Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
{$URjETdcjtrsLuri9AKQX5/HB7DbafX5LglzKuhFeNdmn3vC6+kdT8G5XiKJwbUk7mEbRt7CciOaL/3kopzNlz/OkIRLYD+8Wa7pXG07j8rdxEd9/L15ThEqpVMvcBsewdsKbszwe1tM65X3Fjv8IxvtOGDFPNVjFuzxMpoXe0Y6LJB8lfBvsXCR5bZxAwz+4AdJdBFHyjJ8PdDfg8ReJtqyph65hCqMlHIYRlvqmoo25PJbE7nKkGihNZL+bOMCp9Ov+6InNSOxl7sv5qJr6J/s/0+aZC1NS4ZpliiWlFYo=$}
{$Imk9129wcH191inGdMIBTIFnHOSmUTpycSdDU/bIC6E9ESC7exPmHJWq6N7JjsqOAH4a5IlhM9Gv+BMbdzeU1Otj9qOS8A2hMnu1mmIJzzr0jOvAe/lG3oq/MiDNEs1B5Qg5mHzExt1jq3WBTzQB5VVPQWRxt5wzfK+Mieria4ZiqKkoEDQbimMIPWjoCdNkTtJJ76D5B6QMuWmEQKl/pQN1vY7+2OD8f4QkxXH6G6EnsNQcEv8EckRQTlydZdRc9wOUbO1mEj4tWgizXRAgSqqEFE24yaSBwODlwd1BF0o=$}
REF TMS 9576
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 21 April 2022
regarding training compensation for the player Sydney VAN HOOIJDONK
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA/France), Deputy Chairperson
Angela Collins (Australia), Member
Dana Mohamed Al-Noaimi (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT:
NAC Breda, the Netherlands
RESPONDENT:
BOLOGNA F.C. 1909 S.P.A., Italy
Page 2
{$mSBgdnO2djqn4cEoraRbiye2MuaHObMuyRg9+VROUn2e43PndgE4a/kYAQUqFgh173tlktyfuzF9kv5cLDZT9BdHx3DNMX4SwIzHTM/6OGvtV6lMHzE7kSagqjxboQ7BMbJN6cfzzPrxf1NYWyUN9ryOwWWItpMC7fSjENv7X65pwc4d6aSpfh0sFCAc6hQ4Emu3Es0L4e8Kv885x6fKPA7NEdBcyJ5lR5Tiwnjlc1EpdpO4eOW6OCaNkwZhRQP5f7QFbFeHqYV4K8/JR38nLUlITUsl5rZ8YFOsJPtXW3w=$}
{$5f+ErHUmouMu39kiOyzS7OFfCpw3zutJ0dehpROtOJxs/4xQq+oNaJmTBSIOhQtF6hqM2c5iiKP+SIwFQQ27Wagfj1j6mRC9N0NE7pj+Z7JloaPCG+05f0zEqBpJRqzvQ0Eofv+DWLWL+T2YVzJOlnI1so1xjRbmIGooJdPYVxHpg/lSW94QzuruTcwHfgwbjLFjFwQWNRQYwO47D60Ncod9ch9XHiMcuXRbiEEgSDecSerou6Qzktl/dpy5k9pkNQnmbQOZ4qge5e5U8XbdIAQEnOQlbKCEK1p0Cw61s5g=$}
REF TMS 9576
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player:
Sydney VAN HOOIJDONK
Date of birth:
6 February 2000
Player passport:
issued by the Koninklijke Nederlandse Voetbalbond (KNVB) on 10 August 2021
- relevant abstract below
Season
16/17
Birthday
17
17/18
18
18/19
19
19/20
20
20/21
21
Club(s)
NAC Breda
(Cat. II)
NAC Breda
(Cat. II)
NAC Breda
(Cat. II)
NAC Breda
(Cat. I)
NAC Breda
(Cat. I)
Registration dates
01.07.2016 - 30.06.2017
01.07.2017 - 30.06.2018
01.07.2018 - 30.06.2019
01.07.2019 - 30.06.2020
01.07.2020 - 30.06.2021
Status
Amateur
(Permanent)
Amateur
(Permanent)
Professional
(Permanent)
Professional
(Permanent)
Professional
(Permanent)
Sporting season:
July to June (KNVB)
Registration date:
4 August 2021, NAC Breda (the Netherlands) to BOLOGNA F.C. 1909 S.P.A.
(Italy), as professional (Engage out of contract free of payment – The contract
with the former club has expired)
Claimant club:
NAC Breda (the Netherlands)
UEFA, Category I (EUR 90,000 per year)
Respondent club:
BOLOGNA F.C. 1909 S.P.A. (Italy)
UEFA, Category I (EUR 90,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1.
On 14 December 2021, the Claimant requested training compensation in the amount of EUR
450,000 on the basis of the subsequent registration of the player with the Respondent, plus “an
interest rate of 5% per annum as from the due date, which is 3 September 2021.”
2.
