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 19 November 2018

Decision of the

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

passed on 19 November 2018,

by John Bramhall (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 X

I. Facts of the case

1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of country A, the player, Player X (hereinafter: the player), born on 26 March 1994, was registered with the Club A, from country A (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 1 January 2014 until 31 December 2014, as a professional on loan from the Club C, from country A.

2. The football seasons in country A during the period of time in which the player was registered with the Claimant ran from January until December.

3. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player was registered with the Club B, from country B (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 3 March 2016.

4. Equally, according to the information contained in the TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category II at the moment the player was registered with it.

5. On 28 March 2018, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent requesting training compensation on the ground of the subsequent transfer of the player as a professional from Club C to the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. In particular, the Claimant requested EUR 60,000 plus 5% interest p.a. “as of the due date until the date of effective payment”.

6. In its reply, the Respondent asked that the claim be rejected. According to the Respondent, the Claimant was not entitled to any payment, given that, allegedly, training compensation “is only due to the former club and not to any clubs that have had the player on loan”. More in particular, the Respondent explained that, following the “literal interpretation” of the relevant provisions of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the player’s former club is “the club that the Player is leaving” and, thus, not the Claimant but rather Club C.

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: Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, the Single Judge took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 28 March 2018. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that 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 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, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Single Judge confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of said Regulations (editions 2015, 2016 and 2018) and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 3 March 2016, the 2015 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, the Single Judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, he started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Single Judge emphasised 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. The Single Judge started by acknowledging that the Claimant requested the payment of training compensation in the amount of EUR 60,000 on the ground of the subsequent transfer of the player as a professional from Club C to the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.

6. In continuation, the Single Judge took note that the Respondent, for its part, deemed that the Claimant was not entitled to any payment relating to the training compensation of the player since, according to the Respondent, the Claimant was not the player’s former club in the sense of the Regulations.

7. In light of the above, the Single Judge observed that the underlying issue in this dispute was to determine as to 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.

8. When addressing the abovementioned issue, 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.

9. 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 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 those which apply to the transfer of players, including the provisions on training compensation and the solidarity mechanism.

10. 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 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.

11. 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.

12. In this respect, the Single Judge deemed it equally important to recall that 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.

13. 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 the Claimant on loan and the period of time that the player was registered with Club C should be considered as one entire timeframe.

14. Having said that, the Single Judge turned his attention to the argument of the Respondent that the Claimant is not the former club in the sense of the Regulations. In this respect, the Single Judge wished to recall 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”. 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 and for the purposes of the rules governing training compensation, the period of time that the player was registered with Club C and the period of time that the player was registered with the Claimant (and any other club) 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.

15. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Single Judge deemed that the Respondent’s 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.

16. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge had to reject the Respondent’s argumentation in relation to art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations and decided that it is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant for the period of time corresponding to the length of the loan in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations.

17. Having established the above, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of country A, the Claimant was involved in the training and education of the player as from 1 January 2014 until 31 December 2014.

18. Turning his attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Single Judge referred to the FIFA circular no. 1627 dated 9 May 2018 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.

19. In this respect, the Single Judge observed that, according to the TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) and that the player was registered with the Claimant as from 1 January 2014 until 31 December 2014. Therefore, the player was effectively trained by the Claimant for a period of 12 months.

20. Consequently, and in light of the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge decided to accept the Claimant’s claim and decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 60,000.

21. 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 3 April 2016 until the date of effective payment.

22. 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, 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.

23. 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).

24. As a result, considering the specific circumstances of the case, the Single Judge determined the final costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 4,000, which shall be paid 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 accepted.

2. The Respondent, Club B, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 60,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 3 April 2016 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. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 4,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows:

4.1 The amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no.:

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

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

5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 4.2. 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 (CAS)

Avenue de Beaumont 2

CH-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