Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
TMS REF 5764
Decision of
the Single Judge of the sub-committee
of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 29 June 2020,
regarding training compensation for the the player Thomas HOLLAND
BY:
Roy Verm eer (Netherlands), Single Judge of the sub-committee of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC)
CLAIMANT:
THE NEW SAINTS FOOTBALL CLUB,
Wales
RESPONDENT:
WATERFORD FOOTBALL CLUB, Republic of Ireland
Page 2 of 8
TMS REF 5764
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
According to the player passport issued by the Football Association of Wales (FAW) the player,
Thomas Holland (hereinafter: “the player”), born on 22 April 1997, was registered with the Welsh
club, The New Saints Football Club (hereinafter: “the Claimant”), as from 16 June 2017 until 31
May 2018, , i.e. during 12 months of the season of the player’s 21st birthday, as well as from
1 June 2018 until 31 May 2019, i.e. during 12 months of the season of the player’s 22nd birthday,
and as from 1 June 2019 until 1 July 2019, i.e. during 1 month of the season of the player´s 23rd
birthday. The player passport indicated that the player was registered with the Claimant as a nonamateur, i.e. professional.
2.
The football seasons in Wales during the period of time the player was registered with the
Claimant started on 1 June and ended on 31 May of the following year.
3.
The FAW confirmed that the Claimant belonged to the club category III during the period of time
the player was registered with the Claimant.
4.
According to TMS, the employment contract concluded between the player and the Claimant was
terminated on 1 July 2019.
5.
In accordance with the official confirmation issued by the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) the
player was registered with its affiliated club, Waterford Football Club (hereinafter: “the
Respondent”), on 5 July 2019.
6.
According to TMS the Respondent belonged to the club category II at the time the player was
registered with the Respondent.
7.
On 18 March 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA claiming the payment of training
compensation from the Respondent on the basis that the player had signed a professional contract
with the Respondent, i.e. the player was transferred between clubs of two different associations
before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. In particular, the Claimant claimed the
amount of EUR 88,767.12 plus 5% annual interest as from due date from the Respondent.
8.
Moreover, the Claimant argued having offered a contract to the player by letter dated 19 April
2019. The Claimant enclosed a copy of the alleged offer, as well as, a copy of the alleged
registered letter sent to the player on 20 April 2019.
9.
In reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent rejected the request of the Claimant arguing that
the latter is not entitled to training compensation at the matter at stake for the following reasons:
a. The Claimant did not validly offer a contract to the player in writing via registered post at
least 60 days before the expiry of his current contract;
b. The Claimant did not demonstrate a genuine and bona fide attempt to retain the services of
the player;
Page 3 of 8
TMS REF 5764
c. The Claimant has provided untrue of false data in its claim in breach of the FIFA RSTP. The
Claimant argued that the season of the 20th birthday is the 2017/2018 season. However, the
player was only registered for the Claimant during the seasons of his 21st and 22nd birthdays
and
d. The player´s training period had ended prior to the period to which the claim relates. The
Respondent argued that the Claimant fielded the player in its first team as follows: -during
the 2017/2018 season in a total of 26 official matches and -during the 2018/2019 season in
a total of 31 official matches including 2 UEFA Champions League matches, 4 UEFA Europa
League matches and 21 Cymru Premier League matches. The Respondent enclosed a media
publication on the Claimant official website and Transfermarkt reports related to both
seasons.
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE
OF THE DRC
1.
First of all, the Single Judge of the Sub-Committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC)
Judge (hereinafter also referred to as: “the Judge”) analyzed whether he was competent to deal
with the matter at hand. In this respect, it took note that, according to art. 21 of the June 2020
edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution (hereinafter: “the Procedural Rules”), said edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable
to the matter at stake.
2.
Subsequently, the Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed
that in accordance with art. 3 of Annexe 6 of in conjunction with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 and art
22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he is competent to deal with
the dispute at stake, which concerns a dispute relating to training compensation between clubs
belonging to different associations.
3.
Furthermore, the Judge analyzed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of
the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the
Regulations, and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 5 July 2019,
the June 2019 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: “the
Regulations”) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the Judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the Judge
entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Judge started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the
parties. However, the Judge emphasized that in the following considerations he will refer only
to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the
assessment of the matter at hand.
5.
In this respect, the Judge recalled that the player, born on 22 April 1997, was registered with
the Claimant as from 16 June 2017 until 1 July 2019 and that, on 18 March 2020, the Claimant
Page 4 of 8
TMS REF 5764
lodged a claim against the Respondent, requesting the payment of training compensation due
to the player’s registration with the Respondent on 5 July 2019.