In its calculation, the Claimant took into consideration the average of its and the Respondent’s
training and education costs at the moment of registering the player, i.e. training category I
within UEFA, i.e. EUR 90,000, which it multiplied on a pro rata basis by the period of time the
player was registered with it, that is to say during 184 days of the calendar year of the player’s
Page 3
{$QoYB+MKLe1aniLwwo6IWl6+GY9LxKAu8bTPieg5KG2KuotnOt7Vu3Cohvrf0vddOXi6logEpALHtUzLx09Y0Kri44XXii1rEWo1UaD2xt1EyPCfAWSLmfM+n5IiXbdzdFe16pz5alKSmgOr/SvwacjoRVokAp3uFQZBPF5UKrPSk9MxLUx0UG884Ndz7ZpxdrZxVSozYixbKfLRB/nAOKPWF6M44It4rHxtWoSMsVsXlSR+mLZI22JaVM1V4Muz1B0Co1Kj1ZVEhisrJpwm+EUhZp4qWmZHFUsZGeYXqYw4=$}
{$C/FqueF2qsAaJovtruhcCGLp3LsQtHMhwI2uZG6HquwgHHphvuN7schoMyg8b80uk3Fezzj/oRZp+PNIYvPI5XGmD08bZlTLydUdlXV1CSZOYb5bt5xnuwXgqEm+lnvcqGMjNABcRZ7x8J1UY3s3XY49e6N3WRNa+m8T12oRLKwwJot1yvMbunvVD7QZMsH0JUMxJdaFm+gWfruaVCqiMYbRK28eC1eqLeGIBCfJJ+muMiwFtTdIWf6yMHmNzE+irDZ2afv7osuKO5TzxC/RBLzzGyJJFu6WJESwNP9CbEw=$}
REF TMS 9576
16th birthday, during the entire calendar years of the player’s 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th birthday and
during 181 days of the calendar year of the player’s 21st birthday.
3.
In particular, the Claimant explained that on 1 July 2018, it signed an employment contract with
the player, valid until 30 June 2021, according to which the latter was entitled inter alia to a
monthly remuneration of EUR 1,500 gross for season 2018-2019, EUR 1,750 gross for season
2019-2020 and EUR 2,000 gross for season 2020-2021.
4.
On 1 September 2020, the Claimant explained having sent an email to the player’s agent by
means of which it offered the player to increase his monthly salary to an amount of EUR 5,000
gross based on a three-year contract, reflecting the seasons for 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and
2022-2023, plus bonus agreements based on playing minutes.
5.
On 2 September 2020, the Claimant issued a document (hereinafter “the document”) by means
of which it stated that it was prepared to release the player without any transfer fee under two
strict conditions: 1) that this document was only valid during a limited period of time, i.e.
between 2 September and 1 October 2020, and 2) as long as the Claimant would remain “all
the solidarity rights regarding the Player, due to the FIFA regulations”. In particular, the Claimant
explained that the second condition intended clearly to mention “training compensation”, which
is obvious because no solidarity contribution is due in case of a transfer on a free basis.
6.
On 17 September 2020, the Claimant submitted the player’s agent a second contract offer by
means of which it offered to increase the player’s monthly salary with a minimum of EUR 7,500
gross up to a maximum of EUR 13,000 (subject to the number of matches the player would play
for the Claimant).
7.
On 23 September 2020, the player’s agent submitted the Claimant an email by means of which
it proposed a counter-offer on the following terms: a fixed monthly gross salary of EUR 13,750
for the season 2020-2021, with the possibility for a higher salary of EUR 16,666 (subject to the
number of matches to be played for the Claimant); a bonus of EUR 100,000 (subject to the
number of matches to be played for the Claimant); a sell-on for the player and the agent of each
20%; a sign on fee of EUR 50,000; and a commission fee for the agent’s services amounting to
7% of the gross salary of the player and the sign on fee to be paid to the player.
8.
On 27 September 2020, the Claimant submitted the player’s agent a third contract offer by
means of which it offered to increase the player’s monthly gross salary between EUR 8,500 up
to EUR 14,000 (subject to the season and number of matches to be played).
9.
On 30 September 2020, the Claimant explained that it signed with the player an addendum
(hereinafter “the addendum”) to the current employment contract by means of which the
player’s salary would increase to EUR 9,000 as from 1 October 2020, some bonuses shall lapse
and, following his wish to leave, the player would be entitled to terminate the employment
contract during the winter transfer period, i.e. in the period between 1 January and 24 January
2021.
