F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – solidarity contribution/ contributo di solidarietà – (2018-2019) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 16 May 2019

Decision of the

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

passed on 16 May 2019,

by Mr Geoff Thompson (England),

Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC,

on the claim presented by the club,

Club A, from country A

as Claimant

against the club,

Club B, from country B

as Respondent

regarding training compensation in connection with

the player, Player X

I. Facts of the case

1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of country A(hereinafter: the Football Federation of country A), the player, Player X (hereinafter: the player), born on 15 January 1998, was registered as a professional with its affiliated club, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), as of 23 January 2017 until 30 June 2018.

2. Pursuant to the information provided by the Football Federation of country A, the sporting seasons in country A start on 1 July of one year and end on 30 June of the following year.

3. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player, who was last registered with the Claimant, was registered as a professional with Club B (hereinafter: the Respondent), a club affiliated to the Football Association of country B (hereinafter: the SAFA), on 3 August 2018 as an out of contract player.

4. For the purpose of the calculation of training compensation for young players, as set out in FIFA Circular no. 1249 dated 6 December 2010 (hereinafter: FIFA circular 1249), each association shall divide its clubs each year into a maximum of four categories, from I (highest category) to IV (lowest category).

5. As per Annexe 4 art. 4 para. 1 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) and FIFA Circular 1249, the training costs for each category shall be based on “the amount needed to train one player for one year multiplied by an average “player factor”, which is the ratio of players who need to be trained to produce one professional player”.

6. Pursuant to FIFA Circular no. 1627 dated 9 May 2018 and the information available on TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category II (CAF indicative amount of USD 30,000 per year) at the moment the player was registered with it.

7. In this context, on 6 February 2019, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming its proportion of training compensation in relation to the subsequent transfer of the player as a professional to a club of a different association, before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. In particular, the Claimant requested the amount of USD 45,000 plus 5% interest as of the respective due date.

8. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent indicated, inter alia, that the player had already signed a professional contract prior to his registration with the Claimant, where he was registered as an amateur. In this respect, the Respondent argued that the player had not signed his first contract with the Claimant, and that the player was not registered as a professional when transferring to it. As such, the Respondent stated that the requirements of art. 20 of the Regulations were not met.

9. In addition, the Respondent argued that should the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC) deem that training compensation is due in this present case, the calculation on the costs of training young players foreseen in Annexe 4 of the Regulations shall be considered disproportionate. In fact, the Respondent sustained that said Regulations do not reflect the actual costs incurred by the Respondent in training young players, and asserted that its “actual training costs (…) are significantly lower than those of a standard category II club”. Therefore the Respondent, making reference to art. 5 par. 4 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, declared that the DRC shall adjust the training costs potentially awarded to the Claimant in this particular case, and stated that they should be calculated on its own actual training costs. In that regard, the Respondent alleged that the costs it incurs to train a player amounts to USD 2,370 per year on average, and that this amount should be the basis to determine the amount of training compensation awarded, if any, in the present case.

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 Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: 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 6 February 2019. Consequently, the 2018 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 (edition June 2018). In accordance with art. 3 of Annexe 6 in conjunction with art. 24 par. 3 and art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations, 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 3 August 2018, 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 (edition June 2018), the June 2018 edition of the 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, the Single Judge 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. In particular, the Single Judge recalled that, in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in the TMS.

5. First of all, the Single Judge recalled that, in accordance with the player passport issued by the Football Federation of country A, the player, born on 15 January 1998, was registered with the Claimant as from 23 January 2017 until 30 June 2018 as a professional and that he was subsequently registered with the Respondent on 3 August 2018, also as a professional.

6. In continuation, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant requested the payment of the training compensation from the Respondent in view of the registration of the player as an out of contract professional with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. In particular, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant requested the amount of USD 45,000 plus interest.

