Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
REF TMS 8025
Decision of the
Single Judge of the sub-committee of
The Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 August 2021
regarding training compensation relating to the registration of the player Nikola
SERAFIMOV
BY:
Philippe Diallo (France), Single Judge of the sub-committee of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
CLAIMANT:
FK Pelister, North Macedonia
RESPONDENT:
FC Vysocina Jihlava, Czech Republic
Page 2 of 13
REF TMS 8025
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Nikola SERAFIMOV
Date of birth:
11 August 1999
Player passports:
(1) issued by the Football Federation of Macedonia (FFM) on 6 March 2020 and
uploaded within the relevant transfer instruction on 11 March 2020:
Season
11/12
12/13
13/14
14/15
15/16
16/17
17/18
Birthday
12th
13th
14th
15th
16th
17th
18th
18/19
19th
19/20
20th
Clubs
FK Vardar
FK Vardar
FK Vardar
FK Vardar
FK Vardar
FK Vardar
FK Vardar
FK Pelister
FK Vardar
FK Bregalnica
FK Vardar
FK Bregalnica
FK Vardar
Registration dates
29/08/11 – 14/06/12
Entire season
Entire season
Entire season
Entire season
Entire season
15/06/17 - 28/08/17
01/09/17 – 20/11/17
21/11/17 – 13/08/18
15/08/18 – 14/01/19
15/01/19 – 30/01/19
06/02/19 – 14/06/19
15/06/19 – 20/01/20
Status
Professional (permanent)
Professional (permanent)
Professional (permanent)
Professional (permanent)
Professional (permanent)
Professional (permanent)
Professional (permanent)
Professional (permanent)
Professional (permanent)
Professional (permanent)
Professional (permanent)
Professional (permanent)
Professional (permanent)
(2) issued by the FFM on 24 February 2021:
Season
11/12
12/13
13/14
14/15
15/16
16/17
17/18
18/19
19/20
Birthday
12th
13th
14th
15th
16th
17th
18th
19th
20th
Clubs
FK Vardar
FK Vardar
FK Vardar
FK Vardar
FK Vardar
FK Vardar
FK Vardar
FK Pelister
Registration dates
29/08/11 – 14/06/12
Entire season
Entire season
Entire season
Entire season
Entire season
15/06/17 - 28/08/17
01/09/17 – 20/11/2017
FK Vardar
FK Vardar
FK Bregalnica
21/11/17 – 14/06/18
15/06/18 – 13/08/18
15/08/18 – 14/01/19
FK Vardar
FK Bregalnica
15/01/19 – 30/01/19
06/02/19 – 14/06/19
FK Vardar
15/06/19 – 20/01/20
Status
Professional (permanent)
Professional (permanent)
Professional (permanent)
Professional (permanent)
Professional (permanent)
Professional (permanent)
Professional (permanent)
Professional (loan from FK
Vardar)
Professional (permanent)
Professional (permanent)
Professional (loan from FK
Vardar)
Professional (permanent)
Professional (loan from FK
Vardar)
Professional (permanent)
Page 3 of 13
REF TMS 8025
Sporting season
of the FFM:
Date of transfer:
15 June to 14 June
11 March 2020, from FK Vardar (North Macedonia) to FC Vysocina Jihlava
(Czech Republic) as professional
The player signed a professional contract with FC Vysocina Jihlava on 24
February 2020, which was valid as from the date of signature until 30 June
2020.
The contract foresaw the following benefits:
-
Monthly salary of approximately EUR 470 per month (income taxes paid
by the club);
Food, drinks, equipment and medical services for training;
Any expense incurred for matches played away.
Claimant club:
FK Pelister (North Macedonia)
Respondent club:
FC Vysocina Jihlava
UEFA, category III (EUR 30,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 15 March 2021, the Claimant requested the payment of the amount of EUR 6,657.54 as
training compensation, plus 5% interest as of “the due date”.
2.
The claim is based on the subsequent registration of the player as a professional with the
Respondent.
3.
In its calculation, the Claimant took into consideration the amount set for category III clubs in
UEFA, i.e. EUR 30,000 per year, which it multiplied pro rata by the 81 days the player was
registered with the Claimant during the season of his 18th birthday.
4.
On 18 March 2021, the FIFA administration submitted a proposal to the parties, informing them
that it was of the opinion that the Respondent should pay the amount of EUR 6,657.53 to the
Claimant.
5.
On 24 March 2021, the Claimant accepted the proposal.
6.
On 31 March 2021, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant.
7.