Page 4
{$Vv7eN6iSZjvYcpCdHSFt8RRctvMOfmsM7JsxZlMs5xt1J+kUIVtqs152E7MX94ekahNWrgkmEAVlick4CLfRDmDkB9XK17gks4G7qF4OD+onE/Ntw1BkCimVGGefF6cQ96yljvQwkUHEFByvWgGIQPm9QzOZUrV2JsnFOe1gO2YKbPBBT+8764/y3Fhsmml3kOESoawv6BRinAakKA99SjszkrxeRm5Ql9qLIuYNxYK7xiEqap6kPwNSlzjyW0JSqHF1PHop3N9FyDlzHrOqXeMwV/cHD6q8FDn6v40HtBw=$}
{$NKoUpCMoTWAdT0ycPGbBXxsnOE2WaYfGB56w+FdBmI6A/Fc1AskSGh9idKhUMT+ON+9dHtzjNpazl03rxtAwDK/vkeH3tCmryi9UNnyoK5CiaUET2/mnx58A8zS3ckyY00JfieJekVfz+5Ua5LGCUwYIdvjD/C/dsz6HAshXkzSonK4QPN6OZ6HDyvbAkGw5aMoFqkAhCbR2cctuFT+HSVXvXis3Q/1HuAf8puPzWv2nY3cKLxPEMIk6h08208KBNppYTggR4VvN3/+VW2HIUPiLqOI5nRzbltjSYrB9/3E=$}
REF TMS 9576
10.
On 31 December 2020, the Claimant and the player’s agent exchanged emails by means of
which the Claimant expressed its wish to continue further negotiations by means of a further
proposal of a contract offer, but the player’s agent was only willing to continue the negotiations
in case the payment of an agent fee to him was going to be paid at short notice.
11.
On 22 March 2021, deeming that both parties’ financial expectations could not be met despite
the past discussions on the Claimant’s various contract offers which occurred during the
negotiations, the latter notified the player’s agent of the upcoming termination of the player’s
employment contract due by 30 June 2021 (hereinafter “the notification”). In particular, the
Claimant explained having acted as such in line with the national requirements, as confirmed by
the Dutch Federation of Professional Football Clubs in its submission of 1 December 2021
notified to the Claimant.
12.
Following the above, upon the player’s registration with the Respondent on 4 August 2021, the
Claimant sustained having reached out to the latter on 18 August 2021 requesting it the
payment of training compensation in the amount of EUR 458,630.31.
13.
In continuation, the Claimant explained that it submitted the Respondent the entire
documentation in support of its request. In this respect, various emails were exchanged between
both clubs as regards to the exact amount payable as training compensation in consideration of
inter alia the player’s end date of registration with the Claimant and the latter’s training
categories I and II during the period of training provided to the player. In particular, the Claimant
explained that, on 17 September 2021, the Respondent admitted having relied on the player’s
statements upon registering him and had not been informed of the existence of a contract offer
it had received from the Claimant.
14.
On 12 October 2021, the Respondent indicated that it was willing to pay EUR 427,500 to the
Claimant as training compensation and asked the latter to be provided with its invoice in this
respect.
15.
However, the Claimant explained that following further correspondence exchanged with the
Respondent in November 2021, the latter finally rejected the Claimant’s entitlement to training
compensation based inter alia on its interpretation of the document, the addendum, and the
notification.
16.
According to the Claimant, by proceeding as it did with the player, his entitlement to training
compensation had been safeguarded, in line with the requirements of article 6 par. 3 of Annexe
4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), i.e. it offered the player a new
contract in writing, 60 days before the expiry of the current contract and of at least an equivalent
value to the current contract. As such, the Claimant held that its genuine interest to make use
of the services of the player in the future is established per definition.
17.
What is more, the Claimant argued that despite having met the requirements of article 6 par. 3
of Annexe 4 of the RSTP, by means of the contents of the correspondence exchanged with the
Page 5
{$NKKJqtyq3dpF1gk944kbSFB5ntIbK+HIb/7cZmgbo+yA8VhfHovda/aZP3FcFTOHYPFO0G7/ynX7bM2boZ5EVe5v3f5Ia709ZNnnYBTQLUJtLUVV4OA+zftvwwVsNZtYlmDkoHO1p+sU2cQ8RIeamUeuHJe+ViWx1RrIL7IaQ0DqYoP2UbLifYVHl0we/rOPdplfFGccrlZLGEfluBrRHtpqZ78j0zUk9me53/is931teYQzlx3rzP4x7n0AW8xU85NT23UDiPaXfvTfce9gz2w+QCRA/JbReyeqVz1ZG5g=$}
{$9ju8cV+aoUWJCRnKlxe1XekZm7hBrpQNEaxALChbQXdwjqAqzqXuZJYi8RLx4h5/YxJfZmIiW+ReELV2epzIV2YVj+AqeNrHwxY+Ly3r3RKJ2a8d90WjN7IJIHJoylkO4HLWs7be+6E9Qx3jW7cAhO5CJlYsq+VZhzF9A9V+/W/dKWqm7qBGdXhiadzYGsMs+JrEvegSvqyc6xPx6Cpfyau/P+4s7YVHjYef0hdnTY1R0xRoRuBM3ZCK/nJBcXS0rXrvqjLT9hLbjC9ghL0jBSOEvjpJUJpfptDncIzV/rc=$}
REF TMS 9576
player on 31 December 2020, it was evident that the player’s agent expressed the player’s will
to leave the Claimant which made, at least, any further offers pointless.
18.
Along those lines, the Claimant also recalled that because the Respondent admitted not having
been informed by the player of the existence of (a) past contract offer(s), the latter had failed to
act with due diligence.
19.
