Training Compensation (TMS claims)
Texto da decisão
Dispute Resolution Chamber
Date: 29 April 2025
Via TMS:
Respondent:
1. FC Nürnberg
NOTIFICATION OF THE GROUNDS OF THE DECISION
TRAINING COMPENSATION FOR THE
PLAYER Gabriel DEMIAN
TMS Ref. Nr. 13441
Dear Sirs,
Please find attached the grounds of the decision passed in the aforementioned matter.
We kindly invite you to take note of this decision.
We remain at your disposal.
Yours faithfully,
FIFA
Copy for information (VIA EMAIL):
Deutscher Fussball-Bund
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
Tel: +41 43/222 7777 [email protected]
REF TMS 13441
Decision of the
Single Judge of the sub-committee of
The Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 February 2025
regarding training compensation for the player
Gabriel DEMIAN
BY:
Ms. Lívia Silva Kägi (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
CLAIMANT:
FC Nitra, Slovakia
RESPONDENT:
1. FC Nürnberg, Germany
Page 2 of 14
REF TMS 13441
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Gabriel DEMIAN
Date of birth:
4 December 2004
Player passport (s):
- issued by the Slovenský futbalový zväz (SFZ) on 11 September 2023:
Year Birthday Clubs
Registration dates
Status
2016
12th
FC Nitra
01/01/16
31/12/16
Amateur
2017
th
FC Nitra
01/01/17
31/12/17
Amateur
2018
th
14
FC Nitra
01/01/18
31/12/18
Amateur
2019
15th
FC Nitra
01/01/19
31/12/19
Amateur
2020
th
FC Nitra
01/01/20
31/12/20
Amateur
th
FC Nitra
01/01/21
05/08/21
Amateur
th
Foreign association
th
MFK Dukla Banská Bystrica
2021
13
16
17
17
2022
18
06/08/21 01/07/22
31/12/22
Professional
- issued by the Deutscher Fussball-Bund (DFB) on 8 September 2023:
Year Birthday Clubs
Registration dates
Status
2021
17th
1.FC NÜRNBERG
06/08/21
31/12/21
Amateur
2022
th
1.FC NÜRNBERG
01/01/22
31/12/22
Professional
th
1.FC NÜRNBERG
01/01/23
24/01/23
Professional
2023
18
18
Date of registration:
1 January 2022 with 1.FC Nürnberg (Germany)
Claimant club:
FC Nitra (Slovakia)
UEFA, category IV (EUR 10,000 per year of training)
Respondent club:
1. FC Nürnberg (Germany)
UEFA, category II (EUR 60,000 per year of training)
Page 3 of 14
REF TMS 13441
Claim and Response:
1.
On 2 September 2023, the Claimant claimed training compensation in the amount of
EUR 111.753,00 which is overdue since 1 February 2022 as well as default interest in
amount of 5 % p.a. rate as of 31st day of the first registration of the player as a professional
with the Association B until the effective date of payment by the Respondent .
2.
The Claimant
until 5 August 2021, i.e.
birthdays.
3.
Moreover, the Claimant states that the player first registered as a professional with the
th
birthday.
4.
To calculate the claimed amount of training compensation, the Claimant applied UEFA
th
, 13th, 14th and 15th birthdays, i.e.
declared UEFA category III
th
th
and 17th
and 17th birthday.
5.
As a result of the above, the Claimant stated it should be entitled to receive
EUR 40,000.00 for the first four full years of registration of the player, between the ages
th
of 12 and 15, EUR 45,000.00
birthday, and EUR 26,753.00 for the 217
th
birthday, resulting on a total amount of
EUR 111,753.00.
6.
On 26 October 2023, the FIFA administration issued a proposal to the parties stating,
The Respondent,1. Nurnberg, shall pay the Claimant, FC Nitra: - EUR 111,803.28 as training
compensation plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 February 2022 until the date of effective
payment. .
7.
The abovementioned proposal was tacitly accepted by the Claimant and rejected by the
Respondent.
8.
