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 25 September 2019

Decision of the

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

passed on 25 September 2019,

by 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 passport issued by the Football Association of Country B, the Player E (d.o.b. 20 November 1997, hereinafter: the player) was registered as an amateur with the following clubs:

- Club F: 1 January 2003 until 30 June 2009

- Club A: 1 July 2009 until 30 June 2011

- Club G: 1 July 2011 until 30 June 2013

- Club H: 1 July 2013 until 31 December 2014

- Club L: 1 January 2015 until 31 December 2015

2. The sporting season in Country B ran from 1 January until 31 December “prior to 2010”, and as from 1 July until 30 June from “season 2010 - present”.

3. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 5 January 2016, the club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), registered the player as a professional player following a transfer “out of contract free of payment” from Club L. The relevant transfer instruction indicated that the player was an amateur player with his former club. Furthermore, according to the player passport issued by the Football Association of Country B, uploaded within the relevant transfer instruction, the player was registered as an amateur with all above-mentioned clubs.

4. Also according to TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category 1 (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year within UEFA; EUR 10,000 for category 4 clubs) at the time the player was registered with it.

5. On 1 February 2018, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent before FIFA asking to be awarded training compensation for the first registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant requested EUR 15,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due date.

6. In its claim, the Claimant referred to an exchange of correspondence with the Respondent in which the latter apparently stated that the player had already signed a professional contract with the Club M in Country B. However, according to the Claimant, said contract was not legally binding as it was signed by the player when he was a minor, and for the same reason said contract was not registered by the Football Association of Country B as is corroborated by the player passport.

7. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent firstly argued that the claim is time-barred considering that it signed the employment contract with the player on 21 November 2015. In continuation, the Respondent maintained that the player had already signed a professional contract with Club M in 2014 and that, in any case, the Claimant waived its right to receive training compensation.

8. Despite having been invited to submit its replica, the Claimant did not submit any further comments.

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 1 February 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 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 2019). 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, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2015, 2016, 2018 and 2019) and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 5 January 2016, the 2015 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, the Single Judge reverted to the argument of the Respondent, according to whom the present matter is barred by the statute of limitations. In this regard, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations, according to which, inter alia, the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall not hear any case subject to the said Regulations if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute. Equally, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the deadline to pay training compensation is 30 days following the registration of the professional with the new association.

5. Considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 1 February 2018 and that the event giving rise to the dispute, that is, the non-payment of training compensation 30 days after the player’s registration with the Respondent, the latter having occurred on 5 January 2016 according to the information contained in TMS, the Single Judge had to reject the respective argument of the Respondent and confirmed that the present petition was lodged in front of FIFA within said two years’ period of time. The matter is, thus, not barred by the statute of limitations in accordance with art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations.

6. Having established the aforementioned, the Single Judge entered into the substance of the matter. The Single Judge started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well as the documentation on 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. 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).

7. In this regard, the Single Judge recalled that the player, born on 20 November 1997, was registered with the Claimant as from 1 July 2009 until 30 June 2011 as an amateur. Equally, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the player passport issued by the Football Association of Country B, the player was registered with several other clubs from Country B as an amateur from 1 July 2011 until 31 December 2015.

8. Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that according to the information contained in the TMS, on 5 January 2016, the Respondent registered the player as a professional player following a transfer “out of contract free of payment” from Club L. Moreover, the Single Judge acknowledged that the relevant transfer instruction indicated that the player was an amateur player with his former club and that, according to the player passport issued by the Football Association of Country B and uploaded within the relevant transfer instruction, the player was registered as an amateur with all clubs in Country B.

9. In continuation, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 15,000, indicating that the player was registered as a professional for the first time with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.

10. Equally, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant referred to an exchange of correspondence with the Respondent in which the latter apparently stated that the player had already signed a professional contract with the Club M in Country B. However, according to the Claimant, said contract was not legally binding as it was signed by the player when he was a minor, and for the same reason said contract was not registered by the Football Association of Country B as is corroborated by the player passport.

11. Subsequently, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent maintained that the player had already signed a professional contract with Club M in 2014 and that, in any case, the Claimant waived its right to receive training compensation.

12. At the same time, while referring to the principle of the burden of proof stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent had not submitted any documentary evidence in support of its arguments.

13. Having analysed the parties’ submissions, 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. i. 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. 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.

14. Based on the documentation provided by the Football Association of Country B and the information contained in TMS, as well as the lack of evidence in support of the Respondent’s arguments, the Single Judge concluded that it could indeed be established that the player had been registered for the first time as a professional with the Respondent.

15. On account of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations.

16. Turning his attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Single Judge referred to art. 5 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that, as a general rule, it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, according to which the training costs for players for the seasons between their 12th and 15th birthdays shall be based on the training and education costs of category 4 clubs.

17. In continuation, the Single Judge recalled that the player was born on 20 November 1997 and was registered with the Claimant during the relevant period as from 1 July 2009 until 30 June 2011.

18. Equally, the Single Judge recalled that the sporting season in Country B ran from 1 January until 31 December “prior to 2010”, and as from 1 July until 30 June from “season 2010 - present”.

19. Furthermore, and considering 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, the Single Judge concluded that the effective period of time to be considered in the matter at stake corresponds to 12 months of the season of the player’s 12th birthday (this is an extended 18 month season running from 1 January 2009 until 30 June 2010 due to the change of season dates) and the entire season of the player’s 13th birthday.

20. Consequently, in light of the above-mentioned considerations and considering the amount claimed by the Claimant, the Single Judge decided to accept the Claimant’s claim and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 15,000 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent.

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 5 February 2016 until the date of effective payment.

22. Lastly, the Single Judge referred to 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 15,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules).

24. As a result and taking into account that the Claimant is the successful party in the proceeding, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 4,000, which 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 admissible.

2. The claim of the Claimant is accepted.

3. 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 15,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 5 February 2016 until the date of effective payment.

4. 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.

5. 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, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. 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 3. 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:

__________________________________

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer

Enclosed: CAS directives