Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
TMS 14416
Decision of the
Single Judge of the sub-committee of
The Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 29 August 2025
regarding training compensation for the player Jordan BENDER
BY:
Ms. Lívia Silva Kägi (Brazil and Switzerland), Deputy
Chairwoman of the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Football
Tribunal
CLAIMANT:
Charlotte Independence SC, USA
RESPONDENT:
Cape Town City FC, South Africa
Page 2 of 10
TMS 14416
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Jordan BENDER
Date of birth:
09/07/2021
Player passports:
-
Fist player passport- issued by the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF) on January 17, 2023
Birthday Club
16
th
17
th
Orlando City Soccer
Registration dates
Status
01/07/2017-31/12/2017
Amateur
23/04/2018-23/04/2018
Amateur
01/02/2019-30/11/2019
Amateur
01/05/2019-01/07/2020
Amateur
01/05/2021-31/12/2021
Amateur
Club- DA
Orlando City Soccer
Club- DA
18th
Orlando City Soccer
Club- DA
19
th
20
th
Orlando City Soccer
Club- DA
Charlotte
Independence
- Second player passport- issued by the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF) on 26 November
2024
Birthday Club
20
th
20
th
20
th
Orlando City SC
Registration dates
Status
01/01/2021-30/05/2021
Professional
(Permanent)
Charlotte
04/05/2021-30/08/2021
Professional (Loan)
31/08/2021-31/12/2021
Professional
Independence SC
Orlando City SC
(Permanent)
Page 3 of 10
TMS 14416
Date of registration:
22 July 2022 with Cape Town City FC (South Africa)
Claimant club:
Charlotte Independence SC, USA
Respondent club:
Cape Town City FC (South Africa)
CAF, category III (USD 10,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 18 July 2024, the Claimant submitted a claim based on the first registration of the
player as a professional with the Respondent. The Claimant asked for training
compensation re-categorizing the Respondent under CAF Category II and sentencing it to pay
to the Claimant training compensation for the above-mentioned player in the amount of USD
17,589.04 or Subsidiarily the amount of USD 5,863.01 (based on CAF category III) plus 5% p.a.
interest as of the due date, until the date of effective payment.
2.
On 22 August 2024, the FIFA Administration asked the Respondent to submit its
comments to the claim.
3.
On 11 September 2024, the Respondent replied to the claim by arguing that the Player
was not registered as a professional for the first time with their club, but rather with
Orlando City Soccer Club, and therefore the requirements for a training compensation
claim have not been met. Additionally, the Respondent argued that the Claimant had not
discharged the burden of proof in proving and substantiating its claim.
4.
On 12 November 2024, the FIFA Administration asked the Claimant to submit its
comments to the response of the Respondent.
5.
On 28 November 2024, the Claimant
answer by alleging that
following their submission, they sought corroboration from the USSF regarding the
accuracy of the information provided in the Player Passport.
6.
The Claimant alleges that, on 26 November 2024, they received a new Player Passport
issued by the USSF and that they learnt that the Player signed his first professional
contract with Orlando City SC on 1 January 2020. Additionally, they learnt that the Player
was not registered permanently as an amateur with the Claimant from 1 May 2021 until
31 December 2021, but rather on loan as a professional from 4 May 2021 to 30 August
2021.
7.
Based on the above information, the Claimant based its claim on the jurisprudence
developed by the DRC according to which a club which had the player on loan from its
Page 4 of 10
TMS 14416
club should the player be registered permanently as a professional.
8.
In this respect, the Claimant argued that the player was registered with it for 120 days,
between 4 May 2021 and 31 August 2021, before the end of the calendar year of the
st
birthday and asked the DRC to re-categorize the Respondent to CAF
Category II, ordering the Respondent to pay training compensation for the abovementioned player in the amount of USD 9,863.01 (based on CAF Category II) or
subsidiarily the amount of USD 3,287.67 (based on CAF Category III), plus 5% p.a. interest
as of the due date, until the date of effective payment.
9.
On 1 April 2025, the FIFA Administration asked the Respondent to submit its last
10.
On 7 April 2025, the Respondent submitted its last comments and reiterated its initial
allegations.
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): July 2022
edition
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (Procedural Rules):
March 2023 edition
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested
Admissibility:
Yes, uncontested
Decision:
1.
The claim of the Claimant is based on the transfer of the player as a professional between
Orlando City Soccer Club and the Respondent.
2.
It is uncontested that the player was registered with the Claimant as from 04 May 2021 until
30 August 2021, on loan from Orlando City SC.
3.
As established by the jurisprudence of the DRC, when a player registers with a club affiliated
to a different member association (i.e. the new club, in casu the Respondent) from the one
where he was previously registered (i.e. the former club, in casu Orlando City SC), any club(s)
Page 5 of 10
TMS 14416
training compensation from the new club (in casu the Claimant).
4.
the former club did not interrupt the chain of entitlement of training compensation. In other
ation 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.
5.
As such, the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation for the subsequent
professional registration of the player with the Respondent.
6.
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.
7.
For the purpose of its calculation, the Claimant acknowledged that the Respondent was
classified as a training category III club by the CAF.
8.
Nevertheless, the Claimant pointed out that the Respondent, a club participating in First
Division of South Africa, should be classified as a CAF category II club.
9.