The Respondent disputes th
9.
It firstly argues that the Claimant is a UEFA category IV club and not III, in accordance
with the information available on the SFZ player passport.
10.
As a result of that, the average between the training categories of the two would result
th
and
th
17 birthdays.
ning compensation entitlement.
Page 4 of 14
REF TMS 13441
11.
The change of category would reduce the training compensation claimed by the
Claimant to
ages of 12 and 15, EUR 35,000.00 for the calendar year of his 16th birthday, and
EUR 20,808.22 for the 217 days of registration during the 17th birthday. This would result
in the amount of EUR 95,808.22.
12.
Secondly, the Respondent provided a description of the three categories of player within
Germany.
13.
They are divided into amateurs,
, which are the ones that play 1 st and 2nd
national divisions, and
, those who take part in competition of 3rd
national division and below, including youth tournaments.
14.
The Respondent argued it registered the player with its youth team
,
so that he could develop in lower leagues, and eventually be registered at some point as
a
.
15.
In continuation, the Respondent emphasized that it celebrated an agreement with the
Claimant regarding the player determining that:
This Agreement is made on 22nd September 2021 between 1.
hereby 1. FC N will make certain payments to Nitra as
compensation in respect of the player, Gabriel Demian
1) In consideration of the costs incurred by Nitra in the training and
development of the Player, 1. FC N shall pay to Nitra the following sums:
conditional upon the confirmation by the DFB and/or Ligaverband (or any other
responsible registration department of the German professional football) that
the Player has been registered as Lizenspieler with 1. FC N.
4. (a) It is further agreed that Nitra accepts the sums to be paid to it hereunder
in satisfaction and as adequate compensation for the costs incurred by it in the
training and development of the Player and in full and final settlement of any
and all claims and liabilities whatsoever, arising now or in the future, which are
registration with 1. FC N whether as a Scholar and/or Professional including but
without limitation any and all sums payable pursuant to FIFA Regulations
16.
It argues the abovementioned payment never became due because the player was only
registered as
with the Respondent and not as
.
17.
In replica, the Claimant argued that, as admitted by the Respondent, the
abovementioned agreement was never fulfilled and, consequently, no payment
Page 5 of 14
REF TMS 13441
whatsoever was made to the Claimant in substitution of its training compensation
entitlement.
18.
In light of the above, the Claimant argued that training compensation would still be due.
19.
The Claimant continued by stating that FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (RSTP) only recognizes two categories of players, i.e. amateur and professional.
So, if the player is not an amateur, he would be a professional regardless of if registered
as
or
under DFB Regulations.
20.
The Claimant argued being a purely amateur team, playing in the fourth tier of Slovakian
football and, for that reason under no condition of offering its players professional
contracts in accordance with Annexe 4, Article 6, par. 3 RSTP.
21.
In conclusion, the Claimant updated the calculation of its entitlement to EUR 95,808.22,
considering itself a UEFA category IV club, as mentioned by the Respondent.
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): 2022 edition.
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (Procedural Rules):
March 2023 edition.
Decision:
1.
The claim of the Claimant is based on the first registration of the player as a professional
with the Respondent.
2.
inter alia alleging that it celebrated
an agreement with the latter for the payment of EUR 115,000.00 if the player registered
which would substitute the payment of any training compensation.
3.
According to the arguments of the Respondent, it registered the player only as a
, which are considered to be professionals in the sense of Art. 2.2 RSTP,
as they have written agreements and receive more for than the costs incurred with their
footballing activities.
4.
To avoid having to pay high amounts of training compensation for players that might
not make it to the first team
, clubs like the Respondent opt for signing
compensation agreements with the former clubs of the players, such as the Claimant.
Page 6 of 14
REF TMS 13441
5.
By a letter issued by the DFB, it was confirmed that the player was not registered as
. Therefore, the condition established in the compensation agreement
celebrated with the Claimant was not met.
6.
On the one hand, since the condition of registering the player under the category of
Lizenzspieler was not fulfilled, the Respondent is of the opinion that no training
compensation is to be paid to the Claimant.
