Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
REF TMS 5900
Decision of the
Single Judge of the sub-committee of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 11 September 2020,
regarding training compensation for the player Sensy Abdoul Kader Kays RANNER
SACKO
BY:
S tefano S artori (Italy), Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC
CLAIMANT:
F.C. ISSY-LES-MOULINEAUX, France
RESPONDENT:
GNK Dinamo Zagreb, Croatia
Page 2 of 9
REF TMS 5900
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
According to the player’s passport issued by the Fédération Française de Football (hereinafter:
FFF), the player, Sensy Abdoul Kader Kays Ranner (hereinafter: the player), born on 3 May 2000,
was registered with several of its affiliated clubs, including FC Issy Les Moulineaux, (hereinafter:
the Claimant), as follows:
Clubs
Boulogne Billancourt AC
Boulogne Billancourt AC
Boulogne Billancourt AC
Issy Les Moulineaux F.C.
Meudon A.S.
Meudon A.S.
Issy Les Moulineaux F.C.
Meudon A.S.
Meudon A.S.
Registration dates
05.10.2011 - 30.06.2012
16.09.2012 - 30.06.2013
11.09.2013 - 30.06.2014
17.09.2014 - 30.06.2015
02.11.2015 – 30.06.2016
01.07.2016 – 30.06.2017
15.07.2017 – 21.11.2017
22.11.2017 – 30.06.2018
05.07.2018 – 13.02.2019
Status
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
2.
Pursuant to the information provided by the FFF, the sporting seasons in France starts on 1 July
and ends on 30 June of each following year.
3.
According to the aforementioned player passport, the Claimant belonged to the category IV
(indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year) during the period of time the player was registered
with it.
4.
Furthermore, according to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System
(hereinafter: TMS), the above-mentioned passport was uploaded to TMS when the Croatian
club, GNK Dinamo Zagreb (hereinafter: the Respondent), registered the player on 15 February
2019.
5.
In continuation, according to the information contained in the TMS, the Respondent belonged
to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) at the time the player was
registered with it, i.e. during the 2019/2020 season.
6.
On 17 April 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA claiming the payment of training
compensation from the Respondent on the ground that the player, in February 2019, had signed
his first professional contract with the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant requested EUR
22,849.
7.
For its part, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim and referred to the content of art. 6
par. 3 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players sustaining, inter alia,
Page 3 of 9
REF TMS 5900
that the Claimant had failed to offer a contract to the player and thereby lost its right to claim
training compensation. Equally, the Respondent deemed that, the Claimant had not "show a
credible and genuine interest in retaining [the player] in the future" .
8.
In the alternative, the Respondent deemed that, if at all, the Claimant should not receive more
than EUR 13,205.48 as training compensation, calculated as follows: "player registration from
17/9/2014 to 30/6/2015 in the duration of 287 days it comes to the amount of EUR 7,863.01
(EUR 10,000 is one year of player training); player registration from 15/7/2017 to 21/11/2017 in
the duration of 130 days we come to the amount of EUR 5,342.47 (EUR 15,000 is one year of
player training)" .
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE OF
THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
First of all, the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(hereinafter: the Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at
hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 17 April
2020 and the decision passed on 11 September 2020. Taking into account the wording of art.
21 of the June 2020 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 21
of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which states that the
Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its jurisdiction in light of arts. 22 to 24 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfers of Players (August 2020 edition) (hereinafter: the
Regulations). In accordance with art. 3 of Annexe 6 in conjunction with art. 24 par. 3 and art.
22 lit. d) of the Regulations, the Single Judge is competent to decide on the present dispute
relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations handled
through TMS.
3.
Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with the Respondent
on 15 February 2019, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to
the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations, the June 2018 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter
at hand as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the Single Judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the
Single Judge entered into the substance of the matter. The Single Judge started by
acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation on file.
However, the Single Judge emphasized that in the following considerations he will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the
assessment of the matter at hand. In particular, the Single Judge recalled that, in accordance
Page 4 of 9
REF TMS 5900
with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 to the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings
pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or
contained in the TMS.
5.
First of all, the Single judge took note that the Claimant deemed being entitled to receive training
compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 22,849, as the player had signed his
first professional contract with the latter before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.
6.
Equally, the Single Judge noted that, for its part, the Respondent had rejected the claim of the
Claimant, arguing that the latter had failed to offer a contract to the player in the sense of art.
6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations and had not "show a credible and genuine interest in
retaining [the player] in the future". Finally, the Single judge duly noted that, in the alternative,
the Respondent deemed that, if at all, only the sum of EUR 13,205.48 was payable to the
Claimant as training compensation.
7.