In this respect, the Respondent argued that prior to registering the player, it had obtained
confirmation that the player’s contract with his previous club FK Vardar had been terminated
Page 4 of 13
REF TMS 8025
due to overdue payables, thus no training compensation would be payable, and had received
confirmation from the FFM that the player was never loaned out by FK Vardar.
8.
In support of the above allegations, the Respondent provided a copy of the FFM decision dated
20 January 2020 to void the player’s contract with FK Vardar due to the club’s breach of its
terms.
9.
As to the player passport, the Respondent stated that it had received from the FFM a player
passport identical to the first player passport which was uploaded by the FFM in the transfer
instruction of reference. The Respondent submitted a copy of the first player passport dated 6
March 2020 but did not submit any evidence that it had obtained it prior to the registration of
the player.
10.
As such, the Respondent insisted that it had acted in good faith and that it could not be expected
to bear the responsibility for amendments made to the player passport 1 year after the player
was registered.
11.
In continuation, the Respondent pointed out that the player registered with it for only 5 months,
and that the contract the player signed was not a professional contract. In fact, the Respondent
argued that this was rather a trial, since the player never played for it and since he was receiving
EUR 400 per month, a remuneration well below the Czech minimum wage of EUR 560.
12.
What is more, the Respondent declared that the player did not receive all his remuneration and
only received the sum of EUR 496 for the time it was registered with it, because the player had
waived some of his salaries. The Respondent also stated that the player had to bear all his
expenses in Czech Republic.
13.
In view of the above, the Respondent concluded that the player could not be considered a
professional, and that therefore no training compensation was due.
14.
Finally, referring to the FFM decision as to the termination of the employment contract between
the player and FK Vardar, the Respondent pointed out that the player’s contact with FK Vardar
was originally valid as from 15 June 2018 until 14 June 2020.
15.
Since the player was allegedly on loan with the Claimant in 2017, the Respondent underlined
that since the first player passport indicated that the player was subsequently registered with
several other clubs after said registration, training compensation, if any was due to the Claimant,
would have already been paid by those clubs.
16.
On 4 May 2021, the Claimant first underlined that the termination of the player’s contract with
FK Vardar had no impact on its entitlement to training compensation.
17.
As to the player passports, the Claimant highlighted that it had received the second player
passport from the FFM in an official manner, whilst it alleged that the Respondent had received
it from a third party, and that it shown a lack of due diligence in this respect.
Page 5 of 13
REF TMS 8025
18.
The Claimant concluded that the Respondent shall be responsible for having registered the
player on the basis on inaccurate information obtained from a third party. The Claimant pointed
out that the first player passport was also not signed nor stamped by the FFM.
19.
What is more, the Claimant pointed out that the first player passport was issued on 6 March
2020, although the contract the Respondent had signed with the player was dated 24 February
2020, a proof that the Respondent did not rely on the first player passport before signing the
player.
20.
In continuation, the Claimant sustained that the player was unmistakeably a professional player
with the Respondent, since the player, in line with art. 2 par. 2 RSTP, had a written contract and
was earning a sum that was higher than the expenses he incurred for the practice of football.
21.
In fact, the Claimant was of the opinion that the sum of approximately EUR 462 gross per month
was “more than enough for the player’s football related expenses”, bearing in mind “that the
Respondent paid for the Player’s transportation, food, lodging and vacations”
22.
The Claimant underlined that the fact that the player did not receive all the remunerations
foreseen in the contract with the Respondent had no relevance to the present dispute.
23.
In view of the above, the Claimant reiterated its requests for relief.
24.
On 14 June 2021, the Respondent clarified that the first player passport upon which it relied to
register the player was actually the one uploaded by the FFM in the transfer instruction of
reference when the FFM issued the ITC of the player to the Respondent.
25.
In addition, the Respondent submitted abstract of online advertisement for flat in the city where
the club is based and alleged that the actual EUR 496 the player received during his stay with
the Respondent could not even cover a monthly rent for a flat in the area.
26.
Then, the Respondent reiterated its requests for relief.
27.
On 11 August 2021, the FFM declared to FIFA that the second player passport “is an updated
and correct version” of the player passport.
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
Page 6 of 13
REF TMS 8025
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested
Admissible:
Yes, uncontested
Decision:
1.
The claim of the Claimant is based on the transfer of the player as professional between FK
Vardar and the Respondent.
2.
The Respondent held that no training compensation was due to the Claimant since:
a. It had registered the player in good faith on the basis of the first player passport which
indicated that the player had been registered with the Claimant permanently; and
b. The player was not a professional with the Respondent.
3.