6.
In continuation, the Judge took note that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to receive
training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 88,767.12 plus interest, since
the player was transferred to a club belonging to a different association before the end of the
season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
7.
Equally, the Judge took note that the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim, inter alia, due to
the fact that, the Claimant did not validly offer a contract to the player in writing via registered
post at least 60 days before the expiry of his current contract.
8.
In this respect, and hereby referring to the rules applicable to training compensation, the Judge
stated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 in combination with art. 2 par. 1 lit. ii. of Annexe 4 of
the Regulations, training compensation is payable, as a general rule, for training incurred between
the ages of 12 and 21 when a professional is transferred between clubs of two different
Associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
9.
Moreover, the Judge referred, in particular, to art. 6 of Annexe 4 of 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). More specifically,
the Judge turned its attention to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 which stipulates, inter alia, that the
former club must offer the player a contract in writing via registered post at least 60 days before
the expiry of his current contract.
10. In view of the above, the Judge stated that, first and foremost, it had to verify whether art. 6 par.
3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies in the present case as lex specialis, and, in the affirmative,
to determine if the Claimant had complied with the said provision in order to be entitled to training
compensation.
11. As far as the applicability of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations is concerned, the Judge
stated that, as the player moved from a club in Wales to a club in Republic of Ireland, i.e. moved
from one Association to another Association inside the territory of the EU, the said article is
applicable. Therefore, the Judge concluded that the aforementioned provision applies in the case
at hand as lex specialis.
12. On account of the aforesaid, the Judge analysed whether or not the Claimant had complied with
the prerequisites of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations in order to be entitled to training
compensation. In this context, the Judge recalled that the player was already contractually bound
and registered as a professional with the Claimant prior to his move to the Respondent.
13. In this sense, the Judge emphasized that, in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of
the Regulations, 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 former
Page 5 of 8
TMS REF 5764
club must offer the player a contract in writing via registered mail at least 60 days before the
expiry of his current contract (cf. art. 6 par. 3 sent. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations).
14. In this context, the Judge took note that the Claimant held having offered an employment
contract to the player by letter dated 19 April 2019, which was allegedly sent to the player via
registered post on 20 April 2019.
15. In this regard, the Judge focussed his attention to the documentary evidence provided by the
Claimant and observed that the envelope by means of which the relevant offer was allegedly sent
to the player bore a stamp dated 20 April 2019. However, the Judge underlined that the relevant
envelope did not specify contact details of the addressee, i.e. name and address of the player.
16. Therefore, the Judge emphasized that the Claimant failed to prove that the contract´s offer
reached the player.
17. In light of the above-mentioned, the Judge concluded that the Claimant had, thus, not provide
enough documentary evidence that it had, in fact, offered the player a contract in accordance
with art. 6 par. 3 sent. 2 and sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the
Procedural Rules).
18. As a consequence, the Judge, and hereby underlining that the Claimant had not offered the
player, who was already a professional player when registered with the Claimant, a new contract,
decided that the aforementioned considerations could lead to no other conclusion than that the
Claimant had not complied with the prerequisites of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
19. In view of the foregoing, the Judge decided that the Claimant is not entitled to receive training
compensation from the Respondent for the training and education of the player.
20. Finally, and taking into account the above, the members of the Judge did not deem it necessary
to enter into the substance of the other arguments brought up by the parties to the present
dispute, since the prerequisites in order for the Claimant to be entitled to training compensation
were not complied with.
21. In view of all the above, the Judge rejected the Claimant’s claim for training compensation.
22. In continuation, the 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 solidarity mechanism and 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.
23. However, in this respect, the Judge referred to art. 18 par. 1 ii. of the Procedural Rules according
to which “For any claim or counter-claim lodged prior to 10 June 2020 which has yet to be decided
at the time of this temporary amendment, the maximum amount of procedural costs levied shall
be equivalent to any advance of costs paid”.
Page 6 of 8
TMS REF 5764
24. Thus, considering that no advance of costs was paid in this matter, no procedural costs can be
awarded in this matter.
III. DECISION OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE DRC
1.
The claim of the Claimant, The New Saints Football Club, is rejected.
2. No procedural costs are imposed on the parties in accordance with art.18 par. 1 ii. of the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber.
For the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 7 of 8
TMS REF 5764
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 8 of 8