F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee / Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori – club vs club disputes / controversie tra società – (2016-2017) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 10 March 2017

Decision of the

Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC)

passed on 10 March 2017,

by Mr Taku Nomiya (Japan),

Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC,

on the claim presented by the club,

Club A, from Country B

as Claimant

against the club,

Club C, from Country D

as Respondent

regarding training compensation in

connection with the player, Player E

Training compensation for the player, Player E

I. Facts of the case

1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Association of Country B, the player, Player E, born on 24 April 1994, was registered with its affiliated clubs as a professional as follows:

2. The football season in Country B lasts from 1 July to 30 June of the following year.

3. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player was registered as a professional with the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 21 August 2014. Equally, the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) of the player was issued by the Football Association of Country B in favour of the Football Federation of Country D on 21 August 2014, indicating the Claimant as the player’s last club.

4. According to the Football Federation of Country D, the Respondent belonged to the category 3 (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA) at the time the player was registered with it.

5. On 14 September 2016, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training compensation from the Respondent for the subsequent professional registration of the player. In particular, the Claimant requested EUR 30,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the 31st day after the registration of the player with the Respondent, “probably as of 19 September 2014”.

6. In this respect, the Claimant referred to the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and held that, within the framework of loans, the period of time that the player was registered with his club of origin as well as the period of time that the player was registered with a club on loan, should be considered as one entire timeframe. Consequently, the Claimant stated that it is entitled to receive training compensation for the time the player was registered with it, this is, for 5 months of the season of the player’s 19th birthday as well as for 7 months of the season of his 20th birthday.

7. In its reply, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim by stating that, according to art. 25 par. 5 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the claim is time-barred as the player was registered for the Club of Country D on “19” August 2014 and the claim was lodged on “13” September 2016. Club Registration dates Registration basis

Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant)

from 28 January 2013 until 30 January 2014

Definitive

Club F

from 31 January 2014 until 1 August 2014

On loan from the Claimant

Training compensation for the player, Player E

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 DRC (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 that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 14 September 2016. Consequently, the 2015 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016). 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, 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. In continuation, the Single Judge duly noted that the Respondent argued that, according to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the claim of the Claimant should be considered time-barred, since the player was registered with the Respondent on “19” August 2014 and the claim was lodged on “13” September 2016.

4. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge underscored that he first and foremost had to verify as to whether or not the claim of the Claimant was brought to FIFA in a timely manner.

5. In this regard, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the 2016 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, which establishes that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute arose.

6. The Single Judge then turned to the information contained in the TMS (cf. point I.3. above), according to which the player was registered with the Respondent on 21 August 2014, as well as to the Claimant’s claim submitted on 14 September 2016.

7. In light of the foregoing considerations, and bearing in mind that, according to art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, training compensation is payable within 30 days following the registration of the

Training compensation for the player, Player E professional player with the new association, the Single Judge concluded that the claim of the Claimant is admissible.

8. Having established the above, 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2014, 2015 and 2016), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 21 August 2014, the 2014 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

9. The competence of the Single Judge and the applicable regulations having been established, he 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.

10. In this regard, the Single Judge recalled that the player, born on 24 April 1994, was registered with the Claimant as a professional for the period between 28 January 2013 and 30 January 2014 and that, between 31 January 2014 and 1 August 2014, the player was registered on a loan basis with Club F.

11. In continuation, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant, on the one hand, claimed that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 30,000. Equally, the Single Judge pointed out that the Respondent did not provide its answer as to the substance of the matter.

12. In this context, the Single Judge referred to the rules applicable to 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.

13. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations, which stipulates that professionals may be loaned to another club on the basis of a written

Training compensation for the player, Player E agreement between the professional and the clubs concerned. Moreover, the last sentence of said article stipulates that any such loan is subject to the same rules as apply to the transfer of players, including the provisions on training compensation and the solidarity mechanism.

14. In this context, the Single Judge stressed that one of the aims of the last sentence of art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations is to ensure that training clubs which register a player on a loan basis also benefit from the solidarity mechanism and training compensation, provided that the relevant prerequisites in the pertinent provisions of the Regulations are fulfilled. This approach is also in line with the Chamber’s well-established jurisprudence that all clubs which have in actual fact contributed to the training and education of a player as from the age of 12 until the age of 21 (unless it is evident that the player has already terminated his training period before the age of 21) are, in principle, entitled to training compensation for the timeframe that the player was effectively trained by them.

15. In this respect, the Single Judge deemed it at this point essential to emphasise that, as to the liability to pay training compensation, the analogy established in art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations could not be extended to the case in which a player is loaned to a club and thus is not being definitively transferred to the latter club. In other words, the transfer of a player from the club of origin to the club that accepts the player on loan, as well as the return of the player from the club that accepted him on loan to the club of origin, do not constitute a “subsequent transfer” in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. The Single Judge was eager to point out that it could not have been the intention of the legislator of the relevant regulatory provision (i.e. art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations) to trigger the consequences of art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the occasion of a transfer on a loan basis and, thus, potentially deprive the loan of its essential flexibility and, in connection with the training and education of players, its purpose of providing young players with the opportunity to gain practical experience in official matches for another club in order to develop in a positive way.

16. What is more, and while recalling that art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations stipulates that “In the case of subsequent transfers of the professional, training compensation will only be owed to his former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club”, the Single Judge pointed out that, within the framework of loans and for the purposes of the rules governing training compensation, the period of time that the player was registered with Club F on loan and the period of time that the player was registered with the Claimant, should be considered as one entire timeframe.

Training compensation for the player, Player E

17. Hence, the Single Judge came to the firm conclusion that for the purposes of the provisions of the Regulations governing training compensation, the loan of a young player from his club of origin to other clubs does not interrupt the ongoing training period of the player and the obligation to pay training compensation arises only in case a player is transferred on a definitive basis, with the effect that, at that moment, the club which transferred the player on a loan basis to another club is entitled to training compensation for the entire period of time during which it effectively trained the player, however, excluding the period of time of the loan.

18. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Single Judge deemed that the loan of the player to Club F cannot be considered to constitute a subsequent transfer which would trigger the consequences stipulated in art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.

19. On account of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations.

20. Turning his attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Single Judge referred to art. 5 par. 1 and par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates 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 Single Judge observed that according to the documentation on file, the Respondent belonged to the category 3 (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA) and that the player was registered with the Claimant as from 28 January 2013 until 30 January 2014 as well as that the player was loaned to Club F as from 31 January 2014 until 1 August 2014. Therefore, considering the period during which the player was registered with Club F, the player was effectively registered with- and trained by - the Claimant for a period of 12 months.

22. Consequently, and in light of the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 30,000.

23. Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to pay interest at 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of 21 September 2014 until the date of effective payment.

Training compensation for the player, Player E

24. Lastly, the Single Judge referred to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the DRC relating to disputes regarding training compensation and the solidarity mechanism, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 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, in accordance with Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute.

25. In respect of the above, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 30,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules).

26. As a result, taking into account that the case at hand did compose several complex factual or legal issues as well as considering that the Respondent was the unsuccessful party in the present proceedings, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 4,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent.

*****

III. Decision of the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC

1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is admissible.

2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.

3. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 30,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 21 September 2014 until the date of effective payment.

4. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.

6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 4,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, within 30 days of notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. XXX:

Training compensation for the player, Player E

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH 27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWSCHZH80A

7. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under point 3. above is to be made and to notify the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC of every payment received.

*****

Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):

According to art. 58 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: info@tas-cas.org

For the Single Judge of the

sub-committee of the DRC:

Omar Ongaro

Football Regulatory Director

Enclosed: CAS directives