Thus, since training categories II, III and IV are available in South Africa, the Claimant
considered that the Respondent should be reclassified under training category II in CONCACAF
for the purpose of training compensation, in line with the jurisprudence of the DRC and CAS.
10.
The Claimant added that the FIFA Circular 1249, allows the DRC to recategorize a club by
establishing that when assigning their clubs to the various training categories available and
that football associations should proceed in full respect of its criteria.
11.
The Claimant provides online sources that allegedly sustain recategorization, such as the
professional structure and market value of the Club, the squad value, and the participation in
the main competitions of the country and also in the CAF Champions League.
12.
FIFA Circular 1249 of 6 December 2010 stipulated that in principle, clubs shall be categorized
by their respective member associations according to the following principles:
a. Category I (top-level, high-quality training centre): All first-division clubs of member
associations investing, on average, a similar amount in training players;
Page 6 of 10
TMS 14416
b. Category II (still professional, but at a lower level): All second-division clubs of member
associations in category I and all first-division clubs in all other countries with
professional football;
c. Category III: All third-division clubs of member associations in category I and all seconddivision clubs in all other countries with professional football; and
d. Category IV: All fourth- and lower-division clubs of the member associations in category
I, all third- and lower division clubs in all other countries with professional football and
all clubs in countries with only amateur football.
2.
What is more, FIFA Circular 1249 stipulates
in such a case of manifest discrepancy, the DRC
normally applies the training categories in accordance with the guidelines, despite the fact that the
member association concerned had indicated a different categorisation
3.
According to FIFA Circular 1805 of 8 July 2022, the South African Football Association (SAFA)
may classify their clubs between three training categories, i.e.: II, with training costs of USD
30,000 per year; III, with training costs of USD 10,000 per year; and IV, with training costs of
USD 2,000 per year.
4.
In that regard, the DRC is aware that there are precedents where clubs have been "recategorised" on the basis of that provision.
5.
usurp of a power conferred to the national associations by art. 4 par. 1 of Annex 4 RSTP, which,
for obvious reasons, are better placed than the DRC to determine what are the training and
education costs of their member clubs. In fact, the referred FIFA Circular 1249, which
establishes certain parameters and guidelines for national associations to categorise their
clubs, states that the DRC will intervene only in cases of manifest discrepancy between the
categorisation assigned by the national association and the actual training costs of a club.
6.
The argument presented by the Claimant to request the re-categorisation of the Respondent
from Category III to Category II is mainly that the Respondent participates in the first division
in South Africa.
7.
In line with the recent jurisprudence of the DRC, such allegations alone cannot meet the
standard of "manifest discrepancy" between the category given by the SAFA and the one
requested by the Claimant.
8.
Additionally, the Claimant provides very little to no information or documentation regarding
the expenses of the Respondent in relation to the training of young players.
9.
Additionally, the argumentation of the Claimant regarding the alleged value of the current
squad and the market value of the Respondent is speculative and cannot be used as an
Page 7 of 10
TMS 14416
objective tool to assess if a club is a well-established and successful club in South Africa or
else.
10.
In conclusion, the Claimant failed to demonstrate that the Respondent was wrongly
categorised by its association.
11.
Based on the above, the allegations of the Claimant shall be rejected in line with art. 13 par. 5
of the Procedural Rules the Claimant did not meet its burden of proving that the Respondent
was a CAF category II club when registering the player on 22 July 2022.
12.
recategorize the Respondent shall be dismissed.
13.
As a result, the amount due to the Claimant as training compensation shall be calculated on
the basis of the Respondent being a CAF training category III club.
14.
In this respect, according to the player passport issued by USSF, the player was registered with
the Claimant for 119 days, between 4 May 2021 and 31 August 2021, during the calendar year
20th birthday.
15.
In view of all the above, 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 20th calendar year, i.e. as
from 04 May 2021 until 31 August 2021, that is to say during 119 days, on loan from his former
club Orlando City Soccer Club.
16.
The Claimant claimed the amount of USD 9,863.01 (based on CAF Category II), and subsidiarily
USD 3,287.67 (based on CAF Category III).
17.
partially accepted, and the Respondent is to pay USD
3,260.27 of training compensation. Furthermore, the Claimant requested to be awarded
interest amounting to 5% per annum as from the due date of payment, i.e. 31 days after
registration.
18.
According to art. 25 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, procedural costs are payable for disputes
between clubs regarding the payment of training rewards.
19.
The amount claimed by the Claimant corresponds to an amount lower than USD 49,999.99.
20.
Therefore, procedural costs levied in this respect are fixed at USD 5,000 (cf. art. 2 of Annexe 1
to the Procedural Rules. According to art. 25 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the chamber will
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.
21.
In view the specific circumstances of the case, procedural costs shall be set at USD 2,000.
Page 8 of 10
TMS 14416
22.
In view of the outcome of the claim, said costs shall be paid by the Respondent.
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Charlotte Independence SC, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Cape Town City FC, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of pay USD
3,260.27 as training compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. on that amount, from 22 August
2022 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claim of the Claimant is 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 2,000.00 are to be paid by the
Respondent to FIFA with reference to case no. TMS 14416 (cf. note relating to the payment
of the procedural costs below).
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 9 of 10
TMS 14416
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
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
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA, 33134
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 10 of 10