Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 January 2013,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Jon Newman (USA), member
Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member
Todd Durbin (USA), member
Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Club G, from country H
as Claimant
against the club,
Club P, from country I
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in connection with the player F
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the player passport issued by the country H Football Federation
the player, Player F (hereinafter: the player), born in October 1990, was
registered with the country H club, Club G (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from
13 June 2001 until 12 July 2007 as an amateur, and from 13 July 2007 until 20
August 2010 as a professional.
2.
The football seasons in country H during the period of time the player was
registered with the Claimant started on 1 July and ended on 30 June of the
following year.
3.
The country I Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered
with its affiliated club, Club P (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 20 August
2010 as a professional.
4.
Equally, the country I Football Federation confirmed that the Respondent
belonged to the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year) at the
time the player was registered with the Respondent.
5.
On 22 April 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA claiming the
payment of training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that
the player, on 20 August 2010, was transferred as a professional from the
Claimant to the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.
In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 415,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of
19 September 2010 as well as “the costs of the present procedure”.
6.
In its reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent stated that training
compensation is payable to the clubs where the player was trained until he
signed his first contract as a professional. In this respect, the Respondent
argued that the player had already acquired the status of a professional when
he was registered with the Claimant and, therefore, no training compensation
is payable. In this context, the Respondent requested that the Claimant would
“produce all sporting service contracts signed with the player in that, should it
be clear that he has signed a professional contract with [the Claimant], no
compensation will be owed by [the Respondent].”
7.
Furthermore, the Respondent stated that the player had completed his training
period prior to his transfer from the Claimant to the Respondent. In this
respect, the Respondent pointed out that the Claimant is a club playing in the
country H First Division which won numerous titles and participated several
times in the Champions League. Equally, the player had already played 65
Training compensation in connection with the player F
(Club G, from country H / Club P, from country I)
2
matches for the first team of the Claimant, numerous matches for the national
youth teams of country H as well as 3 matches for the national A-team of
country V before the abovementioned transfer took place. Therefore, the
Respondent deems it is without a doubt that the player’s training was
concluded at the end of the 2006/2007 season.
8.
Finally, the Respondent stated that the Claimant had not offered the player a
contract in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
9.
In its replica, the Claimant stated that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations only applies to cases between clubs within the EU/EEA. Since
country H does not belong to the EU/EEA, said provision does not apply to the
case at hand. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that more than one indication
is needed in order to consider a player’s training period terminated. In this
respect, the Claimant referred to the relevant jurisprudence of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber (DRC) and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and
stated that the early termination of a player’s training period shall only be
admitted in case the player has reached an outstanding level before the age of
21. According to the Claimant, this cannot be concluded in the present case,
since the player was not a regular player in the Claimant’s first team and, in
this respect, submitted a calculation which showed that in average the player
had not played more than 45 minutes per match in the country H League. The
Claimant added that the player was never called up for the country H national
A-team, that the player was called up for the country V national A-team long
after he had left the Claimant, that the player was not transferred for a high
transfer compensation but left the club as a “free agent” and that, by joining
the Respondent, “it must be admitted that the player could not attract the
attention of international top clubs”.
10. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to provide its position regarding the
Claimant’s replica, the Respondent did not respond to the replica or make any
further statements.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as
DRC or Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at
hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to
FIFA on 22 April 2012. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing
the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Training compensation in connection with the player F
(Club G, from country H / Club P, from country I)
3
Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf.
art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the 2008 and 2012 editions of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in
combination with art. 22 lit. (d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players (edition 2012), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal
with the matter at stake relating to training compensation between clubs
belonging to different associations.
3.
Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with
the Respondent on 20 August 2010, the Chamber analysed which Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2009,
2010 and 2012), and considering that the player was registered with the
Respondent on 20 August 2010, the 2009 edition of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the
matter at hand as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The
members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case as
well as the documentation on file.
5.
First of all, the Chamber recalled that the player was born in October 1990 and
was registered with the Claimant as from 13 June 2001 until 12 July 2007 as an
amateur, and as from 13 July 2007 until 20 August 2010 as a professional.
6.
In continuation, the DRC took note that the Claimant maintained that it is
entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount
of EUR 415,000, indicating that the player was transferred as a professional
from the Claimant to the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd
birthday.
