compensation is due.
5.
According to art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 RSTP, 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.
6.
It is undisputed that the player was registered with the Claimant as from 14 September 2020 until 29
November 2021, before transferring to the Claimant.
7.
Therefore, training compensation is in principle due to the Claimant for the training and education it
provided the player during the above time frame.
8.
Art. 6 of Annexe 4 RSTP foresees special provisions regarding training compensation for clubs that
are located within the territory of the European Union (EU) and/or the European Economic Area
(EEA).
9.
In casu, the Claimant is based in Lithuania and the Respondent in Belgium, both countries being
member of the EU.
10.
Therefore, art. 6 of Annexe 4 RTSP is applicable to the matter at hand as lex specialis.
11.
Art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RTSP stipulates the following:
Page 5 of 10
REF TMS 9822
“If the former club does not offer the player a contract, no training compensation is payable unless
the former club can justify that it is entitled to such compensation. The former club must offer the
player a contract in writing via registered post at least 60 days before the expiry of his current
contract, subject to the temporary exception below. Such an offer shall furthermore be at least of an
equivalent value to the current contract. This provision is without prejudice to the right to training
compensation of the player’s previous club(s).
i. The contract offer may be made by electronic mail, provided that the former club obtains
confirmation from the player that he has received a copy of said offer and can provide such
confirmation in case of any dispute.”
12.
The said provision foresees that if the former club does not offer the player a contract, no training
compensation is payable unless the former club can justify that it is entitled to such compensation.
The burden of proving that the conditions of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP are met lies with the
former club.
13.
As per the jurisprudence developed by the DRC in respect of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP, if the
player was under professional status with the former club, the said club must prove that it had
offered a contract of at least an equivalent value to the player at least 60 days before the expiry of
the contract.
14.
In the present case, the burden of proving that the conditions of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP are
fulfilled lies with the Claimant.
15.
The Claimant is arguing having offered a contract to the player on 18 September 2021, a contract of
a higher value than the previous one In support, the Claimant submitted a document countersigned
by the player, and where the player wrote the following:
“I confirm that I got this proposal by registered mail on the set date. Nauris Petkevičius”
16.
The Respondent is arguing that the Claimant did not meet the requirements of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe
4 RTSP by not having offered any contract to the player by either registered mail or email with
acknowledgement of receipt from the player. In addition, the Respondent expressed doubts as to
the authenticity of the said offer.
17.
In the present matter, the only document available that would testify that the Claimant offered a
contract to the player is the document of 18 September 2021, which is countersigned by the player.
18.
Although the Respondent did cast its doubts as to the authenticity of the document, the Respondent
did not allege that the document was forged nor it did submit any evidence such as a statement from
the player or an expert report that would contest the authenticity of the said document.
19.
As such, it is considered that the offer of contract dated 18 September 2021 was countersigned by
the player, and the handwritten note was indeed done by the player.
Page 6 of 10
REF TMS 9822
20.
The hand written note of the player confirms that he had received the offer of contract by registered
mail.
21.
The DRC previously confirmed that the “registered mail” requirement of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4
RSTP was an indication that any club offering a new contract to a player shall do so by any means
that would permit to verify its notification and receipt, rather than a requirement stricto sensu.
22.
As such, an offer made by hand to the player 60 days or more before the expiry of the existing
contract and countersigned by the player shall in principle be considered to have met the temporal
requirement of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP, so long as it is possible to determine that the player
was timely notified of the offer.
23.
The RSTP only recently amended the wording of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP, adding that “The
contract offer may be made by electronic mail, provided that the former club obtains confirmation
from the player that he has received a copy of said offer and can provide such confirmation in case of
any dispute.”
24.
In this respect, the above wording incorporated the jurisprudence of the DRC explained above, that
is to say that the former club must be able to provide confirmation that the offer was received by the
player in case of dispute.
25.
The alleged confirmation of receipt of the offer by the player produced by the Claimant does not
contain a date. It is therefore not possible to determine at which date the player signed the
document.
26.
What is more, the hand written note of the player confirmed that he had received the said offer by
registered mail.
27.
Once again, there is no mention of any date of receipt by registered mail.
28.
Equally, the Claimant, which should be in a position to produce proof that it had sent it via registered
email, in line with the declaration of the player, did not submit any evidence in this respect.
29.
The Claimant does not appear to have sent the said offer by email either.
30.
The Claimant did not provide tangible proof that the player had indeed received the contract offer
at least 60 days before the expiry of the existing contract.
31.
It is not possible to establish whether the Claimant was negligent and failed to record that the offer
was indeed timely made and timely received by the player or that the offer was made after the 60days deadline.
Page 7 of 10
REF TMS 9822
32.
EU-based clubs shall act with utmost diligence when handling contract offers to players that are aged
up until 23 years old, ensuring that the offer is timely issued and received by the player. The RSTP
and the jurisprudence developed by the DRC are unequivocal in this sense.
33.
Based on all of the above, it is considered that the Claimant did not meet the applicable burden of
proof required to be entitled to training compensation in relation to the subsequent registration of
the player as a professional with the Respondent.
34.
Consequently, training compensation is not due to the Claimant.
35.
The claim of the Claimant is rejected.
36.
According to art. 25 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, procedural costs are payable for disputes between
clubs regarding the payment of training rewards.
37.
The Claimant claimed the amount of EUR 72,657.53.
38.
Thus, the amount claimed by the Claimant corresponds to an amount higher than USD 50,000 and
lower than USD 99,999. Therefore, procedural costs levied in this respect are set at USD 10,000 (cf.
art. 2 of Annexe 1 to the Procedural Rules).
39.
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.
40.
In view the specific circumstances of the case, procedural costs shall be set at USD 7,000
41.
In view of the outcome of the claim, said costs shall be borne by the Claimant.
Page 8 of 10
REF TMS 9822
III. DECISION
1.
The claim of the Claimant, FC Hegelmann, is rejected.
2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of USD 7,000 are to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA
with reference to case no. TMS 9822 (cf. note relating to the payment of the procedural costs below).
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 9 of 10
REF TMS 9822
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 10 of 10