Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Single Judge of the sub-committee of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 14 July 2020,
regarding training compensation for the player Peter URMINSKY
BY:
Daan de Jong (the Netherlands), Single Judge of the sub-committee of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber
CLAIMANT:
FC Spartak Trnava, Slovakia
RESPONDENT:
St Mirren FC, Scotland
REF TMS 6008
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
According to the player’s passport issued by the Slovenský futbalový zväz (hereinafter: SFZ), the
player, Peter URMINSKY (hereinafter: the player), born on 20 May 1999, was registered with its
affiliated clubs, among which FC Spartak Trnava (hereinafter: the Claimant), as follows:
Club
Lokomotiva Trnava
FC Spartak Trnava
FC Spartak Trnava
FC Spartak Trnava
FC Spartak Trnava
FC Spartak Trnava
FC Spartak Trnava
FC Spartak Trnava
AS Trencin
FC Spartak Trnava
Registration dates
01.07.2019 - 07.08.2012
08.08.2012 - 30.06.2013
01.07.2013 – 30.06.2014
01.07.2014 – 30.06.2015
01.07.2015 – 30.06.2016
01.07.2016 – 30-06.2017
01.07.2017 – 30.06.2018
01.07.2018 - 20.02.2019
21.02.2019 - 15.06.2019
16.06.2019 – 25.01.2020
Status
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Non-Amateur
Non-Amateur
Non-Amateur
Non-Amateur
2.
Pursuant to the information provided by the SFZ, the sporting seasons in Slovakia start on 1 July
and end on 30 June each year.
3.
Moreover, according to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (hereinafter:
TMS) the Claimant belonged to the club category III during the period of time the player was
registered with the Claimant.
4.
Furthermore, in accordance with the information available in TMS, the player was registered
with the Scottish club St Mirren FC (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 25 January 2020.
5.
According to the information contained in the TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category
II at the time the player was registered with it.
6.
On 7 May 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA requesting
training compensation on the basis that the player, at the age of 20, 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 from the Respondent the amount of EUR 245,425, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 15
February 2020.
7.
In this context, the Claimant held that, inter alia, it “was in the process of ownership and
management change in the month of June 2019 just before the beginning of 2019/2020 season.
The new management started auditing all the club's documentation including the players
‘contracts. One of the players that had a contract to expire at the end of the year 2019 was the
Page 2 of 7
REF TMS 6008
player in question Peter Urminsky. The management considered him as the future key player and
started negotiations with the player since the month of September 2019”. In this respect, the
Claimant provided various alleged statements of its employees.
8.
In addition, the Claimant sustained that “As evidenced by the WhatsApp communication
between the player and the Claimant's sport director Mr. Andrej Kostolansky from Friday 13
December 2019 the player was about to sign the contract on Monday 16 December 2019,
however later declined to sign this contract and instead signed a contract with the Respondent.
The Claimant acted in good faith wishing to retain the services of the player and was in
negotiation process with the player before the time limit foreseen in art. 6.3 of Annexe 4 of the
FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players expired”.
9.
As such, the Claimant deemed that the 30 day period to pay the training compensation as
defined by the FIFA Regulations expired on 24 February 2020 and that “it made no sense to send
the player an offer via registered post 60 days before the expiry of his then current contract
when both the Claimant and Respondent were already actively negotiating the conditions of the
new contract”.
10.
For its part, despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not reply to the claim.
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE OF
THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
First of all, the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(hereinafter: the Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at
hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 7 May 2020
and the decision passed on 14 July 2020. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 2019
edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the 2019 edition of the Procedural Rules
is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 21 of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which states that the
Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its jurisdiction in light of arts. 22 to 24 of the
Regulations (June 2020 edition). In accordance with art. 3 of Annexe 6 in conjunction with art.
24 par. 3 and art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations, the Single Judge is competent to decide on the
present dispute relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different
associations handled through TMS.
3.
Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with the Respondent
on 25 January 2020, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and
2 of the Regulations, the January 2020 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
Page 3 of 7
REF TMS 6008
4.
The competence of the Single Judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the
Single Judge entered into the substance of the matter. The Single Judge started by
acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation on file.