7.
Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rebutted the claim of
the Claimant, firstly alleging that training compensation is only payable to the
clubs where the player was trained until he signed his first contract as a
professional, outlining that the player had already acquired the status of a
professional when he was registered with the Claimant. Equally, the Chamber
noted that the Respondent argued that the claim should be rejected, since the
Training compensation in connection with the player F
(Club G, from country H / Club P, from country I)
4
player had allegedly terminated his training period prior to his transfer from
the Claimant to the Respondent. Finally, the Respondent refuted the claim by
stating that the Claimant did not offer the player a contract in accordance
with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
8.
In this context, the DRC highlighted that the following issues needed to be
analysed in the present matter:
1) When is, in general, training compensation due?;
2) Is art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applicable to the matter at
stake?; and
3) Was the player’s training already completed at the time the player joined
the Respondent?
9. When addressing the first issue, the Chamber referred to the rules applicable to
cases regarding training compensation and stated that, as established in art. 20
of the Regulations as well as in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art.
2 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 player is
registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of the
player’s 23rd birthday or when a professional is transferred between clubs of two
different associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
In case the latter occurs, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets
forth that training compensation will only be owed to the player’s former club
for the time he was effectively trained by that club.
10. In this context, and in relation to the first argument put forward by the
Respondent, the DRC emphasised that training compensation is thus also
payable in case of the subsequent transfer of a professional before the end of
his 23rd birthday.
11. Following the above, the Chamber noted that the country I Football Federation
had confirmed that the player was registered as a professional with the
Respondent on 20 August 2010, this is, in the season of his 20th birthday. Equally,
the Chamber stressed that, according to the player passport issued by the
country H Football Federation, as well as in accordance with the subsequent
official confirmations of the country H Football Federation, the player was
registered with the Claimant as from 13 June 2001 until 12 July 2007 as an
amateur, and as from 13 July 2007 until 20 August 2010 as a professional.
12. On account of the above considerations, the DRC decided that the Respondent
would, in principle, be liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant,
Training compensation in connection with the player F
(Club G, from country H / Club P, from country I)
5
which is the player’s former club in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4
of the Regulations, in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
13. In continuation, the Chamber analysed whether art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations is applicable to the present matter as lex specialis.
14. In this regard, the DRC was eager to emphasise that the aforementioned
provision is limited to a well-defined geographic scope. Since the Claimant is a
member of the country H Football Federation, and country H is neither a
member of the European Union (EU), nor of the European Economic Area (EEA),
the Chamber found it evident that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations
shall not apply to the present matter.
15. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that no further analysis regarding the
prerequisites for the application of the lex specialis was required.
16. When addressing the third issue, the Chamber first referred to art. 1 par. 1 sent.
2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which stipulates that training compensation
shall be payable, as a general rule, up to the age of 23 for training incurred up
to the age of 21, unless it is evident that a player has already terminated his
training period before the age of 21. In this respect, the DRC emphasised that
cases involving a possible early completion of a player’s training period have to
be analysed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration all the specific
circumstances and all the evidence produced. Thus, several factors and
indications have to be considered in order to establish whether a particular
player’s training has indeed been completed before the age of 21, as the
Respondent stated. For the sake of completeness, the members of the Chamber
stressed that both the DRC and the CAS have adopted a strict approach in
establishing the early completion of the player’s training before the age of 21,
so as to not jeopardize the right of training clubs to, in principle, receive training
compensation.
17. In this regard, the Chamber noted, once more, all the specific circumstances of
the present matter as well as all the evidence produced by the parties. It
highlighted that, during the period of registration with the Claimant, the player
was not fielded on a regular basis, with an average of no more than 45 minutes
per match in the country H League. Hence, contrary to the opinion of the
Respondent, the Chamber considered that it could not be established that the
player had retained a “virtually fixed position” in the first team of the Claimant
from the 2007/2008 season, as claimed by the Respondent.
Training compensation in connection with the player F
(Club G, from country H / Club P, from country I)
6
18. Secondly, the Chamber acknowledged that the player had indeed played some
matches with the youth teams of the country H national team. However, the
members of the Chamber outlined that this may be an indication of the player’s
talent, skills and level of training, but that such fact is in itself not conclusive to
establish the player had completed his training before his 21st birthday. As to the
player participation with the country V A-team, the Chamber highlighted this
only occurred in 2011, this is, after the player had left the Claimant.