With the aforementioned considerations in mind, the Single judge referred to art. 20 of the
Regulations as well as in art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations and pointed out that, as a
general rule, training compensation is payable, when a player is registered for the first time as a
professional before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday or when a professional is
transferred between clubs belonging to two different associations before the end of the season
of his 23rd birthday. In case the player is registered for the first time as a professional, art. 3 par.
1 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations sets forth that the club with which the player is
registered is responsible for paying training compensation within 30 days of registration to every
club with which the player has previously been registered and that has contributed to his training
starting from the season of his 12th birthday.
8.
Moreover, the Single judge referred to art. 6 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations, which contains
special provisions regarding players moving from one association to another association inside
the territory of the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA). Considering that the
player moved from a French to a Croatian club, art. 6 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations applies in
the case at hand as lex specialis.
9.
In continuation, the Single judge pointed out that the obligation to offer the player a contract
in line with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations lie only with the last club with which
the player was registered before being transferred to a new club or registered with a new club.
Reverting to the player passport on file, the Single Judge recalled that the last club with which
the player was registered before being registered with the Respondent was the French club
Meudon A.S. and not the Claimant. As such, the Single judge concluded that art. 6 par. 3 of
Annexe 4 to the Regulations is in casu not applicable.
10.
Having established the aforementioned, the Single Judge referred to art. 5 par. 1 and par. 2 of
Annexe 4 to the Regulations, which stipulate that as a general rule, to calculate the training
compensation due to a player’s former club, it is necessary to take the costs that would have
been incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself.
Page 5 of 9
REF TMS 5900
11.
In continuation, the Single Judge reiterated that, pursuant to art. 6 par. 1 of the Annexe 4 to
the Regulations, when a player moves from a lower to a higher category club within the territory
of the EU/EEA, the amount of training compensation payable shall be calculated on the average
training costs of the two clubs. In this respect, the Single Judge once again took into account
that the Claimant belonged to the club category IV and that the Respondent belonged to the
club category III on the date of the player’s registration with the Respondent.
12.
As a result, and considering art. 3 par. 1 sent. 2 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations, which stipulates
that the amount payable is calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of training that
the player spent with each club, the Single Judge concluded that the effective period of time to
be considered in the matter at stake corresponds to 287 days of the 2014/2015 season, i.e. as
from 17 September 2014 until 30 June 2015, as well as to 130 days of the 2017/2018 season,
i.e. as from 15 July 2017 until 21 November 2017.
13.
In this context, the Single judge noted that, in accordance with art. 5 para. 3 of Annexe 4, for
the period of 17 September 2014 until 30 June 2015 (i.e. the season of the player’s 15th
birthday), the training costs shall be based on the training and education costs of category IV
club, i.e. EUR 10,000 per year. Similarly, the Single Judge recalled that, for the period of 15 July
2017 until 21 November 2017 (i.e. the season of the player’s 18th birthday), the average of the
two training costs applies, i.e. EUR 20,000 per year.
14.
Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training
compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 14,986.30 on the ground of the first
registration as a professional of the player with the Respondent before the end of the season of
his 23rd birthday.
15.
Thus the Single concluded its aforementioned reasoning by stating that the claim of the claimant
was partially accepted.
16.
In continuation, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination
with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which in the proceedings before the
Dispute Resolution Chamber relating to disputes regarding training compensation, costs in the
maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the
parties’ degree of success in the proceedings.
17.
However, in this respect, the Single Judge referred to art. 18 par. 1. ii. of the Procedural Rules
according to which, for any claim lodged prior to 10 June 2020 which has yet to be decided,
the maximum amount of the procedural costs shall be equivalent to any advance of costs paid.
Thus, considering that no advance of costs was paid in the matter at hand, no procedural costs
are due.
18.
Thereafter, taking into account the consideration under number II./4. above, the Single Judge
referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision,
the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of
Page 6 of 9
REF TMS 5900
the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
19.
In this regard, the Single Judge pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure
to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum
duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
20.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that, in the event that the
Respondent does not pay the amount due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the moment
in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the
relevant bank details to the Respondent, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods
shall become effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the
Regulations.
21.
Finally, the Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned sanction will be lifted immediately
and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art.
24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.
Page 7 of 9
REF TMS 5900
III. DECISION OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER (DRC)
1.
The claim of the Claimant, F.C. ISSY-LES-MOULINEAUX, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, GNK Dinamo Zagreb, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
- EUR 14,986.30 as training compensation
3.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
4.
The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant bank
account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.
5.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with this
decision to [email protected], duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official FIFA
languages (English, French, German, Spanish).
6.
In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the
Respondent within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank
details to the Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:
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. The aforementioned ban mentioned will be
lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
2. 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.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 8 of 9
REF TMS 5900
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of the notification of this decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE 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