Furthermore, the Claimant underlined that due to the tight discussions with the player and in
full knowledge of the fact that the latter simultaneously wanted to negotiate with other clubs,
it accepted to issue the document and at the same time continued negotiating with the player
for the extension of the current employment contract, i.e. after having already issued the first
offer. In particular, the Claimant underlined that by issuing the document 1) it satisfied the
player’s request to increase any potential success of the negotiations, 2) it safeguarded its
entitlement to training compensation and 3) it cannot be an indicator that because of issuing
the document, the first contract offer was made artificially.
20.
Moreover, the Claimant referred to the addendum and explained that for the same reason as
above, it conceded the player a salary increase and a special termination clause for the player
related to the winter transfer period (January 2021) in order to facilitate the ongoing
negotiations between the parties. Specifically, the Claimant underlined that even if the player
wanted to leave, in any case it did not forfeit any of its strong intention and genuine interest
towards the player nor any entitlement for training compensation in the future as continuously
demonstrated during the ongoing negotiations.
21.
Finally, the Claimant referred to the notification issued to the player which can only be
understood as a notification of the expiry of the contract in light of good practice and in order
to protect the position of employees, to make them aware of the expiring contracts and to have
time to find a new employer. In other words, the Claimant recalled that the said notification was
not a termination letter, in line with the national requirements and the requirements of the
Dutch Federation of Professional Football Clubs as confirmed by the latter.
22.
On 28 January 2022, the Respondent rejected the claim.
23.
The Respondent first explained that after issuing the document on 2 September 2020, the
Claimant signed a new striker (Mario Bilate) on 11 September 2020 before he got injured on 14
September 2020 as it can be seen from the submitted documentation. As such, in its opinion, it
was only because the Claimant faced a lack of strikers, should the player have activated the
termination clause included in the document, that it issued the contract offer of 17 September
2020.
24.
In addition, the Respondent deemed that by concluding the addendum on 30 September 2020,
which did not change the contractual term of the current contract, i.e. 30 June 2021, the
Claimant gave a second opportunity to the player to leave the Claimant for free and as such
reaffirmed the content of the document. In particular, the Respondent held that in exchange of
Page 6
{$UGsWoZRe2e/X3ODA5SaEqqSbN0AZq8nph4oAN16Zdh3LvtbPkmgkPdIm3Eq/ghw/R9ATD+yIAuJw2LbbEDIybq4splDTOLjVx99rbd4FkeatCZy6lZcC4QWq0/Cf4lF3PQlTzHXueh+rZ6vK68f8mpbnd/ggBAOTyzK4k29zfE6dh8Wros4dcoeuZYBnzyfHQiymJdTiq4BAFfjoQSSjDFS51MoHKGDWZwSCzOLF8s+0J+S6clEsTKhactiyCfWxrhPLCDeOsMsmBYOM4a8snprzjY7sKmbWcygoU1mOWAc=$}
{$MWpYl8WbzIhQw+m/veb7AwfzOXh//ePCN5uShunbPSC1uyOiIhFmicE07AeT75oyB2d42NDV6GZke9/U4/DwtMsLSYHFgvcZ9dMkFbHfXkcjBysj2nrA5KZGezUaSEHOeVqI+wv++XAG0db7YUae8BGfrk3cMtPzNmeci/lhybTot+KCJgAxvuh5zUFKkGaoQichIEIh0XuY3/s5ZpP3kaLXHjZxYVLBs0J5yyeC6dalih56tRaVqi0jEAz0SJ29SYeDDIVgxJFhqSbfdRQg0D537GYvhi0pdE+aLvQSBsI=$}
REF TMS 9576
a salary increase and a free transfer solution for the next transfer window (January 2021), the
addendum accommodated the Claimant’s issue of having a new player injured.
25.
Moreover, the Respondent held that, after having concluded the addendum, the Claimant did
not offer any new contract to the player but instead submitted him the notification on 22 March
2021 expressing its wish not to extend the contract of the player.
26.
Bearing the above in mind, the Respondent explained that, in the light of the above-mentioned
documents (the document, the addendum and the notification), that were initially kept from the
Respondent’s knowledge and only disclosed to it thereafter, on its request and while exchanging
with the Claimant, the latter has no right to training compensation in light of the contents of
art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP.
27.
Bearing the above in mind, the Respondent deemed that by issuing the document on 2
September 2020, the Claimant had not safeguarded its entitlement to training compensation
and gave the player a free departure without the payment of such training reward. In particular,
the Respondent held that such conduct was reaffirmed in the addendum, i.e. an attitude similar
to giving a player the chance to mutually terminate the employment contract which takes away
the former club’s entitlement to training compensation.
28.
In continuation, the Respondent held that by concluding the addendum on 30 September 2020
and not changing the contractual duration of the current contract (ending on 30 June 2021),
the Claimant and the player made all the offered advanced prior to it of no further importance,
i.e. the contractual offers submitted previously. In other words, the Respondent argued that
because the addendum resets any negotiation held between the parties before, one should only
analyse if any contractual offer or genuine interest was provided/identifiable after 30 September
2020. As such, the Respondent deemed that no further contractual offer was submitted after
the 30 September 2020 and that because of the addendum, the player had the possibility to
leave free of payment during the winter 2021 transfer window, the Claimant had no genuine
interest in retaining the player’s services.
