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 23 October 2019

Decision of the

Single Judge of the sub-committee of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC)

passed on 23 October 2019,

by Mr Stefano Sartori (Italy),

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, Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 25 May 1996, was registered with Club A (hereafter: the Claimant) as from 11 August 2015 until 30 June 2016 on loan from the club of Country F, club G (hereinafter: the former club or club G).

2. The football season in Country B during the relevant period of time ran as follows: from 18 July of the respective year until 25 May of the following year.

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 13 July 2017, which engaged the player “out of contract free of payment” directly from club G.

4. In this respect, based on the information available on TMS, the Claimant and club G signed a document in which it is stipulated, inter alia, that “no training compensation will be paid by club G to [the Claimant] in connection to any future transfer of the player”.

5. Equally, according to the information contained in the TMS, the Claimant as well as 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 them.

6. On 26 June 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 27,500, plus 5% interest as from the due date.

7. In its reply, the Respondent requested to dismiss the claim. In particular, according to the Respondent, the loan agreement signed between the Claimant and club G included an option for a permanent transfer of the player, which was not excersised due to a premature termination of the loan agreement by the mutual consent of the parties. In addition, the Respondent argued that within the termination of the loan agreement, club G signed a waiver with the Claimant with regard to any future training compensation claim. The Respondent indicated that such document was not in its possession, but was available on TMS (cf. I.4. above).

8. In its replica, the Claimant referred to art. 12 para. 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, pointing out that “[a]ny party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged facts shall carry the burden of proof” and that the Respondent “does not have any of the above-mentioned documents.”

9. In its duplica, the Respondent uploaded various documents, none of them supporting its arguments.

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 26 June 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 October 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 (editions October 2019, June 2019, June 2018, January 2018, 2016) and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 13 July 2017, the 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 27,500, plus 5% interest as from the due date, 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 the Claimant and club G mutually terminated the loan agreement and in this context signed a waiver with with regard to any future training compensation claim.

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 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. Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that a club may agree at any time to renounce to its entitlement to training compensation. In such instances, said club would have to express unequivocally its waiving of training compensation rights in the sense of art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations in relation to training and education provided for a specific player, in line with the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC.

11. In this respect, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Claimant signed a document, available on TMS, which clearly states that “no training compensation will be paid by club G to [the Claimant] in connection to any future transfer of the player”.

12. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded, that the document in question does not affect the potential entitlement to training compensation of the Claimant nor offsets the obligation of the Respondent to pay the training compensation in the present matter.

13. Reverting to the facts of the matter at hand, and based on the documentation provided by the Football Association 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 11 August 2015 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.

14. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Single Judge concluded that it can be established that the player was subsequently transfered 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. In continuation, the Single Judge recalled that the player was born on 25 May 1996 and was registered with the Claimant on loan from 11 August 2015 until 30 June 2016. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the player was subsequently transferred from the former club to the Respondent.

18. On account of the above, the Single Judge considered that the Claimant is, thus, entitled to receive training compensation for the period as from 11 August 2015 until 30 June 2016, i.e. 11 months of the season of the player’s 21st birthday.

19. Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the information contained in the TMS, the player was registered with the Respondent on 13 July 2017.

20. Equally, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the information contained in the TMS, both the Claimant and 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).

21. 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 27,500 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent.

22. 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 of 13 August 2017 until the date of effective payment.

23. 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 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.

24. In respect of the above, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 27,500 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to 5,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules).

25. As a result, considering the outcome of the decision, the Single Judge determined the final costs of the current proceedings in the amount of 5,000 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 27,500 + 5% interest p.a. as from 13 August 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. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of 5,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, within 30 days of notification of the present decision, to the following bank account with reference to case no. XXXX

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. 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

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