In accordance with art. 2 par. 2 of RSTP as well as the jurisprudence of the DRC, a player is
considered a professional if (1) he has signed a written contract with a club and (2) is receiving
a retribution (financial and/or in kind) for his footballing activity which is greater than the
expenses he effectively incurs.
4.
In casu, it is uncontested that the player and the Respondent signed an employment contract on
24 February 2020.
5.
Thus the first prerequisite of art. 2 par. 2 RSTP is met, i.e. the player and the Respondent have a
written agreement in place.
6.
As to the remuneration prerequisite, it is uncontested that the player was earning a monthly
salary of approximately EUR 470 per month, as well as food, drinks, equipment and medical
services for training and any expense incurred for matches played away.
7.
The Respondent stated that the player had only received EUR 496 during the 5 months the player
was registered with it, and alleged that this sum alone was not enough to cover the player’s
expenses.
8.
Regarding the remuneration criteria set out in art. 2 par. 2 RSTP, the DRC previously established
that whenever it is not possible to determine a concrete amount of remuneration applicable to
all players, the specific circumstances and particularities of each individual case, namely the
realities of the country concerned, the other, non-financial benefits to which the player is
entitled, and even a possible liquidated damages clause contained in the contract signed
between the player and his club, must be taken into account.
9.
In accordance with the aforementioned jurisprudence, a player in order to be considered as
professional does not have to be able to make a living from his footballing activity and may still
need to pursue other working activities in order to earn enough for a living. However, as long
as the remuneration he receives from his club is higher than the expenses he effectively incurs
for the practice of football, he shall be considered a professional.
Page 7 of 13
REF TMS 8025
10.
The Respondent did not submit any evidence that would permit to conclude that the salary
foreseen was only enough to cover any expenses incurred in the practice of football.
11.
In the contrary, according to the contract, all footballing expenses were covered by the club.
12.
As per art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 RTSP, training compensation is due 30 days after registration.
As such, it is the status of the player at the time of registration which matters, irrelevant of the
fact that the player in question may at a later stage receive a lesser amount than foreseen in the
original contract and/or change his status.
13.
Therefore, the argumentation of the Respondent with regards to the fact that the player received
a remuneration lower than originally foreseen shall be set aside.
14.
In view of the above, it is determined that the player was a professional with the Respondent.
15.
Therefore, it is determined that the player registered as a professional with the Respondent on
11 March 2020 after having previously been registered as a professional with his former club FK
Vardar, a club affiliated to a different association from the Respondent’s association, and that
this registration took place before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
16.
Therefore, as per art. 2 par. 1 lit. ii) of Annexe 4 RTSP, training compensation is due.
17.
In this respect, 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.
18.
In casu, the former club of the player in the sense of the RSTP is FK Vardar. In principle, training
compensation, if any, shall only be due to said club.
19.
Nevertheless, the DRC has established that when a player registers with a club affiliated to a
different member association before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday (i.e. the new club)
from the one where he was previously registered (i.e. the former club), any club(s) that may have
had the player on loan from the player’s former club should be entitled to claim training
compensation from the new club.
20.
In particular, it is considered that any loan(s) that took place during a player’s registration with
the former club did not interrupt the chain of entitlement of training compensation. In other
words, the period starting from the player’s original registration with the former club up until
his registration with the new club constitutes one timeframe, irrelevant of any loan(s) that may
have taken place during this period.
21.
According to the first player passport, the player was permanently registered as a professional
with the Claimant as from 1 September 2017 until 20 November 2017, before being
permanently registered as a professional with two other clubs in North Macedonia, FK Vardar
and FK Bregalnica.
Page 8 of 13
REF TMS 8025
22.
On the basis of the above, training compensation, if any, would only be due to FK Vardar.
23.
According to the second player passport, the player was permanently registered with FK Vardar
since 29 August 2011, from where he was loaned to the Claimant for the period 1 September
2017 until 20 November 2017.
24.
On the basis of the information contained in the second player passport, training compensation
would in principle be due to FK Vardar as well as the clubs to which FK Vardar had loaned the
player to, including the Claimant.
25.
The Claimant is contesting the first player passport, arguing that it was not officially obtained
from the FFM, in opposition with the second player passport.
26.
The Respondent is arguing that it relied in good faith in the information contained in the first
player passport which has uploaded by the FFM during the player’s registration process in TMS.
27.
Art. 5 par. 1 RSTP stipulates that all professional and amateur players must be registered with
an association in order to play for a club whereas the associations are the ones responsible for
such registrations. Equally, art. 7 RSTP foresees that an association has to provide its affiliated
club registering a player with a player passport indicating the complete player’s football career
as from the season of his 12th birthday.
28.