However, the Single Judge emphasized that in the following considerations he will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the
assessment of the matter at hand. In particular, the Single Judge recalled that, in accordance
with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings
pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or
contained in the TMS.
5.
First of all, the Single Judge recalled that, in accordance with the player’s passport issued by the
SFZ, the player, born on 20 May 1999, was registered with the Claimant as from 8 August 2012
until 25 January 2020, with the exception of the loan to Slovakian club As Trencin as from 21
February 2019 until 15 June 2019.
6.
In continuation, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to
receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 245,425, 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 Single Judge observed that that the Respondent had been given the opportunity to
reply to the claim submitted by the Claimant, but that the Respondent had failed to present its
response in this respect. In this way, so the Single judge deemed, the Respondent renounced to
its right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant.
8.
As a consequence of the preceding consideration, the Single judge established that in
accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules he shall take a decision upon the basis of
the documents on file.
9.
In this respect, and hereby referring to the rules applicable to training compensation, the Single
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.
10.
Moreover, the Single 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 Single 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.
Page 4 of 7
REF TMS 6008
11.
In view of the above, the Single 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.
12.
As far as the applicability of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations is concerned, the Single
Judge stated that, as the player moved from a club in Slovakia to a club in Scotland, i.e. moved
from one Association to another Association inside the territory of the EU, the said article is
applicable. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the aforementioned provision applies in
the case at hand as lex specialis.
13.
On account of the aforesaid, the Single 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 Single Judge recalled that the player was
already contractually bound and registered as a professional with the Claimant prior to his move
to the Respondent.
14.
In this sense, the Single 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 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).
15.
In this context, the Single Judge recalled that the Claimant provided alleged statements of its
employees supposedly demonstrating that the Claimant considered the player as a future key
player. In addition, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant provided an extract of a Whatsapp
conversation from which it can however not be confirmed that the Claimant effectively remitted
an offer to the player. In continuation, the Single Judge further observed that the Claimant itself
acknowledged that “it made no sense to send the player an offer via registered post 60 days
before the expiry of his then current contract when both the Claimant and Respondent were
already actively negotiating the conditions of the new contract”.
16.
On account of the above, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant had, thus, not brought
forward any argument 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, nor was there any documentary
evidence of file that the Claimant had done so (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules).
17.
As a consequence, the Single 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. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge determined that the Claimant is not
Page 5 of 7
REF TMS 6008
entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent for the training and education
of the player.
18.
Furthermore, and for the sake of good order, the Single Judge pointed out that the Claimant
had not made any efforts to justify that it would be entitled to training compensation in
accordance with art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 in fine of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which, according
to the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC, is limited to very exceptional circumstances. In
this respect, the Single Judge deemed it important to underline that the Claimant had not
brought forward the occurrence of a very exceptional circumstance which, in the case at hand,
had stopped the Claimant from offering the player a contract i.e. the Single Judge had no reason
to believe that very exceptional circumstances had prevented the Claimant from offering the
player a contract 60 days before the expiry of his employment contract. In this context, the Single
Judge reiterated that the only statement of the Claimant with regard to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe
4 of the Regulations was that, despite various alleged discussions on the prolongation of the
player’s contract, the player did not sign the alleged new employment contract he was supposed
to sign, the employment contract between the player and the Claimant had naturally expired on
31 December 2019 and the player decided to sign an employment contract with the
Respondent. The Single Judge stated that, evidently, this could not be considered as a
justification in the sense of art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
19.
In view of all the above, the Single Judge rejected the Claimant’s claim for training
compensation.
20.
In continuation, the Single 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 training compensation, costs in the
maximum amount of CHF 5,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the
parties’ degree of success in the proceedings.
21.
However, in this respect, the Single Judge referred to art. 18 par. 1. ii. of the Procedural Rules
according to which, for any claim lodged prior to 10 June 2020 which has yet to be decided,
the maximum amount of the procedural costs shall be equivalent to any advance of costs paid.
Thus, considering that no advance of costs was paid in this matter, no procedural costs can be
awarded.
Page 6 of 7
REF TMS 6008
III. DECISION OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, FC Spartak Trnava, is rejected.
For the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
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 7 of 7