F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – solidarity contribution/ contributo di solidarietà – (2016-2017) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 30 January 2017

Decision of the

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

passed on 30 January 2017,

by Mr Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands),

Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC,

on the claim presented by the club,

Club A, Country B

as Claimant

against the club,

Club C, Country D

as Respondent

regarding training compensation in

connection with the player, Player E

I. Facts of the case

1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Association of Country B (Football Association F) the player, Player E, born on 15 October 1994, was registered with its affiliated club, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 2 July 2013 until 3 June 2015 as a professional.

2. The football season in Country B runs from 9 June to 8 June of the following year.

3. The Football Association F confirmed that the Claimant belonged to the category 4 (indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year within UEFA) at the time the player was registered with it.

4. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player was registered with the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), as a professional on 18 August 2015 and his International Transfer Certificate (ITC) was delivered from the Football Association F to the Football Association of Country D (Football Association G) on 17 August 2015, indicating the Claimant as the player’s former club.

5. Also according to TMS, 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.

6. On 3 August 2016, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training compensation from the Respondent in connection with the subsequent professional registration of the player with the Club of Country D. In particular, the Claimant requested EUR 38,333.33, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 17 September 2015 and that the Respondent bear the costs of the present matter.

7. In particular, the Claimant submitted that the player was registered with it when he was 18 and that at the start of the season 2015/2016 the player was transferred to the Respondent on a permanent basis. As a result, the Claimant was of the opinion that, in accordance with art. 20 and art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent.

8. On 18 October 2016, the Respondent’s submission was received, i.e. after the time limit set by FIFA to reply had expired on 28 September 2016.

9. Lastly, on 8 November 2016, the Claimant submitted its comments regarding art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, i.e. after the time limit set by FIFA to reply had expired on 31 October 2016.

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 3 August 2016. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, edition 2015 (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are 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. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with the Respondent on 18 August 2015, 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 2015 and 2016), the 2015 edition of the said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

4. 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.

5. First of all, the Single Judge recalled that the player, born on 15 October 1994, was registered with the Claimant as from 2 July 2013 until 3 June 2015 as a professional, until his move from the Claimant to the Respondent.

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 38,333.33, 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 the Respondent, in spite of having been invited to do so, had, for its part, failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant within the relevant time limit set by FIFA, i.e. 28 September 2016. In fact, the reply of the Respondent was only received on 18 October 2016. As a result, bearing in mind the Dispute Resolution Chamber’s constant jurisprudence in this regard and in application of art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Single Judge decided not to take into account the reply of the Respondent and established that, in accordance with the aforementioned provision, he shall take a decision on the basis of those documents on file that were provided prior to the deadline set by FIFA, in casu, on the statements and documents presented by the Claimant.

8. 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.

9. 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 his 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.

10. In view of the above, the Single Judge stated that, first and foremost, he had to verify whether art. 6 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.

11. As far as the applicability of art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations is concerned, the Single Judge stated that, as the player moved from a club in Country B to a club in Country D, i.e. moved from one Association to another Association inside the territory of the EU, said article is applicable. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the aforementioned provision applies in the case at hand as lex specialis.

12. 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.

13. 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).

14. In this context, the Single Judge pointed out that the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so, had failed to present its comments in this respect within the relevant time limit set by FIFA, i.e. 31 October 2016. In fact, the Claimant’s documentation was only submitted in the TMS on 8 November 2016. Consequently, referring again to the jurisprudence of the DRC (cf. point II.7. above) and in line with his decision not to take into account the late reply of the Respondent, the Single Judge decided not to take into account the Claimant’s position.

15. As a consequence, the Single Judge decided that the aforementioned consideration 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 entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent for the training and education of the player.

16. In view of all the above, the Single Judge rejected the Claimant’s claim for training compensation.

17. Lastly, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in conjunction with 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 Annex A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute.

18. In respect of the above, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 38,333.33 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 Annex A).

19. As a result, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been rejected, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant has to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA.

20. Considering that the case at hand did not compose any complex factual or legal issues, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 4,000.

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

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

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

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH 27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

*****

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

Training compensation for the player, Player E

(Club A, Country B / Club C, Country D)

7

Enclosed: CAS directives