19. In light of the above, the Chamber concurred that, taking into account all the
above-mentioned elements and circumstances, it could not be established that it
was evident that the player had indeed completed his training period before his
21st birthday. Consistently with all the above, the Chamber concluded that
training compensation is due.
20. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the DRC
referred to the FIFA circular no. 1223 dated 29 April 2010 which provides details
for the calculation of training compensation as well as to art. 5 par. 1 and par. 2
of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulate that as a general rule, to
calculate the training compensation due to a player’s former club, it is necessary
to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club if it had trained
the player itself.
21. In continuation, the Chamber observed that according to the documentation on
file, the Respondent belonged to the category I and that the player was
registered with the Claimant as from 13 June 2001 until 20 August 2010.
22. Consequently, taking into account the aforementioned considerations, the
Chamber pointed out that, in principle, the Respondent is liable to pay training
compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 415,000, as requested by
the Claimant. However, the Chamber noted that the Respondent alternatively
requested to reduce the amount of any compensation to a minimum on account
of all the circumstances, objections and arguments set out in its submissions.
23. In this respect, the DRC recalled that, according to art. 5 par. 4 of Annexe 4 of
the Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber may review disputes
concerning the amount of training compensation payable and shall have
discretion to adjust this amount if it is clearly disproportionate to the case under
review. In this regard, the DRC was, however, eager to emphasise that such
possibility allowed by the Regulations would, in any case, have to be analysed on
a case-by-case basis.
Training compensation in connection with the player F
(Club G, from country H / Club P, from country I)
7
24. In this context, the Chamber underlined that, in the present matter, all the
arguments put forward by the Respondent had been rejected and that those
arguments could, therefore, not lay at the basis of a reduction of the amount
payable as training compensation to the Claimant. For the sake of completeness,
the Chamber remarked that the Respondent had not further substantiated its
request with any pertinent documentary evidence in accordance with art. 12 par.
3 of the Procedural Rules, which stipulates that any party claiming a right on the
basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof.
25. On account of the above, the DRC denied the Respondent’s request to adjust the
amount of training compensation payable to the Claimant.
26. In light of all the foregoing, the Chamber accepted the Claimant’s claim and
decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the
Claimant in the amount of EUR 415,000.
27. Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2
of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that, in conformity with
its longstanding practice, the Respondent has to pay interest at 5% p.a. over the
amount payable as training compensation as of the 31st day of the registration
of the player with the Respondent, i.e. as of 20 September 2010, until the date
of effective payment.
28. Lastly, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination
with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings
before the DRC relating to disputes regarding training compensation costs in the
maximum amount of currency of country H 25’000 are levied. It is further
stipulated that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree
of success in the proceedings and that, in accordance with Annex A of the
Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of
the amount in dispute.
29. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 415,000 related to the claim of
the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount
of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000 (cf. table
in Annex A).
30. As a result, and taking into account the particularities of the present matter, the
number of issues that had to be addressed, the complexity of the case as well as
that the claim of the Claimant has been accepted, the Chamber determined the
Training compensation in connection with the player F
(Club G, from country H / Club P, from country I)
8
costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 20,000,
which shall be borne by the Respondent.
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club G, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club P, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from
the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 415,000 plus
interest at 5% p.a. on said amount as of 20 September 2010 until the date of
effective payment.
3.
In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the
stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s
Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
4.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
5.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 20,000
are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of
notification of the present decision as follows:
6.
5.1
The amount of currency of country H 15,000 has to be paid to FIFA to
the following bank account with reference to case no. XX-XXXXX:
5.2
The amount of currency of country H 5,000 has to be paid to the
Claimant.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of
the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 5.2. above are
to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment
received.
*****
Training compensation in connection with the player F
(Club G, from country H / Club P, from country I)
9
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 67 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed
against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal
must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this
decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the
directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10
days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the
appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the
appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives).
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Enclosed: CAS directives
Training compensation in connection with the player F
(Club G, from country H / Club P, from country I)
10