Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
REF TMS 13757
Decision of the
Single Judge of the sub-committee of
The Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 26 June 2024
regarding training compensation for the
player SALIFOU SOUMAH
BY:
Ms. Lívia Silva Kägi (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman of the
sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
CLAIMANT:
Académie ATOUGA, Guinea
RESPONDENT:
LE HAVRE AC, France
Page 2 of 12
REF TMS 13757
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
SALIFOU SOUMAH
Date of birth:
3 October 2003
Player passports:
- issued by the Fédération Guinéenne de Football (FGF):
Year
Birthday
Club(s)
Registration dates
Status
th
2015
12
Academia ATOUGA
01/01/15
31/07/15
Amateur
th
12
Academia ATOUGA
01/09/15
31/12/15
Amateur
2016
th
13
Academia ATOUGA
01/01/16
31/12/16
Amateur
2017
14th
Academia ATOUGA
01/01/17
31/07/17
Amateur
14
Star
de
24/11/17
31/12/17
Amateur
de
01/01/18
31/07/18
Amateur
de
24/12/18
31/12/18
Amateur
de
01/01/19
31/07/19
Amateur
de
01/09/19
31/12/19
Amateur
de
01/01/20
18/02/20
Amateur
Academie Sportive de
19/02/20
31/12/20
Amateur
01/01/21
31/07/21
Amateur
Registration dates
Status
th
Academie
Kaloum
2018
15
th
Star
Academie
Kaloum
15th
Star
Academie
Kaloum
2019
16
th
Star
Academie
Kaloum
16th
Star
Academie
Kaloum
2020
17
th
Star
Academie
Kaloum
17th
Kaloum
2021
18
th
Academie Sportive de
Kaloum
- issued by the Turkish Football Federation (TFF):
Year
Birthday
2022
19
YERKOYSPOR
11/03/22
30/08/22
Amateur
19th
LE HAVRE AC (France)
31/08/22
00/00/00
Professional
th
Club(s)
Date of registration:
31 August 2022 with LE HAVRE AC
Claimant club:
Academie ATOUGA, Guinea
Respondent club:
LE HAVRE AC (France)
UEFA, category I (EUR 90,000 per year)
Page 3 of 12
REF TMS 13757
Claim and Response:
1.
On 28 November 2023, the Claimant lodged the present claim and requested EUR
25,808.22 as training compensation, on the basis of the subsequent registration as a
professional of the player with the Respondent, plus 5% interest p.a. as of the due date.
2.
For the purposes of its calculations, the Claimant took into account art. 5, par. 3 of
Annexe 4 RSTP, and multiplied pro rata the training costs of UEFA category IV clubs, i.e.
th
and 14th
birthdays.
3.
On 22 January 2024, the Respondent rejected the claim.
4.
In fact, the Respondent stated that it did not sign the first professional contract of the
player.
5.
The Respondent is of the opinion that the player signed his first professional contract
seven months before joining the Respondent.
6.
The Respondent argued that on January 2022, Kayseripor and Academie Sportive de
professional with Kayseripor for two seasons and a half.
7.
The transfer agreement, in English, and the employment contract, in Turkish, are
presented by the Respondent as evidence.
8.
The Respondent highlighted that the alleged employment contract determines:
a. a salary of EUR 700 per month, with EUR 7,000 per season;
b.
c. accommodation and transportation, including round trip ticket between Kayseri
and Conakry;
d. an appearance fee of EUR 500 per game.
9.
Moreover, the Respondent pointed out that Kayseripor announced the recruitment of
the player on its website on January 2022.
10.
The Respondent reinforces that the employment agreement with Kayserispor came into
force, but that the latter failed to fulfil its obligations. Because of that, the Respondent
states the player filed a claim against Kayserispor before FIFA for breach of contract
under the reference number FPSD-6634.
Page 4 of 12
REF TMS 13757
11.
The Football Tribunal accepted the claim of the player and determined the termination
of the contract in addition to ordering Kayserispor to pay EUR 2,800 as outstanding
remuneration, EUR 785 as reimbursement for flights tickets, and EUR 14,000 as
compensation to the player.
12.
Between the termination of the employment contract with Kayseripor, and re-registering
the Respondent as a professional, the latter states that the player was registered as an
amateur with YERKOYSPOR.
13.
The Respondent argues that FPSD-6634 recognized the validity of the employment
contract between the player and Kayserispor and that the amounts paid by the latter
surpass the minimum wage in the country at the time, which would allegedly be of EUR
276 per month.