29.
What is more, the Respondent argued that by issuing the notification on 22 March 2021 (and
without further contract offer after said date), the Claimant itself indicated that, at that moment,
it did not want to extend the player’s current contract and that the player could leave for free.
30.
Finally, on a subsidiary basis, the Respondent argued that, in accordance with CAS jurisprudence
(CAS 2014/A/3486), for a transfer within the EU/EEA area, in order to allocate to the Respondent,
the same costs as if it had trained the player itself, it is necessary to take into account the average
of the training costs between the two clubs involved, with duly consideration of the training
period and the training categories of the Claimant.
31.
Therefore, the Respondent held that the Claimant having been categorized as a category II club
within UEFA as from 1 July 2016 until 30 June 2019, the amount at the basis of the calculations
for the relevant period is EUR 75,000 (average of EUR 90,000 and EUR 60,000) and the final
amount awarded to the Claimant cannot exceed EUR 404,896.70.
Page 7
{$WAU9hJiabVWJhO6/8n2t4XYRPxlXKzLb2TuaEvryXxhUt85aVNhehsPL8bWZpyw2StmdX45axgsodRI/koXrsKlWmXs4nWbs6vPGLv1htINuiJ3UWJtKWfi+X0KaEguXq8smEF/C3qnFea8tSp/MlGWFe9d3Jb+38NeF1Dt0nO2H7QmQkiIZ9enRMxGQvbvGbE7MSGkme7S8GQrF3GCmScMn0dc/HnxY/d5B1vJkUPoAFo9hnNy0Dyn+ENfRan8AcK/RhweIvkR4AT4eTDNItoQH5J2AENViK3wQX6MiBNQ=$}
{$7I8CGLxh4ml6UKr+3g7w7e0/XQfurugru2sBL74NbUnX6C8oTsY+ZO5UBcJ9UAI+D5P9GGQnT4SRqiAxuyRjUL1GIF/WTNSvJLy4vWziHpTaEV1G/QyGikHUf4udaP2xQSf2Vn8NuU7sovEd8uLn0tzHW6g6Red8YJD4P7VFTVUTU3yKi+5DJFSZKHbjhQ4tVWQX8GU8tVO2glyzYCDgqs5hAhfHGeDUkNJCDTigGnV9xG8WirT9/bAwU2Iiyz+F0Iu06yTjgnvMEeWdG8UY297syeFxlqeEfVqxl1BHfwU=$}
REF TMS 9576
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law:
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): February 2021 edition.
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (Procedural Rules): October
2021 edition.
Jurisdiction:
Yes, uncontested
Admissible:
yes, uncontested.
Decision:
1.
The Claimant based its claim on the subsequent registration of the player as professional with
the Respondent.
2.
In particular, the Claimant held that it had safeguarded its entitlement to training compensation
by having offered the player a contract in line with the requirements of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe
4 of the RSTP and held that its genuine interest to make use of the services of the player in the
future was established per definition.
3.
For its parts, the Respondent held that in the light of the relevant documentation (the document,
the addendum, and the notification) and within the context of their issuance, the Claimant has
no right to training compensation because it did not meet the requirements of art. 6 par. 3 of
Annexe 4 of the RSTP and had no genuine intentions of keeping the player’s services in the
future.
4.
Art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP is applicable when the former club, in casu the Claimant, and
the new club of a player, in casu the Respondent, are affiliated to associations that are located
within the territory of the EU/EEA.
5.
The Claimant is located in the Netherlands and the Respondent in Italy. Both countries were
members of the European Union (EU) at the time of the player’s registration with the
Respondent.
6.
Hence art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP is applicable as lex specialis to the matter hand and the
registration of the player with the Respondent shall be considered as a subsequent registration
of the player between clubs based within the EU.
7.
In accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the RTSP, in case of a subsequent registration of
a professional player, the former club, in casu the Claimant, in order to retain its entitlement to
training compensation, shall evidence that it had made a contract offer in writing to the player,
Page 8
{$6Eww0s1kBNPSufK3xWfSx4ZQ1SIsh0KT/LeJaxdkkZWUkZjf1DDo5RrssDOU4SLw9bpHQDEf9g/90uSjJ3PisKbDBjSqjE2uzREhzjTE015D5/WNEJRGHsH09BTXc3a0ZpIvOBJ2q+vqLKAo+9f7m5ZtWljOQOQrvZ46Au3/m7YAF1gtZbtrfKC1wOg4wzWpSIIl5E4RQNYBUCGJDdvjfOIi73twx8NWD2C71qLD7u1YNZHPhZLTpS4Z9ZN51tsccEeDPBYjCbnzwMYNQzalBI3G6roFuNCnNBpzk+GAmOo=$}
{$quxhdP5v8Z7SybXqc/04fqrsphVK0B3JHWn/tuyB/cfzyaRUQmrV5/w0NqiU0HZSuEceGwi38/+YjJ+HGgZaqHtWkztRTp3NN7WW+4UUQFUgSuy2bV6dXlue59v2QNGFjzBVvNbL378JuxmXlh4Od14WZFZF8E0V8B+RuFQyYE6L8dEJ/XrJqW4dJCXtQYm0XIpI4a0GCm/zyvqP+kf2LLE8xO57fM1LZb0F1km1I/ay5hju51oqBTBrY70PsshRi2kAenwVex6YG1w6F/eSGAosb6SmJSYxVrfr7ikEhc0=$}
REF TMS 9576
at least 60 days before the end of the expiring contract, and such offer shall be at least of an
equivalent value to the current contract.
