F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – solidarity contribution/ contributo di solidarietà – (2017-2018) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 20 January 2017

Decision of the

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

passed on 20 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 E

I. Facts of the case

1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of Country B (FOOTBALL FEDERATION F) and the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player, Player E born on 29 November 1991, was registered with Club A (hereafter: the Claimant) as from 17 July 2012 until 1 July 2013 as a professional, on loan from the Club of Country G, Club H, with which he had concluded an employment contract until 30 June 2015.

2. Furthermore, the player was subsequently loaned from Club H to the Club of Country J, Club K, and to the Club of Country L, Club M.

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

4. According to the information contained in TMS, the player was registered with the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), as a professional on 29 August 2014 and his International Transfer Certificate (ITC) was delivered from the Football Federation of Country G to the Football Federation of Country D on the same date, indicating Club H as the player’s former club.

5. Also according to TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category 2 (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year within UEFA) at the time the player was registered with it.

6. On 26 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 60,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as of the 30th day “after the transfer” and that the Respondent bear the entire costs of the present proceedings.

7. In this context, the Claimant referred to the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), according to which, within the framework of loans, the period of time that the player is registered with the club of origin and the period of time that the player was registered with a club on loan is considered as one entire timeframe.

8. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not reply to the claim.

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 26 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. Furthermore, 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 29 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.

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. In this regard, the Single Judge recalled that the player, born on 29 November 1991, was registered on a loan basis with the Claimant for the period between 17 July 2012 and 1 July 2013. Equally, the Single Judge observed that after the loan with the Claimant had expired, the player returned to his club of origin, Club H, i.e. the club with which the player was still contractually bound. Subsequently, the player was loaned from Club H to Club K and to Club M and thereafter, on 29 August 2014, the player was internationally transferred from Club H to the Respondent on a definitive basis.

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 60,000.

7. Equally, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent, for its part, failed to present its response to the Claimant’s claim, in spite of having been invited to do so. In this way, the Single Judge considered that the Respondent renounced its right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant.

8. Furthermore, and as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the Single Judge concluded that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, he shall pass a decision upon the basis of the documents already on file.

9. In this context, the Single Judge highlighted that the main issue in the present matter is whether or not a club that accepted a professional on loan is entitled to receive training compensation when, after the expiry of the loan, the professional returns to his club of origin, and, thereafter, is transferred from the club of origin to a club belonging to another association before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.

10. In consideration of the above-mentioned issue, the Single Judge, and hereby referring to the rules applicable to training compensation, started by stating 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.

11. Furthermore, according to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations, professionals may be loaned to another club on the basis of a written agreement between the professional and the clubs concerned. Moreover, the last sentence of said provision 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.

12. Following the above, 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 Dispute Resolution 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 are, in principle, entitled to training compensation for the timeframe that the player was effectively trained by them.

13. In other words, the Single Judge emphasised that the nature of the player’s registration with a club claiming training compensation, i.e. on a definite or on a temporary basis, is in fact irrelevant with respect to the question as to whether such club would be entitled to receive training compensation for the period of time that the player was effectively trained by that club.

14. In this respect and for the sake of good order, the Single Judge deemed it 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 players were loaned to other clubs and, thus, are not being definitively transferred to a new 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 (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 depriving the loan of its essential flexibility and function of providing young players the opportunity to gain practical experience in another club in order to develop in a positive way, personally and, eventually, also for the benefit of the player’s new club.

15. Following the above, the Single Judge pointed out that the obligation to pay training compensation thus arises in case a player is definitively transferred from one club to another club belonging to a different association, but not when he is temporarily transferred to another club while still being contractually bound to his club of origin (yet, with the effects of the relevant contract being temporarily suspended), such as a loan. Hence, the relevant entitlement can only be claimed towards a new club that acquires the services of a player on a definitive and permanent basis subject to the fulfilment of the prerequisites established in art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations.

16. In this regard, the Single Judge wished to recall that art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 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”. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Claimant was not the player’s former club stricto sensu, however, the Single Judge pointed out that, within the framework of loans, the period of time that the player was registered with Club H and the period of time that the player was registered with the Claimant, with Club K and with Club M on loan, should be considered as one entire timeframe. Any other interpretation would lead to the situation in which clubs accepting a player on loan would never be entitled to receive training compensation, even if they contribute to the training and education of players.

17. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Single Judge deemed that any other interpretation of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations would clearly contravene the intention of the legislator of the Regulations according to which all training clubs shall, in principle, be rewarded for their efforts invested in training young players, including those clubs that have accepted a player on a temporary basis.

18. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant for the training of the player in accordance with art. 20 of the Regulations and art. 2 par. 1 lit. ii. and art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.

19. As a result, and considering art. 3 par. 1 sent. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the amount payable is calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of training that the player spent with each club, the Single Judge concluded that the effective period of time to be considered in the matter at stake corresponds to 11 months of the 2012/2013 season, i.e. as from 17 July 2012 until 1 July 2013.

20. Furthermore, 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. In this respect, the Single Judge took into account that according to the documentation on file, the Respondent belonged to the club category 2.

21. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 55,000.

22. 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, in conformity with its longstanding practice, 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 on a definitive basis, i.e. as of 29 September 2014, until the date of effective payment.

23. 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 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 that, 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.

24. In respect of the above, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 60,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules).

25. As a result, and taking into account that the Respondent never took stance in the procedure, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 10,000, 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 partially accepted.

2. 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 55,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 29 September 2014 until the date of effective payment.

3. 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.

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

5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 10,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, within 30 days of notification of the present decision as follows:

5.1. The amount of CHF 8,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case: XXX

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH 27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

5.2. The amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid to the Claimant.

6. 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 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:

Marco Villiger

Deputy Secretary General

Enclosed: CAS directives