F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – solidarity contribution/ contributo di solidarietà – (2019-2020) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 14 February 2020

Decision of the

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

passed on 14 February 2020,

by Mr Stefano Sartori (Italy),

Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC,

on the claim presented by the club,

Canon Yaounde, Cameroon

as Claimant

against the club,

SC Rheindorf Altach, Austria

as Respondent

regarding training compensation in connection with

the player Michael Cheukoua

Training compensation for the player Michael Cheukoua

I. Facts of the case

1. According to the player passport issued by the Fédération Camerounaise de Football (hereinafter: the FECAFOOT), the player, Michael Cheukoua, (hereinafter: the player), born on 13 January 1997, was registered with several of its affiliated clubs, including Canon Yaounde (hereinafter: the Claimant), as follows:

Clubs

Registration dates

Status

FECAFOOT Academy

29.10.2008-31.12.2008

Amateur

FECAFOOT Academy

01.01.2009-31.07.2009 and 01.11.2009-31.12.2009

Amateur

FECAFOOT Academy

01.01.2010-31.07.2010

Amateur

Fondation Kouemaha

02.08.2010-31.12.2010

Amateur

Fondtion Kouemaha

01.01.2011-30.07.2011

Amateur

SAS de Mbalmayo

01.12.2014-31.12.2014

Professional

SAS de Mbalmayo

01.01.2015-31.10.2015

Professional

Claimant

01.12.2015-31.12.2015

Professional

Claimant

01.01.2016-31.10.2016 and 01.12.2016-31.12.2016

Professional

Claimant

01.01.2017-04.08.2017

Professional

2. Pursuant to the information provided by the FECAFOOT, the sporting seasons in Cameroon do not have consistent start and end date.

3. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player, who was last registered with the Claimant as a professional, was registered as a professional with SC Rheindorf Altach (hereinafter: the Respondent), a club affiliated to the Österreichischer Fussball-Bund (hereinafter: the ÖFB), on 10 August 2017 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), as follows:

a. Category I (top-level, high-quality training centre) All first-division clubs of member associations investing, on average, a similar amount in training players;

b. Category II (still professional, but at a lower level) All second-division clubs of member associations in category I and all first-division clubs in all other countries with professional football;

Training compensation for the player Michael Cheukoua

c. Category III All third-division clubs of member associations in category I and all second-division clubs in all other countries with professional football;

d. Category IV All fourth- and lower-division clubs of the member associations in category I, all third- and lower-division clubs in all other countries with professional football and all clubs in countries with only amateur football.

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. 1582 dated 26 May 2017 and the information available on TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category IV (UEFA indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year) at the moment the player was registered with it.

7. In this context, on 9 September 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 EUR 103,636.36 plus 5% interest as of the respective due date. The Claimant then amended his claim on 17 October 2019 and requested the amount of EUR 90,500 plus 5% interest as of the respective due date.

8. In particular, the Claimant pointed out that the ÖFB can classify its affiliated clubs in three categories, from II to IV, and argued that, although classified as a category IV club, the Respondent competed in the Austrian first professional division, i.e. the highest division in Austria for six consecutive seasons, as well as the UEFA Europa League in two of those seasons, and consequently “[showed] a level of investment consistent with UEFA category 2 clubs”.

9. As such, the Claimant was of the opinion that the TMS training category of the Respondent could not be taken into account when calculating the amount of training compensation due, and considered that the Respondent was indeed a UEFA category II club (UEFA indicative of EUR 60,000 per year).

10. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent first indicated that the Claimant waived its rights to training compensation. In support of its argumentation, the Claimant provided a “certificate of clearance” (free translation from French to English)

Training compensation for the player Michael Cheukoua dated 18 July 2017 in which the Claimant confirmed that the player “is free of any contractual relationship with [the Claimant] as of [18 July 2017]”.

11. Then, the Respondent underlined that it belonged to category IV and that, in line with art. 2 par. 2 lit. ii) of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, no compensation shall be payable to the Claimant.

12. In this respect, the Respondent emphasised that its categorisation was correct and approved by the ÖFB, and stated that it could not be classified under category II or III as it only had a first team and no academy, in line the FIFA Regulations.

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 it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 9 September 2019. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 2019 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 21 par. 2 and 3 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 January 2020). 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 10 August 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, the 2016 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

Training compensation for the player Michael Cheukoua 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 FECAFOOT the player, born on 13 January 1997, was registered with the Claimant as from 1 December 2016 until 31 October 2016 and as from 1 December 2016 until 4 August 2017 as a professional and that he was subsequently registered with the Respondent on 10 August 2017, 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 EUR 90,500 plus interest, and duly noted that the Claimant argued that the Respondent was wrongfully categorised on TMS and should be considered as a UEFA category II club.

7. The Single Judge observed the argumentation of the Respondent which held that the Claimant had waived its rights to training compensation and that in any case it was classified as category IV when registering the player. The Single Judge acknowledged that the Respondent concluded that as such the Claimant was not entitled to receive training compensation.