8.
In this respect, according to the jurisprudence of the DRC, the conditions of art. 6 par. 3 of
Annexe 4 of the RTSP are considered to be cumulative.
9.
In very exceptional cases, the DRC has recognized that a club that has not offered a contract to
a player in the sense of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP may retain its entitlement to training
compensation by having shown a bona fide genuine interest in keeping his services.
10.
The player’s last contract with the Claimant expired on 30 June 2021.
11.
It is uncontested that the Claimant made a contract offer to the player, by email on 1, 17 and
27 September 2020, that is to say at least 60 days prior to the expiry of the player’s last contract
with the Claimant (30 June 2021) and on improved terms.
12.
Therefore, the requirements of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP have been met by the
Claimant.
13.
The abovementioned bona fide interest jurisprudence is only applicable to instances where a
club was able to prove that it could not offer a contract at the time of expiry of the player’s
registration but that it had shown a genuine interest in retaining the services of the player.
14.
The Claimant made a contract offer on 1, 17 and 27 September 2020.
15.
As such, the aforementioned jurisprudence is not applicable to the matter at hand.
16.
The Respondent contested the validity of the contract offers made in September 2020 because
it deemed that by concluding the addendum on 30 September 2020, the Claimant and the
player made all the offered advanced prior to it of no further importance and was to be
considered as an agreement “resetting” the contract offers made in September 2020.
17.
According to the contents of the addendum, only the player’s salary under the current
employment contract was increased, some bonuses lapsed and a termination clause, limited in
time and in the player’s favour, was introduced. However, the addendum did not cancel any
prior contract offer made by the Claimant to the player nor did it terminate the current
employment contract.
18.
In addition, by means of its email of 31 December 2020, the Claimant further demonstrated its
intention to submit an additional contract offer to the player which was however annihilated by
means of the player’s agent’s strict (financial) positions making it understandable that any further
offers would not lead to an extension. As such, this can be understood as a further indicator
that it was the player’s will to leave the Claimant which made plausible further offers aimless
(DRC decision of 28 September 2007, no. 97782).
Page 9
{$EFHKjOw52HVjsq5qgMxTSib3xfiauF1TY9uTl56cAQfF3y/HH+03TjwEBrI8oSggWu/SkZ/BGFZAwuzRbMS2UJyo70aIIIcVSVOagpSesmy4arL4iqxlD63x07kkbXjeuPcEi4q6gkBU4iviQBRHtfPmeVJ4vcu2xcM7Z2zZ0R0UqKmDuYITUBEiUrvE1Q1Q1eZuQ23v+kZ7ajnCj4TlEYjJpCgXQrnh+O6V5dk219KbzU6KsmAsr33ZZ1raNfjucJ5m82DnIU2roDi62e5/JzQcce63ivXU0zdqJmrycG0=$}
{$y8miZsVYg/X5w1ANQ6NNw+02N3nGXDPxd8JK83FO6LViCRBSXTKAuyC4+gy4KmkOJbOgvoWXxX+GJfgcdyfE+uGlpl0xuv0qusCNskebnppEZgNy6YOpCp99TnKrfDLb/WFVKj/7HOAuO3Jp5tBiALTAwTDYCg/4ZbPOTY0MnQAQB7PULTMXKS/6VFmTk1jF7wcQ7T0v2l4KzRZYYNFA/lPwR5t59Fi6hExK9VlQouEp8Kv52nyL/93xatj34ve5rjLIF5KB2yJtHXwiVIEwBWBc26irukObtdRmMQmxNts=$}
REF TMS 9576
19.
Consequently, the argument of the Respondent shall be dismissed.
20.
In addition, the Respondent’s allegations regarding the absence of the Claimant’s genuine
interest in retaining the player’s services based on the contents of the document and the
notification shall be dismissed since, as described above, the Claimant made a contract offer to
the player in line with the RSTP.
21.
Based on all the above, it is established that the Claimant did retain its entitlement to training
compensation for the subsequent transfer of the player as a professional to the Respondent by
offering the player a contract on 1, 17 and 27 September 2020.
22.
Therefore, training compensation is due to the Claimant in line with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the
RSTP.
23.
The amount of training compensation to be paid by the club subsequently registering a player
as a professional to the former club that contributed to his training from the calendar year of his
12th birthday is calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of training that the player
spent with said club (cfr. art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP).
