Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
REF TMS 5725
Decision of the
Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber (DRC)
Passed on 3 March 2021,
regarding training compensation for the the player Alveiro Vallejo Angulo
BY:
Geoff Thompson (England), Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC
CLAIMANT:
CD GALLEGOL SAS, Colombia
Represented by Mr. Jan Schweele
RESPONDENT:
DEFENSA Y JUSTICIA, Argentina
Page 2 of 9
REF TMS 5725
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
According to the player passport issued by the Federación Colombiana de Fútbol (hereinafter:
FCF), the player, Mr Alveiro Vallejo Angulo (hereinafter: the player), born on 10 April 1997,
was registered with the Colombian club, CD Gallegol SAS (hereinafter: the Claimant) from 10
April 2013 until 25 February 2014 as an amateur.
2.
According to the information available on file, the Claimant is affiliated to the Liga
Antionqueña de Fútbol (hereinafter: LAF) since 16 October 2014.
3.
In this respect, the FCF, upon the request of FIFA, clarified as follows:
“En ese sentido, se aclara que el club GALLEGOL para la fecha comprendida entre el 1 de abril
de 2013 hasta el 25 de febrero de 2014 actuaba como club invitado, pues para dicha fecha
el sistema de registro que opera en la FCF (Sistema COMET), en sus inicios, incluía todos los
clubes sin distinción, fuesen estos afiliados o no afiliados (invitados), sin que de su inclusión
se desprendiera, per se, el derecho a elevar reclamaciones encaminadas al pago de la
contribución de solidaridad, derecho reservado, en el caso concreto, única y exclusivamente
para clubes afiliados directa o indirectamente a la FCF.
Así las cosas, reiteramos que, la afiliación del club GALLEGOL a la Liga Antioqueña de Fútbol
y a su vez a la FCF se materializó a partir del día, 16 de octubre de 2014, razón por la cual
dicho club únicamente está facultado para reclamar períodos de formación posterior a la
fecha anteriormente mencionada, es decir a partir del 17 de octubre de 2014 en adelante,
situación que como señalamos a lo largo del presente escrito no se configura en el caso
particular
4.
Such clarification translates freely as follows:
“In this sense, it is clarified that the GALLEGOL club for the date between April 1, 2013 and
February 25, 2014 acted as a guest club, since for that date the registration system operating
in the FCF (COMET System) , in its beginnings, included all the clubs without distinction,
whether they were affiliated or not affiliated (invited), without their inclusion giving rise, per
se, the right to raise claims aimed at paying the solidarity contribution, right reserved, in the
specific case, solely and exclusively for clubs directly or indirectly affiliated with the FCF.
Thus, we reiterate that, the affiliation of the GALLEGOL club to the [LAF] and in turn to the
FCF materialized as of October 16, 2014, which is why said club is only empowered to claim
periods of training after the aforementioned date, that is, from October 17, 2014 onwards,
a situation that, as we have pointed out throughout this brief, is not configured in the
particular case”
Page 3 of 9
REF TMS 5725
5.
As to the apparent inconsistency in the player’s passport, upon request of FIFA, the FCF
clarified as follows:
“A la fecha, el sistema se ha ido depurando con el fin de permitirle a las ligas seguir
administrando sus competiciones, seguir invitando a participar a equipos no afiliados, pero
sin confundir afiliados con invitados. En ese sentido se están realizando los esfuerzos
respectivos para que, en la mayoría de los casos, los clubes invitados (no afiliados) no
aparezcan en el Pasaporte Deportivo de los jugadores.
No obstante lo anterior, existen casos como el que nos ocupa, en los que la FCF de buena fe
remite los pasaportes deportivos con la información cargada en el sistema COMET y con
posterioridad, se encuentra que el club reclamante no cumple con los requisitos para elevar
reclamaciones encaminadas al pago de la indemnización por formación o contribución de
solidaridad, pues como hemos expuesto se trata de un derecho reservado, en el caso concreto,
única y exclusivamente para clubes afiliados directa o indirectamente a la FCF”.
6.
Such clarification translates freely as follows:
“To date, the system has been refined in order to allow leagues to continue managing their
competitions, to continue inviting unaffiliated teams to participate, but without confusing
affiliates with guests. In this sense, the respective efforts are being made so that, in most
cases, the invited (unaffiliated) clubs do not appear in the Sports Passport of the players.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, there are cases like the one at hand, in which the FCF in good
faith sends the sports passports with the information uploaded in the COMET system and
subsequently, it is found that the complaining club does not meet the requirements to raise
claims aimed at the payment of compensation for training or solidarity contribution, since as
we have stated it is a reserved right, in the specific case, solely and exclusively for clubs directly
or indirectly affiliated with the FCF”.
7.
The football season in Colombia follows the calendar year, i.e. from 1 January to 31
December.
8.
The player was registered as a professional for the first time with the Argentinian club,
Defensa y Justicia (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 8 February 2018. At the time, the
Respondent was a category I club according to the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
9.
On 10 March 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting training
compensation on the basis of the alleged player’s first registration as a professional with the
Respondent.
10. More in particular, the Claimant deems to have trained and educated the player, and that the
claim was lodged within the deadline set by art. 25 par. 5 of the FIFA Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players. Accordingly, the Claimant requested that the Respondent is
ordered to pay it training compensation plus 5% interest from the due date, calculated as
follows:
Page 4 of 9
REF TMS 5725
a.
b.