8. 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.

9. 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 1 December 2016 until 31 October 2016 and as from 1 December 2016 until 4 August 2017, as a professional. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the player was registered

Training compensation for the player Michael Cheukoua with the Respondent as a professional on 10 August 2017, i.e. before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.

10. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge remarked that the Claimant should in principle be entitled to training compensation.

11. The Single Judge however recalled that the Respondent first argued that the Claimant had waived its rights by signing a “certificate of clearance” on 18 July 2017. Having paid particular attention to the wording of the document, the Single Judge emphasised that the Claimant stipulated that the player was no longer under contract with it, and that such declaration could not be interpreted as a clear and unambiguous waiver of training compensation.

12. With regards to the training category of the Respondent, the Single Judge was keen to point out that according to art. 2 par. 2 lit. ii) of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, no training compensation was due to the former club of the player when said player was subsequently registered with a category IV club. In addition, the Single Judge remarked that the Respondent being classified as a category IV when registering the player, no training compensation shall be due to the Claimant in principle.

13. Recalling the principles set out in art. 4 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations regarding training costs according to which member associations are instructed to divide their clubs into a maximum of four categories in accordance with the club’s financial investment in training players, and that member associations are required to keep the data regarding the training category of their clubs inserted in TMS up to date at all times, the Single Judge duly noted that the Respondent insisted that it had been correctly classified by the ÖFB as category IV, mainly in view of the fact that it had not per se invested in the training of young players by not having an academy.

14. Nevertheless, the Single Judge strongly emphasised that the sole objective of training compensation is to reward clubs that are training young players, and to encourage the future development of more players by those training clubs. Reverting to the case at hand, the Single Judge underlined that should art. 2 par. 2 lit. ii) of Annexe 4 of the Regulations strictly be applied, the player would have effectively moved from the Claimant where he was trained and developed to the Respondent, one of the main professional clubs in Austria, without receiving any compensation. What is more, the Single Judge vehemently emphasised that in this scenario, the last training club (i.e. the Claimant) would be deprived of receiving any training rewards from the new club, a top-flight club in its country (i.e. the Respondent) on the basis that said new club did not have an academy and did not itself train young players. The Single Judge concluded that it would be against the

Training compensation for the player Michael Cheukoua spirit of art. 21 of the Regulations to allow a professional club that does not train young players to register young players internationally without having to reward the clubs which have invested in training those young players.

15. In view of the above, the Single Judge was of the strong opinion that in the present case, the category of the Respondent in the TMS, i.e. category IV, could not be taken into consideration.

16. In this regard, the Single Judge noted that it was undisputed that the Respondent had been competing at the highest level in Austria for the past six footballing seasons, and that it had participated in the UEFA Europa League tournament for two of the past six seasons. In other words, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent was an established professional football club in Austria competing at the highest level in this country.

17. What is more, the Single Judge observed that there were three training categories available in Austria, and that as per FIFA Circular 1249, “all second-division clubs of member associations in category I and all first-division clubs in all other countries with professional football”, such as the Respondent, shall be classified as category II, not IV. As such, the Single Judge decided to consider that the Respondent is a UEFA category II club (UEFA indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) in this particular case.

18. 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. Taking into consideration that there are no consistent season start and end dates in Cameroon over the relevant period, the Single Judge considered that the seasons in Cameroon followed the calendar year. As such, the Single Judge concluded that the effective period of time to be considered in the matter at stake corresponds to 1 month of the season of the player’s 18th birthday, 11 months of the season of the player’s 19th birthday and 7 months of the player’s 20th birthday.

19. Taking into consideration all the above, as well as the amount claimed by the Claimant, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 90,500 to the Claimant for the training and education of the player.

20. 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

Training compensation for the player Michael Cheukoua the player with the Respondent as a professional, i.e. as of 10 September 2017 until the date of effective payment.

21. 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.

22. In respect of the above, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 90,500 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 15,000.

23. As a result, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 15,000 which, considering the degree of success, shall be borne in full by the Respondent.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

Training compensation for the player Michael Cheukoua

27. 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.

*****

Training compensation for the player Michael Cheukoua

III. Decision of the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC

1. The claim of the Claimant, Canon Yaounde, is accepted.

2. The Respondent, SC Rheindorf Altach, has to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 90,500 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 10 September 2017 until the date of effective payment.

3. 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.

4. 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).

5. In the event that the amount due plus ineterest 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).

6. The ban mentioned in point 5. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.

7. 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.

8. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 15,000 are to be paid by the Respondent as follows:

a. The amount of CHF 13,000 shall be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. TMS 4731/tle:

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH 27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

Training compensation for the player Michael Cheukoua

b. The amount of CHF 2,000 shall be paid back to the Claimant.

*****

Note related to the publication:

The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 20 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).

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. 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.

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