14.
In conclusion, the Respondent is of the opinion that Kayserispor would be the
responsible to pay training compensation to the Claimant, and it asks FIFA to add FPSD6634 to file as well as to reject the claim.
15.
On 7 February 2024, the Claimant highlighted that on TMS 12183, regarding the
registration of the player with the Respondent, FIFA granted training compensation to
AS Kaloum.
16.
The Claimant highlighted that at the abovementioned case, the Respondent did not
make reference to an employment contract between the player and Kayserispor.
17.
Moreover, the Claimant stated that the player signing a professional agreement with
Kayserispor should be irrelevant to the present claim and that FIFA should not take into
account any decision taken on FPSD-6634 as the relevant evidence was not presented
by the Respondent itself in accordance with art. 13, par. 5 of the Procedural Rules.
18.
The Claimant emphasized that the registration of the player as a professional is the
the mere signature of the contract
19.
Moreover, the Claimant highlighted that what makes a player eligible to play for a club
is not having an employment contract with it but being registered by the latter before its
federation for this purpose.
20.
The Claimant also stated that the Kayserispor announcement of signing the player on
His license was not
issued due to the foreign quota
21.
In addition, the Claimant alleged that exclusively the player passport should be taken
into consideration for the training reward system, and there is no registration
whatsoever of the player with Kayserispor on any career history issued by the relevant
member associations.
Page 5 of 12
REF TMS 13757
22.
The Claimant also makes reference to EPP-27623, regarding the player and approved on
29 January 2024, which does not contain Kayserispor.
23.
In conclusion, the Claimant reinforces its understanding that it is entitled to receive
training compensation from the Respondent.
24.
On 24 February 2024, the Respondent provided its final arguments.
25.
It stated that the player concluded a professional contract with AS Kaloum on 1 August
2020, valid for two years.
26.
The alleged contract determined AS Kaloum was to provide to the player:
a.
b.
c.
d.
a monthly net salary of GNF 3,000,000, allegedly equivalent to EUR 326;
a signing bonus of GNF 8,000,000, allegedly equivalent to EUR 869;
a rent allowance; and
the coverage of all his medical expenses.
27.
The Respondent stated, and provided respective evidence that the gross monthly
income in Guinea is of EUR 90.
28.
The Respondent is of the opinion that, regardless of what is shown on the player
passports issued by the respective member associations, the employment contracts
signed with AS Kaloum and Kayserispor were written, provided obligations and a
remuneration th
29.
In light of the above, the registration of the player with these clubs should be considered
as a professional status in accordance with RSTP, and CAS and DRC jurisprudence.
30.
The Respondent provided as evidence the findings of the decision taken by the Football
Tribunal on FPSD-6634, and the alleged employment contract between player and AS
Kaloum.
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): July 2022
edition
the Dispute Resolution Chamber (Procedural Rules): March 2023 edition
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested
Page 6 of 12
REF TMS 13757
Admissible:
Yes, uncontested
Decision:
1.
The claim of the Claimant is based on the first registration of the player as a professional
with the Respondent.
2.
According to the player passports issued by FGF and TFF, the player was always
registered as an amateur in Guinea and Turkey, before registering as a professional with
the Respondent, in France.
3.
In particular, according to the FGF player passport, the player was registered with the
Claimant for 911 days:
a. 334 days during the calendar year of his 12th birthday;
b. the full year of his 13th birthday; and
c. 212 days during the calendar year of his 14th birthday.
4.
It is undisputed that the player was registered with the Respondent on 31 August 2022,
5.
Art. 2 par. 1 lit. a) of Annexe 4 RSTP stipulates that training compensation is due when a
player is registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the calendar
year of his 23rd birthday.
6.
Art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 RSTP foresees that on registering as a professional for the first
time, 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
the player passport) and that has contributed to his training starting from the calendar
year of his 12th birthday. The amount payable is calculated on a pro rata basis according
to the period of training that the player spent with each club.
7.
Thus, based on the above, the registration of the player with the Respondent constituted
in principle a first professional registration, and training compensation would be due to
8.
Nevertheless, the Respondent held that no training compensation was due to the
Claimant since the player had been registered as a professional with AS Kaloum and
Kayserispor between being registered with the Claimant and with the Respondent.
Page 7 of 12
REF TMS 13757
9.
In accordance with art. 2 par. 2 of the 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.