24.
According to the KNVB player passport, the player was registered with the Claimant during 184
days of the calendar year of his 16th birthday, during the entire calendar years of his 17th, 18th,
19th, 20th birthday and during 181 days of the calendar year his 21st birthday.
25.
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.
26.
The training compensation payable is calculated by taking the training costs of the new club
multiplied by the number of years of training (cfr. art. 5 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP).
27.
According to art. 6 par. 1 lit. a) of the RSTP, in case of a move from a lower to a higher category
club inside the EU, the calculation shall be based on the average training costs of the two clubs.
28.
In casu, upon registering the player on 4 August 2021, the Respondent and the Claimant were
both category I clubs within UEFA.
29.
However, the Respondent contested the Claimant’s calculations of the training compensation
as it deemed that it had been classified as a Category I and II club while having the player
registered. As such, the Claimant having been a category II club within UEFA as from 1 July 2016
until 30 June 2019, the Respondent held that the amount at the basis of the calculations for the
relevant period is EUR 75,000 instead of EUR 90,000.
30.
According to the jurisprudence of the DRC, the category that should be applied to the training
club is dependent on timing (DRC decision of 19 September 2019, no. 09192966; DRC decision
of 22 June 2019, no. 06190545). As such, the category used for calculation purposes is the one
Page 10
{$XzbsL+0r5LlXuYVSQ3Sxg1+UcEH3cZ1tof1/CB62muERFLIMq8PInqIO5wNOwhUBNMNsXa1pqG9YxO0nZA2p7DSui2sc+Xp4U9C8a3skpJZtulZa9nb5e41/gV4SpaZEt2fnrsrhAdaqWcjU15yLwE93M3ycJ+ApduW00OebbjUMlzKTo9qXgn5Xaqqm8tCvS0foUSDST2afYSJq6gFrnvmnNUxBX9meGkKz5Kr5+dMRzxsK7v8jZywA7VHHzSFd5mnE5d61fEstUEFAIvmbZxExMXmYFF4XRHX7BeDteBw=$}
{$hDbR/6HRt1s5i6FCS9TYX81MaJDJLp9e4ws2L2VDXwoOcF77iNTlA7RHwYYo4xqQ8dZqPW8qMDg7pzzb4NT0CKiBcmIqi+maG7a/cqgMdGbqWF0H+fwpnXqAh8tFSWML37zVJKL/sxPX8cpZrxWJ5d3xHMp+6JiVvcvF4xGsRqaqqst3FFBJ6KZcy5Mcn+QjBFRXz3CZQg+Npb7NFHRJDwPlJVFEVidDFodGYzh3Cm3eUkH1ig2yRCKOw5dQpqoZGsjfUuR90L87FGHkBBqY4/3xF6gfYZzUeARFyJFYYzo=$}
REF TMS 9576
the training club is in when the player registers with the new club, in casu category I within
UEFA.
31.
Consequently, the amount of EUR 90,000 per year shall be considered in the matter at stake
being the average training costs of the two clubs upon the player’s registration with the
Respondent.
32.
Therefore, taking into account the time the player was registered with the Claimant as
established in point II./.24. above, the latter is entitled to training compensation for the following
period of training of the player:
i. EUR 45,369.86 for the training and education provided to the player during the course of
the calendar year of the player’s 16th birthday;
ii. EUR 90,000 for the training and education provided to the player during the course of the
calendar year of the player’s 17th birthday;
iii. EUR 90,000 for the training and education provided to the player during the course of the
calendar year of the player’s 18th birthday;
iv. EUR 90,000 for the training and education provided to the player during the course of the
calendar year of the player’s 19th birthday;
v. EUR 90,000 for the training and education provided to the player during the course of the
calendar year of the player’s 20th birthday; and
vi. EUR 44,630.14 for the training and education provided to the player during the course of
the calendar year of the player’s 21st birthday.
33.
The Claimant is entitled to receive EUR 450,000 as training compensation.
34.
The Claimant requested “an interest rate of 5% per annum as from the due date, which is 3
September 2021.”
35.
Taking into consideration the Claimant’s request and in line with the 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 the
Respondent, i.e. as from 4 September 2021 until the date of effective payment.
36.
In view of all the above, the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and the Claimant is
entitled to receive EUR 450,000 as training compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. on that amount,
as from 4 September 2021 until the date of effective payment.
37.
Art. 25 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules stipulates that costs in the maximum amount of USD
25,000 are levied in connection with proceedings before the DRC of the Football Tribunal
relating to disputes regarding training compensation and the solidarity mechanism. Costs are to
be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings (art. 25 par. 5 of
the Procedural Rules).