275 days registered with the Claimant during the season of his 16th birthday: USD
37,671.23;
59 days registered with the Claimant during the season of his 17th birthday: USD
8,082.19.
11. The Respondent, for its part, rejected the Claimant’s claim and submitted that the claim is
time-barred.
12. As to the substance, the Respondent argued that since the Claimant was affiliated to the LAF
after the period of training of the player, the Claimant cannot be entitled to any amounts.
13. Thus, the Respondent requested that the claim be deemed inadmissible and that the
Respondent is exempted from any payment.
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE OF
THE DRC
14. First of all, the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(hereinafter also referred to as the Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal
with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note of the fact that the present matter was
submitted to FIFA on 10 March 2020 and decided on 3 March 2021. Taking into account the
wording of art. 21 of the January 2021 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the
Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural
Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
15. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which states that
the he shall have jurisdiction in light of arts 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (edition February 2021). In accordance with art. 3 of Annexe 6 in
conjunction with art. 24 par. 3 and art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players, he confirmed he is competent to decide on the present dispute relating to training
compensation between a Colombian club and an Argentinian club.
16. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent objected to the
admissibility of the claim on the grounds that it was time-barred. To this end, the Single Judge
referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the February 2021 edition of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players, and confirmed that the claim is not time-barred since the deadline for the
Respondent to pay training compensation, if any, was 10 March 2018 as per art. 3 par. 1 of
Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. As such, the Single Judge
found that the event giving rise to the dispute is the non-payment of said training
compensation, and hence that the claim is admissible since it was filed on 10 March 2020,
that is within the 2-year deadline established under said art. 25 par. 5.
Page 5 of 9
REF TMS 5725
17. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with the
Respondent on 8 February 2018, 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 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition
February 2021), the January 2018 edition of the said Regulations (hereinafter: the
Regulations) is applicable to the present matter as to the substance.
18. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12
par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an
alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, he stressed the wording of
art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may consider evidence not filed
by the parties.
19. In this respect, the Single Judge also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe
3 of the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings
pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated
or contained in TMS.
20. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the
substance of the matter, the Single Judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned
facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However,
the Single Judge emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts,
arguments and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the assessment of
the matter at hand.
21. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the central point of the dispute is whether the
Claimant is entitled to training compensation on the basis of the player’s first registration as
a professional with the Respondent.
22. To this end, the Single Judge noted that in accordance with the evidence of file, the Claimant
has been affiliated to the LAF – and consequently to the FCF – since 16 October 2014. At the
same time, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant’s claim pertains to the registration of
the player with the Claimant from 10 April 2013 until 25 February 2014.
23. Taking into account such constellation as well as the explanations provided by the FCF, it
became evident to the Single Judge that the Claimant was claiming training compensation
for a period before its official affiliation to the FCF and hence to association football.
24. In this respect, the Single Judge was of the firm opinion in light of the above no training
compensation was to be awarded. Indeed, the Single Judge confirmed that establishing that
the rules and regulations of an association would also apply to an entity not affiliated to such
association would clearly be incompatible with the general principles of association law, in
particular, with the principle of freedom of association which established that every
association can, in principle, accept or refuse any applicant for membership.
Page 6 of 9
REF TMS 5725
25. In the particular matter at hand, the Single Judge highlighted that the Claimant has failed to
demonstrate why and how it would be entitled to training compensation for a period when
it was not affiliated to the LAF, and consequently to the FCF.
26. Taking into consideration that the Claimant could not sufficiently prove that it was affiliated
to the FCF, the Single Judge saw no legal basis to uphold the assumption that regulations
issued by an association were applicable to legal entities that were not affiliated to the
relevant association.
27. For the sake of completeness and in spite of his confidence on the foregoing line of reasoning,
the Single Judge stressed that he took due note of the decision rendered by the DRC on case
ref. TMS 3963, according to which it was found that the Claimant was not entitled to
solidarity mechanism insofar as it could not be established that the clubs which originally
engaged the player’s training where at the time affiliated to the FCF.
28. On account of the above, the Single Judge decided that the claim had to be rejected.
29. Lastly, 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 25,000 are levied.
30. The Single Judge further observed the temporary amendments outlined in art. 18 par. 2 lit. ii)
of the Procedural Rules according to which the maximum amount of procedural costs levied
for any claim lodged prior to 10 June 2020, which was yet to be decided at the time of such
temporary amendment, shall be equivalent to any advance of costs paid.
31. Accordingly, the Single Judge referred to art. 17 of the Procedural Rules, and recalled that no
advance of costs is payable in proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Chamber, only
before the Players’ Status Committee and the single judge, and that naturally no costs have
been advanced by the Claimant in these proceedings.
32. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Single Judge determined that the decision shall
be rendered free of costs.
33. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural
Rules and confirmed that no procedural compensation is to be paid in these proceedings.
Page 7 of 9
REF TMS 5725
III. DECISION OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE
DRC
1.
The claim of the Claimant, CD GALLEGOL SAS, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is rejected.
3. The decision is rendered free of costs.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 8 of 9
REF TMS 5725
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 receipt 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 9 of 9