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 13 July 2018

Decision of the

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

passed on 13 July 2018,

by Eirik Monsen (Norway),

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 an official confirmation issued by the Football Federation of Country B, the player, Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 17 November 1995, was registered with its affiliated club, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 13 May 2010 and “since (…) no other association has ever requested an international clearance and/or notified the [Football Federation of Country B] of any transfer, thus from a technical point of view the player is still deemed to be registered with (…) [the Claimant]”.

2. Equally, according to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of Country D, the player was registered with its affiliated clubs as follows:

Club Registration dates Status

Club F

as from 28 March 2012 until 30 June 2012

Amateur

Club F

as from 4 October 2012 until 30 June 2013

Amateur

Club F

as from 1 July 2013 until 24 October 2013

Amateur

Club G

as from 25 October 2013 until 30 June 2014

Amateur

Club H

as from 26 September 2014 until 30 June 2015

Amateur

3. Likewise, according to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of Country X, the player was registered with its affiliated clubs as follows:

Club Registration dates Status

Club U

as from 19 November 2015 until 1 December 2015

Amateur

Club V

as from 5 January 2016 until 30 June 2016

Amateur

Club W

as from 31 August 2016 until 22 January 2017

Amateur

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

5. The Football Federation of Country B confirmed that the Claimant belonged to the category 4 at the time the player was registered with it.

6. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player was engaged out of contract free of payment by the Club from Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), with which he was registered as a professional on 27 February 2017.

7. Also according to TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category 3 at the time the player was registered with it.

8. On 31 July 2017 and completed on 1 March 2018, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent before FIFA asking to be awarded training compensation for the first professional registration of the player with the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant requested EUR 37,479, plus “costs and interests”.

9. In this context, the Claimant stated that the player played for it as from 13 May 2010 until the end of the season 2012 and that he was registered with it until his registration with the Respondent since, following the departure of the player from the Claimant, no request for an international clearance or request for registration with any other club has been made.

10. In addition, the Claimant argued that the player’s registration with the Respondent is his first registration as a professional and that, as a result, it is entitled to training compensation, which shall be calculated on the basis of the average training costs of the two clubs involved.

11. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not reply to the Claimant’s 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to 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 31 July 2017. Consequently, the 2017 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 2018). 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 27 February 2017, 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 2018), the 2016 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, 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 Transfer Matching System (TMS).

5. First of all, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant maintained that it is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 37,479, indicating that the player had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.

6. Furthermore, the Single Judge duly noted that the Respondent never took position in the present matter, although having been invited to do so by FIFA. Therefore, the Single Judge deemed that, in this way, the Respondent renounced to its right to defence and accepted the allegations of the Claimant.

7. As a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the Single Judge established that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, he shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents already on file.

8. Having established the above, the Single Judge referred to the rules applicable to training compensation and stated that, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations in conjunction with art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is payable, as a general rule, when, before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday, a player is registered for the first time as a professional or when a professional is transferred between clubs of two different associations. In case the player is registered for the first time as a professional, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that the club with which the player is registered is responsible for paying training compensation within 30 days of registration to every club with which the player has previously been registered and that has contributed to his training starting from the season of his 12th birthday.

9. On the basis of the documentation available to him, the Single Judge established that the player was registered with the Respondent for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.

10. The aforementioned having been established, the Single Judge referred 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). In this regard, the Single Judge indicated that, since the player moved from one association to another association inside the territory of the EU, said article is applicable. Hence, the Single Judge concluded that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies in the case at hand as lex specialis.

11. However, in this regard, the Single Judge pointed out that, in casu, a possible obligation to offer the player a contract in compliance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations would in principle lie with the former club of the player (i.e. Club W, cf. point I./3. above) and not with the Claimant. As stated in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, said provision is without prejudice to the right of training compensation of the player’s previous club(s).

12. On account of the above considerations, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant.

13. Turning his attention to the calculation of the amount of training compensation due to the Claimant, the Single Judge recalled that the player was born on 17 November 1995 and was registered with the Claimant as from 13 May 2010 until 27 March 2012.

14. Therefore, in accordance with art. 20 in combination with Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Single Judge considered that the Claimant is, thus, entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent for the period as from 13 May 2010 until 27 March 2012.

15. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to the FIFA circular no. 1537 dated 3 May 2016 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. Moreover, the Single Judge referred to art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which contains special provisions in case a player moves from a lower to a higher category club or from a higher to a lower category club within the territory of the EU/EEA. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that the Claimant belonged to club category 4 (indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year within UEFA) and that the Respondent belonged to the club category 3 (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA).

16. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that, pursuant to art. 6 par. 1 lit a) of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the calculation of the amount of training compensation shall be based on the average training costs of the two clubs.

17. In view of all of the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 27,499 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent.

18. Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim for interest, which was not further specified, the Single Judge decided that 5% interest p.a. shall apply as of the date of receipt of the claim, i.e. 31 July 2017, until the date of effective payment.

19. The Single Judge concluded his considerations on this matter by deciding that any further claim of the Claimant is rejected.

20. 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, 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 Annex A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute.

21. In respect of the above, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 37,479 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).

22. As a result, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 5,000, which, considering the degree of success, shall be split between the parties.

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 27,499, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 31 July 2017 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 5,000 are to be paid, within 30 days of notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. TMS XXXXXXX:

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH 27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

as follows:

5.1. The amount of CHF 4,000 by the Respondent;

5.2. The amount of CHF 1,000 by the Claimant.

6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 2. 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

Encl.: CAS directives