Page 11
{$dt8g/eYJtkcKN9QdE1mxzMDcBz8uuS3ZbMgf23NXnP7CqmW0F3KC7RhwtpWwDd1/9ZhPFLjoLuj0cHVgrIbt+m4Sx4j72/nfDXGyfCLlBK3Hp/X9zH7pWR8Yg2+KvELzPe4NDoRrMzzffdzdHyMPFCUp3thQV+2m1hneI6jQlCMHY5hQr5oXI8k9lxpCPAb7MTNLp4E+GrpR4Dsg4Cf0i4f5T8tAPj+J0sRuq3S38Wycr/o0tvw8KAACR7wdNeKQt0Ayfgd7NCBLW/cw358a1t1WVPEHuloMPJLkLkq75yQ=$}
{$9qacfgoNLAN3FCOLOIEnP4uFczSX+D7ebuuud4cXuQvdcZf2VEKxAfyrw25zikcZ4+wcLpNevLR0Xf+qdQMQJ9bH3u1/aTavg8VxTDyYHE9rWGGpAZJ4sHhg54bvT0AcTkg1W8RVvLVvSOI+cEs2Frznk+kVrMOphvTNoltxS6b1ROxwOjBx3wq7KAgdhZqV4CvGMFMFzcFfiUwD6etsutnFuTWSE4N0gJW02KcFtJokmVraGKgcqoTIrrSThPnrNAGLj3q3Z61gYWV4c7IkKzA4/SxgF2P5uufTO1NB9rE=$}
REF TMS 9576
38.
The succeeding party is the Claimant and the amount claimed in the present dispute
corresponded to EUR 450,000. Therefore, procedural costs levied in this respect shall not exceed
USD 25,000 (cf. art. 2 of Annexe 1 of the Procedural Rules).
39.
In consideration of the amount claimed and the circumstances of the mater at stake, the costs
of the proceedings are set at USD 15,000 and shall be borne in full by the Respondent.
40.
Art. 24 bis of the RSTP applies to the matter at hand.
Page 12
{$mZ+xgRO6kLyd/W1KHX5Ng+yTjlJSIOxnTYdQc0ERMU+wiLMNbnQC6+Afqg5XJTdaVPXCYDXmPBQ4occ8Lq14URlgthoN+xDoKxGpEoGRG8X4WoVNqQT26vzcJErIU6spKjWzpZOP58Lg0gZkzMFvJ7vQ7HB+CHoXWlAWyCCfMTqsFRH283AqwwgcrcrKKqBpgGYXtPKJ8nhVV1q8L4zgw0dhFjCqVHziXiwU1XhuPnJYUC45dmw/CnJ4cegdSLLBU4wY2Mo1JDOoPBdYeWb2ATaSnzWrcJkP3Osx54z9U1I=$}
{$CKe45J++bvXFQUhUyv9SF1FaLRZ6Hq4YLUQToNXtWjDIgIoNr5eCYd1dgAqAr5iHwyEk20a09BPYThWbj6DSVsM8vn2ou31LkQFNdHtHPhBPYR8Sy+s3lKFJCIUDw1Kf1Z49RhnalNHML1iw2nwiJVI6goqG7EFI2MlKHTyVRueCnransPc0FMSKvXPFr50qpbGibgVZibSb/MyxdL9J8PtMIU+LAGwBlH/2l24VcFZ7s8voL6V9edKfb0PX3jUJosxnIi2y9bhF3tY+iVOmEShSSWlfbsPV5RvO3mcN1i4=$}
REF TMS 9576
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
▪
1.
The claim of the Claimant, NAC Breda, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, BOLOGNA F.C. 1909 S.P.A., has to pay to the Claimant EUR 450,000 as training
compensation plus 5% interest p.a. as from 4 September 2021 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 24bis 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 24bis paragraphs 7 and 8 and article 24ter of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players.
7. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of USD 15,000 are to be paid by the Respondent
to FIFA (cf. note relating to the payment of the procedural costs below).
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 13
{$W+9Q+BQmM1SAQ7jAMPSTagjDfJtyZyAIxnJ52gsSZTR7EEt3aUEM1dK/AAr85lleQIYoStkgGoKI0F/163AhTXdM1EZvqjZoIGAqa9n3usFQZW6nC/n6eUcfstE53q8JNr5iLP+wYKozjfk5+9fPH/FwHn2WUb4YH3+N5XI6mf4bM3y/f9vULtniwuB73LRK4fCdzzLQnat2I17WOjgNsT7+mwR80y3ebl2BtxQWm5luNwSdsdRrrrVfFzQGRLIj7ds+58yZol7jdUpKWgNFnh1xPyBmTCrnym2HzbRY96Y=$}
{$klHyikK8OmApnpgyrpPBpZeLf26/Caff+QtTy8RlQsNL5oglH7P2z1/bWG/bZb1lywmNA6EjuSVyeXZPiw2IbprkQ/83OhLAzL0m01n4tCU/yEBS0AacOvJoGffvJIGEA2NIMjSRuDTw/xwZoTSwXWxFMv6lB08Bu+D3qTof5GFC/uEaLSp1+OJIYlLpCguMkcAnMMPZyuCFNzjyiwDewuvCkCFVIJs6OMDUzg1tQpz3keIBSpXxeTvp+OfZx0igbhhmDpuehxnggjIm4upMOlier+zWNAvVEMZRnti/Sgc=$}
REF TMS 9576
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
Pursuant to article 57 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 17 par. 2 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