7.
On the other hand, the Claimant understands that as the condition was not met, then
the Respondent should pay the sum of EUR 95,808.22 as training compensation, instead
of the amount agreed on the compensation agreement.
8.
According to the jurisprudence of the DRC, the validity of a conventional waiver is subject
to a clear and unequivocal declaration by the party concerned, requiring clear language
9.
Implied waivers are not recognised. Accordingly, and given that training compensation
is a right stipulated in the RSTP, the existence of a waiver of this right may only be
assumed in case it was unmistakable that the renouncing club has indeed intended to
waive its right to training compensation.
10.
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.
11.
In casu, the alleged waiver conditions its validity to the payment of EUR 115,000 if the
player is registered as a Lizenzspieler with the Respondent.
12.
As the Respondent never registered the player as Lizenzspieler , the above condition was
not met and the Claimant s training compensation entitlement in accordance with RSTP
was not replaced by any other payment.
13.
Consequently, the alleged waiver shall not be taken into consideration, and the
the player with the Respondent has not been waived.
Page 7 of 14
REF TMS 13441
14.
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).
15.
In casu, the Claimant is based in Slovakia and the Respondent in Germany, both
countries being member of the EU and/or the EEA.
16.
Therefore, art. 6 of Annexe 4 RTSP is applicable to the matter at hand as lex specialis.
17.
The Claimant made reference to the DRC jurisprudence regarding the lifting of the
purely amateur clubs
apply in the present matter.
18.
Article 13, par. 5 of the Procedural Rules establishes that a party that asserts a fact has
the burden to proof it.
19.
The Claimant stated that it is a category IV club which participates in the 4th tier in the
Slovakian football, an amateur league.
20.
It provided a document from the West Slovak Football Association indicating that the
club competes in amateur football competitions.
21.
Additionally, its category can be corroborated in TMS.
22.
Thus, the Claimant argues it is not in a position to offer professional contracts to its
players.
23.
Art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RTSP 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.
24.
In the present case, it is undisputed that the Claimant was the last club the player was
registered before registering as a professional with the Respondent.
25.
As such, the Claimant is considered to be the former club in the sense of art. 6 par. 3 of
Annexe 4 RSTP.
Page 8 of 14
REF TMS 13441
26.
As per the jurisprudence developed by the DRC in respect of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4
RSTP, if the former club is a purely amateur club, the requirement to offer a contract
does not apply.
27.
According to the jurisprudence of the DRC, a purely amateur club can be understood as
a club with no legal, financial or de facto links to a professional club that: (i) is only
permitted to register amateur players; or (ii) has no registered professional players; or
(iii) has not registered any professional players in the three years prior to a particular
date.
28.
In casu, the Claimant alleged in its claim being a purely amateur club and provided proof
that it is a 4th tier club, purely amateur. Moreover, the West Slovak Football Association
confirmed it competes on amateur competitions.
29.
Art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules indicates that a chamber may consider and rely on
any evidence not presented by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within TMS.
30.
According to the information available on TMS, the Claimant did not register
internationally players as professional during the 2021/22 season.
31.
In addition, still according to TMS, the Claimant transferred players internationally only
on the basis of out of contract free of payment players.
32.
Bearing this in mind and with no evidence on file to the contrary, it is established that
the Claimant was not in a position to offer a contract to the player when the latter was
registered with it being considered as a purely amateur club.
33.
As such, in application of the jurisprudence of the DRC on art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP
applies to the matter at hand, the requirement to offer a contract does not apply in the
matter at hand.
34.
Consequently, it is determined that the registration of the player with the Respondent
constituted a first professional registration in the sense of the RSTP.
35.
