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 22 September 2019

Decision of the

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

passed on 22 September 2019,

by Mr Geoff Thompson (England),

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 passports issued by the Football Association of Country B (hereinafter: the Football Association of Country B), the Football Association of Country F (hereinafter: the Football Association of Country F) and based on the information available on the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player, Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 5 February 1995, was registered with club A (hereafter: the Claimant) as from 3 September 2014 until 1 July 2015 and as from 17 February 2016 until 30 June 2016 on loan from the club of Country F, club G (hereinafter: the former club).

2. The football season in Country B during the relevant period of time ran as follows: from 1 July of the respective year until 30 June of the following year.

3. According to the information contained in the TMS, the player was registered with the club of Country D, club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 31 August 2016, which engaged the player “permanently against payment” directly from the former club.

4. Equally, according to the information contained in the TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year within UEFA) at the moment that the player was registered with them.

5. On 23 March 2018, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting training compensation on the ground that the player’s subsequent transfer as a professional occurred before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. In particular, the Claimant requested EUR 70,000, plus 5% interest as from “the due date”.

6. In its reply, the Respondent requested to dismiss the claim on the basis that the loan was not explicitly indicated on the player passports the Respondent relied upon when signing the player, namely the player passport provided by the Football Association of Country F and the Football Federation of Country D (hereinafter: the Football Federation of Country D), the Respondent’s Member Association.

7. The Respondent further stated that in any case the player had already terminated his training when he registered with the Claimant on loan for the first time, having already by then represented Country B in several youth categories. Alternatively, the Respondent finally argued that should it be determined that the training period of the player was still ongoing during the first loan, it should be deemed that the player had terminated his training when he joined the Claimant for the second loan in view of the fact that the player was already 21 at the time, and that therefore the Claimant shall only be awarded EUR 50,000 as a result.

8. In its replica, the Claimant contested the above-mentioned arguments of the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant indicated the Respondent should have acted with due diligence and obtained all the different player’s passports issued by the Member Associations of all the relevant countries where the player had played before deciding to register the player, and that by not doing the Respondent had to bear the responsibility of relying on inaccurate information.

9. With regard to the completion of the training period before player’s 21st birthday, the Claimant pointed out that the player was not an established professional at the time of his transfer to the Respondent.

10. In its duplica, the Respondent repeated its arguments regarding the wrongful information inputted in the player’s passports, as well as the early termination of the player’s training period before the end of the season of his 21st birthday.

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: 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 23 March 2018. 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 June 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 said regulations (edition June 2019) and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 31 August 2016, the June 2016 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (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 70,000, 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, for its part, rebutted the claim of the Claimant, stating that according to the player’s passports it possessed when registering the player, it could not determine that the player had been loaned to the Claimant previously, and that in any case the player had already terminated his training period when originally loaned by the former club to the Claimant for the first time, or alternatively when loaned for the second time.

7. 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.

8. Furthermore, according to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations, 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 provision 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.

9. 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 DRC’s well-established jurisprudence that all clubs which have contributed to the training and education of a player as from the age of 12 are, in principle, entitled to training compensation for the timeframe that the player was effectively trained by them.

10. 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.

11. In continuation, the Single Judge made reference to art. 7 of the Regulations, according to which a registering association is obliged to provide the club with which the player is registered with a player passport containing the relevant details of the player. In this respect, the Single Judge duly noted that the player’s passports uploaded by the Football Association of Country B within the loan instructions on TMS clearly indicated that the player had been registered twice with the Claimant on loan from the former club. What is more, the Single Judge acknowledged that such information was not clearly indicated within the player’s passport issued by the Football Association of Country F.

12. In this respect, the Single Judge first highlighted that the Claimant could not be held responsible for the information inputted on the player’s passport issued by the Football Association of Country F. In addition, the Single Judge was eager to emphasise that it was the responsibility of the Respondent to act with due diligence and ensure that it had conducted a thorough analysis of the player’s career prior to his signing. Consequently, the Single Judge dismissed the Respondent’s argumentation in that regard.

13. Then, having considered the Respondent’s position about player’s completion of his training before his 21st birthday, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent did not provide evidence within the meaning of art. 12 para. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. The Single Judge remarked that the Respondent only relied upon the fact that at the time of the player’s second loan with the Claimant the payer was already aged 21 years of age and the mere fact that the player had represented Country B at youth level in order to arrive to the conclusion that his training period had been completed.

14. In that regard, the Single Judge pointed out that in the absence of any supporting evidence, he was not in a position to determine whether or not the player had indeed already ended his training period when being loaned out to the Claimant. As such, the Single Judge concluded that the player’s training period had not been completed at the time of the two loans from the former club to the Claimant.

15. In view of the foregoing, 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 Annexe 4 of the Regulations.

16. Reverting to the facts of the matter at hand, and based on the documentation provided by the Football Association of Country B, the Football Association of Country F 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 3 September 2014 until 1 July 2015 and as from 17 February 2016 until 30 June 2016 on loan from the club of Country F, club G. Moreover, it can be confirmed that club G was indicated as the former club from which he transferred to the Respondent on 31 August 2016.

17. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Single Judge concluded that it can be established that the player was subsequently transferred as a 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 receive training compensation from the Respondent.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. In continuation, the Single Judge recalled that the player was born on 5 February 1995 and was registered with the Claimant on loan from 3 September 2014 until 1 July 2015 and as from 17 February 2016 until 30 June 2016. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the player was subsequently transferred from the former club to the Respondent.

21. On account of the above, the Single Judge considered that the Claimant is, thus, entitled to receive training compensation for the period as from 3 September 2014 until 1 July 2015 and as from 17 February 2016 until 30 June 2016, i.e. 10 months of the season of the player’s 20th birthday and 4 months of the season of the player’s 21st birthday.

22. Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the information contained in the TMS, the player was registered with the Respondent on 31 August 2016.

23. Equally, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the information contained in the TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category II at the moment of the player’s registration with it (UEFA indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year).

24. In view of all the above, the Single Judge decided to accept the claim of the Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 70,000 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent.

25. 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 as of 1 October 2016 until the date of effective payment.

26. 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.

27. In respect of the above, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 70,000 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).

28. As a result, the Single Judge determined the final costs of the current proceedings in the amount of CHF 5,000 that shall be borne 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 C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 70,000 + 5% interest p.a. as from 1 October 2016 until the date of effective payment.

3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest are 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. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 5,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, within 30 days of notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. XXX XXXX/XXX:

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH 27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

5. 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