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 22 June 2019
Decision of the
Single Judge of the sub-committee of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC)
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 22 June 2019,
by Roy Vermeer (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 Federation of Country B a de Fútbol, the player, Player E (hereinafter: the Player), born on 15 April 1995, was registered with Club Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), as of 23 October 2015 until 2 February 2017. Furthermore, the aforementioned player passport indicated a loan to the club of Country B, Continent F, for the period between 3 February 2017 and 18 August 2017. The Player then returned to the Claimant on the 18 of August 2017.
2. The football seasons in Country B during the relevant period of time ran as follows: 2015/2016 from 1 August until 31 July, season 2016 (“especial”) from 1 August until 31 December and season 2017 from 1 January until 31 December.
3. 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), on 19 August 2017, which engaged the player “out of contract free of payment” directly from the Claimant.
4. Equally, according to the information contained in TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA) at the moment that the player was registered with it.
5. On 8 February 2019, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting training compensation for the period of 23 October 2015 until 31 December 2016 on the ground that the transfer occurred before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. In particular, the Claimant requested EUR 35,753.52, plus 5% interest as from 19 September 2017.
6. 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: 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 8 February 2019. Consequently, the 2018 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the 2018 edition of the Procedural Rules).
2. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, which states that he shall examine his jurisdiction in light of art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2019). In accordance with art. 3 of Annexe 6 in conjunction with art. 24 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.
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, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2016, January 2018, June 2018, 2019) and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 19 August 2017, the 2016 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: 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, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file. 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.
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 35,753.52, indicating that the transfer of the player occurred 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 its right of defence and accepted the Claimant’s allegations.
7. As a consequence of the aforementioned considerations, 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 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. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 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. In case of a subsequent transfer of a professional, art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that the club with which the player is registered is responsible for paying training compensation to the former club, for the time the player was effectively trained by the latter, within 30 days of registration.
9. Reverting to the facts of the matter at hand, and based on the documentation provided by the Football Federation of Country B and the information contained in TMS, the Single Judge concluded that it could indeed be established that the player had been registered with the Claimant from 23 October 2015 until 2 February 2017. Furthermore, the player passport indicated a loan from the Claimant to Continent F for the period between 3 February 2017 and 18 August 2017. The Player then returned to the Claimant on 18 August 2017. The relevant period requested in the claim was, however, 23 October 2015 until 31 December 2016, indicated by the Claimant as the season of the player’s 21st birthday.
10. In view of the foregoing consideration, the Single Judge concluded that it can be established that the player was subsequently transfered as professional between two clubs of two different associations before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday and, thus, the Claimant is entitled to training compensation receive training compensation from the Respondent.
11. Subsequently, the Single Judge considered that he had to determine which should be the relevant amount of training compensation to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. In this regard, the Single Judge went on to establish the proper calculation of the relevant training compensation due to the Claimant.
12. To that end, the Single Judge referred 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, it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself.
13. In continuation, the Single Judge recalled that the player was born on 15 April 1995 and was registered with the Claimant from 23 October 2015 until 2 February 2017. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the player passport indicated a loan from the Claimant to Continent F for the period between 3 February 2017 and 18 August 2017, as well as the subsequent return of the player to the Claimant on 18 August 2017 before his transfer to the Respondent on 19 August 2017.
14. In this particular case, the dates of the relevant sporting seasons were specifically analysed by the Single Judge, because of the changes made: sporting season 2015/2016 ran from 1 August 2015 until 31 July 2016, season 2016 (“especial”) followed from 1 August 2016 until 31 December 2016 and season 2017 ran from 1 January until 31 December 2017.
15. In this respect, considering the player’s date of birth, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that only the sporting season 2015/2016 can be calculated as a season of player’s 21st birthday.
16. On account of the above, the Single Judge considered that the Claimant is, thus, entitled to receive training compensation for the period as from 23 October 2015 until 31 July 2016, i.e. 9 months of the season of the player’s 21st birthday.
17. Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the information contained in the TMS, the player was registered with the Respondent on 19 August 2017.
18. Equally, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the information contained in TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category III at the moment of the player’s registration with it (UEFA indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year).
19. In view of all the above, the Single Judge decided to partially accept the claim of the Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 22,500 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent.
20. 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 the longstanding practice of the DRC, interest of 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as from 19 September 2017 until the date of effective payment.
21. 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 Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute.
22. In respect of the above, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 35,753.52 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 Annexe A of the Procedural Rules).
23. As a result, considering the fact that the claim has been partially accepted and that the Respondent never replied to the claim, the Single Judge determined the final costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 5,000 that shall be borne by both of the parties as follows: CHF 4,000 by the Respondent and CHF 1,000 by the Claimant.
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 22,500 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 19 September 2017 until the date of effective payment.
3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid 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 as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows:
5.1. The amount of CHF 4,000 has to be paid by the Respondent.
5.2. The amount of CHF 1,000 has to be paid by the Claimant.
5.3. The above-mentioned amounts have to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XXX XXXX/XXX:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
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
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