10.
Referring to art. 13 par 5 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal, the
Single Judge pointed out that the Respondent, as the party alleging
professional registration with AS Kaloum and Kayserispor,
consequent non-entitlement to training compensation, bears the burden of
substantially proving such allegations.
11.
The Respondent provided as evidence, inter alia employment contracts signed between
the player and AS Kaloum, the player and Kayserispor, as well as a transfer agreement
between the last two.
12.
Moreover, the Respondent states that the amount contractually agreed between the
abovementioned clubs and the player surpasses the minimum wage in the respective
countries, and it also makes reference to FPSD-6634, in which the Football Tribunal
determined the termination of the employment agreement between the player and
Kayserispor.
A chamber may consider and rely
13.
on any evidence not presented by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within TMS and/or the Platform
14.
FPSD-6643, referred by the Respondent in the present dispute
professional status with Kayserispor, determined that the latter was to pay the player: i.
EUR 2,800 as outstanding remuneration (i.e. 4 monthly salaries à EUR 700 each, from
February to May 2022); ii. EUR 785 as reimbursement of the flight ticket; and EUR 14,000
as compensation.
15.
On the decision-making process of FPSD-6634, the Football Tribunal considered that:
a. On 14 January 2022, the player and Kayserispor signed an employment contract
valid from said date until 31 May 2024;
i. For the second half of the 2021/22 season, Kayserispor should pay to the
player the amount of EUR 3,500 divided in five monthly salaries;
ii. For the 2022/23 and for the 2023/24 seasons, Kayserispor would pay the
player EUR 7,000 per season; and
Page 8 of 12
REF TMS 13757
iii. Kayserispor should pay the player a round-trip ticket between Kayseri
and Conakry.
b. On 31 May 2022, after putting Kayserispor in default on 9 May 2022, the player
unilaterally terminated the employment contract because of overdue payables;
c. On 6 July 2022, the player lodged the claim FPSD-6643 against Kayserispor
requesting the receipt of outstanding remuneration and compensation; and
d. Kayserispor did not reply to the claim.
16.
The Claimant argued that:
a. on TMS 12183, regarding the registration of the player with the Respondent,
FIFA granted training compensation to AS Kaloum;
b. on the abovementioned case, the Respondent did not make reference to an
employment contract between the player and Kayserispor;
c. the registration of the player as a professional is the triggering event of training
the mere signature of the contract
d
d. consequently, that exclusively the player passport should be taken into
consideration for the training reward system, in which there is no registration
whatsoever of the player with Kayserispor.
17.
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.
18.
The recognition of an employment contract between the player and Kayserispor by the
Football Tribunal on FPSD-6634 clearly contradicts the content of the TFF player passport
in which Kayserispor is not mentioned.
19.
Moreover, the abovementioned contract meets the criteria of art. 2, par. 2 RSTP,
determining that indeed the player was registered with Kayserispor as a professional.
20.
As a consequence, the player was registered with Kayserispor as a professional between
his registration periods with the Claimant and the Respondent.
Page 9 of 12
REF TMS 13757
21.
have been a professional already with AS Kaloum. In this respect, less documentation
was provided, but the latter indicates that the player might already have been a
professional with AS Kaloum.
22.
The Single Judge was wished to highlight that in the present case, differently from cases
TMS 12183 and TMS 13605, the Respondent provided FIFA with several new documents,
which consist of substantial evidence
s prior to his
registration with LE HAVRE AC, properly discharging its burden of proof, in line with art.
13 par 5 of the Procedural Rules.
23.
In light of the above, the claim of the Claimant is rejected.
24.
According to art. 25 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, procedural costs are payable for
disputes between clubs regarding the payment of training rewards.
25.
The Claimant claimed the amount of EUR 25,808.22.
26.
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 to USD 5,000 (cf. art.
2 of Annexe 1 to the Procedural Rules.
27.
According to art. 25 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the chamber will decide the amount
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.
28.
In view the specific circumstances of the case, procedural costs shall be set at USD 5,000.
29.
In view of the outcome of the claim, the costs shall be borne in full by the Claimant.
30.
Art. 24bis RSTP applies.
Page 10 of 12
REF TMS 13757
III. DECISION
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Academie ATOUGA, is rejected.
2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of USD 5,000 are to be paid by the
Claimant to FIFA with reference to case no. TMS 13757 (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 11 of 12
REF TMS 13757
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 12 of 12