In accordance with the SFZ player passport, the player was registered with the Claimant
as follows:
a. From 1 January 2016 until 31 December 2016, i.e., during 366 days of the
th
birthday;
Page 9 of 14
REF TMS 13441
b. From 1 January 2017 until 31 December 2017, i.e., during 365 days of the
th
birthday;
c. From 1 January 2018 until 31 December 2018, i.e., during 365 days of the
th
birthday;
d. d) From 1 January 2019 until 31 December 2019, i.e., during 365 days of the
th
birthday;
e. From 1 January 2020 until 31 December 2020, i.e., during 366 days of the
th
f.
birthday; and
From 1 January 2021 until 6 August 2021, i.e., during 218 days of the calendar
th
birthday.
36.
In view of the above, training compensation is due to the Claimant.
37.
According to art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP, the deadline for payment of training
compensation is 30 days following the registration of the professional with the new
association.
38.
The player registered as a professional with the Respondent on 1 January 2022.
39.
Thus, the Respondent had to pay any due training compensation by 31 January 2022.
40.
It is undisputed that to date, the Respondent did not pay training compensation to the
Claimant.
41.
In accordance with art. 6 par. 1 lit b) of Annexe 4 RSTP, for players moving from one
association to another inside the territory of the EU/EEA, if the player moves from a
lower (in casu, the Claimant, Training category IV within UEFA, EUR 10,000) to a higher
category club (in casu, the Respondent, Training category II within UEFA, EUR 60,000), the
calculation shall be based on the average training costs of the two clubs, i.e. EUR 35,000.
42.
As established above, the player was registered with the Claimant during 2045 days
during the calendar years of his 12th to 17th birthdays.
43.
Article 5, par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP establishes that to ensure the training
compensation for very young players is not set at unreasonably high levels, the training
Page 10 of 14
REF TMS 13441
costs for the players for the calendar years of their 12 th to 15th birthdays shall be based
on the training and education costs of a category 4 clubs (i.e., EUR 10,000.00, in the
present dispute).
44.
Consequently, the training costs are calculated as follows:
a.
th
birthday;
b.
th
birthday;
c.
th
birthday;
d.
th
birthday;
e.
th
birthday;
th
birthday.
and
f.
45.
Therefore, the Claimant would be entitled to receive EUR 95,846.99 as training
compensation, however, in accordance with the general principle of non ultra petita and
considering that the Claimant limited its claim to EUR 95,808.22, the latter will be
awarded this amount.
46.
Furthermore, the Claimant requested to be awarded interest.
47.
-established
jurisprudence of the DRC with regard to interest, the Claimant is entitled to receive
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 1 February 2022 until the date of
effective payment.
48.
In view of all the above, the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted, and the Claimant
is entitled to receive EUR 95,808.22 as training compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. on
that amount, as from 1 February 2022 until the date of effective payment.
49.
According to art. 25 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, procedural costs are payable for
disputes between clubs regarding the payment of training rewards.
Page 11 of 14
REF TMS 13441
50.
The amount in dispute is of EUR 99,808.22, thus, it is an amount below USD 99,999.99.
Therefore, procedural costs levied in this respect are fixed at a maximum of
USD 10,000.00 (cf. art. 2 of Annexe 1 to the Procedural Rules).
51.
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.
52.
Consequently, the procedural costs shall be set at USD 10,000.00 and shall be borne by
the Respondent entirely.
53.
Article 24, pars. 7 and 8 are applicable to the present matter.
Page 12 of 14
REF TMS 13441
III. DECISION
1. The claim of the Claimant, FC Nitra, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, 1. FC Nürnberg, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of
EUR 95,808.22 as training compensation plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February
2022, until the date of effective payment.
3. Any further request of the Claimant are rejected.
4. Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account
indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5. Pursuant to article 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players if full
payment (including all applicable interest) is not paid within 45 days of notification
of this decision, 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. The maximum
duration of the ban shall be of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still
not paid by the end of the of the three entire and consecutive registration
periods.
6. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in
accordance with article 24 paragraphs 7 and 8 and article 25 of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players.
7. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of USD 10,000.00 are to be paid by
the Respondent to FIFA reference to case no. TMS 13441 (cf. note relating to the
payment of the procedural costs below).
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 13 of 14
REF TMS 13441
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 14 of 14