Training compensation is based on the training and education provided by training clubs to
young players, and said training is determined by the registration dates inputted in the player
passport(s).
29.
According to the jurisprudence of the DRC, the Chamber shall in principle rely on the information
inputted in the player passport(s) issued by the relevant member association(s) unless there is
clear evidence that would contradict its contents.
30.
In addition, the jurisprudence of the DRC established that a registering club shall act with utmost
due diligence when registering a player. More particularly, the DRC has determined that in
instances where a registering club can demonstrate that it acted with due diligence in attempting
to obtain the accurate career history of a player but that the relevant member association
produced multiple contradictory player passports afterwards, the player passport first issued by
said member association (either downloaded in TMS or via official communication) shall be the
passport relied upon when determining if and to whom training compensation is payable.
31.
What is more, the DRC previously determined that amendment to an official document such as
the player passport, shall be justified, and not operated only on the basis of a clubs’ assertions.
32.
In casu, it is undisputed that the Respondent signed the professional contract with the player on
24 February 2020, and that the player was registered with the Respondent on 11 March 2020.
Page 9 of 13
REF TMS 8025
33.
It is also undisputed that the Respondent only received the first player passport on 11 March
2020, when the FFM uploaded in TMS within the transfer instruction.
34.
There is no evidence that the Respondent had proactively contacted the FFM and or any of the
player’s former clubs in order to obtain information as to the player’s career history in North
Macedonia prior to sign a professional contract with him.
35.
There is no evidence that the Respondent obtained the first player passport before it was
uploaded in TMS on 11 March 2020.
36.
As such, the Respondent did not act with due diligence when registering the player, by not
attempting to obtain the career history of the player before signing the employment contract on
24 February 2020.
37.
The FFM confirmed that the second player passport was an updated and corrected version of
the first player passport and that it contained the accurate career history of the player.
38.
The Respondent did not submit any evidence that would contradict the content of the second
player passport, i.e. any documentation that would prove that the player was indeed registered
permanently with the Claimant and not on loan.
39.
Therefore, it is determined that the second player passport contains the accurate career history
of the player in North Macedonia, and that the player was registered with the Claimant on loan
from FK Vardar.
40.
Consequently, it is established that training compensation is due to the Claimant for the period
the player was registered with it during the course of his 18th birthday season, i.e. as from 1
September 2017 until 20 November 2017, that is to say during 81 days, on loan from his former
club FK Vardar.
41.
It remained uncontested that the Respondent did not pay to the Claimant the training
compensation due as a result of the subsequent transfer of the player to the Respondent.
42.
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.
43.
As established above, the Respondent is considered to be a training category III club. Training
costs for category III clubs within UEFA are set at EUR 30,000 per year.
44.
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 10 of 13
REF TMS 8025
45.
Consequently, on the basis of the subsequent registration of the player as a professional with
the Respondent, the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation in the amount of EUR
6,657.54 for the 81 days of registration during the season of the player’s 18th birthday.
46.
Furthermore, the Claimant requested to be awarded interest amounting to 5% per annum as
of “the due date”.
47.
With reference to 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 11 April 2020
until the date of effective payment.
48.
In view of all the above, the claim of the Claimant is accepted and the Claimant is entitled to
receive EUR 6,657.54 as training compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. on that amount, as from
11 April 2020 until the date of effective payment.
49.
Procedural costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 may be levied for decisions passed by
the subcommittee of the DRC in disputes related to solidarity contribution (cf. art. 18 par. 1 of
the Procedural Rules).
50.
The amount claimed by the Claimant corresponds to EUR 6,657.54, i.e. below CHF 50,000.
Therefore, procedural costs levied in this respect shall not exceed the sum of CHF 5,000 (art. 1
of Annexe A of the Procedural Rules).
51.
In consideration of the amount claimed by the Claimant, costs of the current proceedings shall
be set at CHF 1,000.
52.
In view of the degree of success of the Claimant, the costs shall be borne in full by the
Respondent.
53.
The relevant provisions of art. 24bis RSTP are applicable in the present matter.
Page 11 of 13
REF TMS 8025
III. DECISION
1.
The claim of the Claimant, FK Pelister, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, FC Vysocina Jihlava, shall pay to the Claimant EUR 6,657.54 as training
compensation, plus 5% interest per annum on that amount as from 11 April 2020, until the date
of effective payment.
3.
Full payment 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.
If the due amount 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.
6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 1,000 are to be paid by the Respondent
to FIFA with reference to case no. TMS 8025 (cf. note relating to the payment of the procedural
costs below).
For the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 12 of 13
REF TMS 8025
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 13 of 13