7. The Single Judge observed the argumentation of the Respondent which held that the player had already signed a professional contract prior to his registration with the Claimant, and that the Claimant registered him as an amateur. The Single Judge acknowledged that the Respondent concluded that as such the Claimant was not entitled to receive training compensation.

8. In addition, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent argued that in the event of training compensation being awarded, the amounts foreseen in the regulations were disproportionate and should be disregarded in favour of the effective costs incurred by the Respondent in training young players. In that regard, the Single Judge noted that according to the Respondent’s own calculations, it allegedly costs the Respondent USD 2,370 per year on average to train a player. The Single Judge took note that it was the opinion of the Respondent that said amount should serve as the basis for calculating training compensation in this particular case, rather than following the training costs based on the training categories method.

9. Having paid particular attention to the arguments of the parties, the Single Judge, hereby referring to the rules applicable to training compensation, stated that, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations in combination with art. 1 par. 1 and art. 2 par 1. 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.

10. In continuation, the Single Judge observed that, based on the documents at disposal, it can be established that the player was registered with the Claimant before the end of the season of his 21st birthday, i.e. as from 23 January 2017 until 30 June 2018, as a professional. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the player was registered with the Respondent as a professional on 3 August 2018, i.e. before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.

11. In view of the foregoing, and despite the Respondent alleging that the player was registered as an amateur with the Claimant, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant for the training of the player in accordance with art. 20 as well as art. 2 par. 1 lit. ii) of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.

12. Turning its attention to the calculation of the training compensation, the Single Judge referred to 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. As such, the Single Judge concluded that the effective period of time to be considered in the matter at stake corresponds to 5 months of the season of the player’s 19th birthday and the entire season of the player’s 20th birthday.

13. In continuation, the Single Judge referred to art. 5 paras. 1 and 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.

14. In this respect, the Single Judge wished to recall that according to art. 4 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations and FIFA Circular 1249, associations shall divide their affiliated clubs into a maximum of four training categories, from I (the highest) to IV (the lowest), and that the training costs determined for each category were mainly based on the clubs’ declared financial investments in the training of young players and on the correlation between the number of young players trained per professional player produced.

15. Therefore, the Single Judge was keen to remind that the aforementioned categorisation and its inherent training costs were an objective and uniformed tool to determine the effective costs of training young players. Therefore, and in line with the Regulations and the long standing practice of the DRC, the Single Judge dismissed the Respondent’s argumentation that training costs should be determined based on its own calculations, which correspond to a much lower amount of training costs, rather than through the well-established training categorisation of clubs.

16. Consequently, the Single Judge took due note that, according to the information contained in the TMS, the Respondent belonged to category II (indicative amount of USD 30,000 per year within CAF) at the time the player was registered with it.

17. Taking into consideration all the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of USD 42,500 to the Claimant for the training and education of the player.

18. Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request 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 long standing 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 as a professional, i.e. as of 3 September 2018 until the date of effective payment.

19. 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. The relevant provision further states 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.

20. In respect of the above, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is USD 45,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the present proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000.

21. As a result, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 4,000 which, considering the degree of success, shall be borne by the Respondent.

22. The Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant.

23. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, the Single Judge referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.

24. In this regard, the Single Judge pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.

25. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that, in the event that the Respondent does not pay the amount due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

26. Finally, the Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned sanction will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.

*****

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 B, has to pay the Claimant the amount of USD 42,500 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 3 September 2018 until the date of effective payment.

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

4. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly, of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the amount mentioned under point 2. above.

5. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with point 2. above to FIFA to the e-mail address psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if need be, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).

6. In the event that the amount due in accordance with point 2. above is not paid by the Respondent within 45 days as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the Respondent, the Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

7. The ban mentioned in point 6. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.

8. In the the event that the aforementioned sum is still not paid by the end of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

9. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 4,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, within 45 days of notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. XXXX:

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH 27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

10. In the event that the aforementioned amount of costs is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

*****

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

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer

Encl.: CAS directives