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 7 April 2020

Decision of the

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

passed on 7 April 2020,

by Geoff Thompson (England),

Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC,

on the claim presented by the club,

Figueirense FC, Brazil

as Claimant

against the club,

Vejle BK, Denmark

as Respondent

regarding training compensation in connection with

the player Gianluca Zanette

I. Facts of the case

1. According to the player passport issued by the Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF), the player Gianluca Zanette (hereinafter: the player), born on 17 March 1997, was registered with Figueirense FC (hereinafter: the Claimant) as from 25 April 2014 until 9 February 2015 as an amateur and as from 10 February 2015 until 31 December 2017 as a professional.

2. The football season in Brazil follows the calendar year.

3. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player was registered with the Danish club Vejle BK (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 27 April 2018, “out of contract free of payment”, his ITC indicating the Claimant as the player’s last club.

4. On 13 November 2019, 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 originally requested EUR 220,000, plus 5% interest as from the due date, based on the alleged category II of the Respondent in UEFA (EUR 60,000).

5. In its reply, the Respondent requested to dismiss the Claimant’s claim. In particular, according to the Respondent, the Claimant had waived its right to receive training compensation by means of a document issued on 12 April 2018, in which the Claimant states that “the professional contract bindings together the professional player GIANLUCCA ZANETTE […] and its institution has been terminated on 31/12/2017, therefore the player is free to sign with any club he wishes to, being this club dismissed of paying any kind of compensation to Figueirense Futebol Clube”. The aforementioned document was uploaded in the transfer instruction of the player to the Respondent as “Proof of last contract end date”.

6. Having been asked by FIFA to comment on such document, the Claimant first pointed out that “the declaration was not signed by the Claimant’s president! As recognized by the Respondent, the declaration was signed by the youth team supervisor (supervisor de base) of Figueirense FC, which obviously has no power to renounce any right on behalf of Figueirense!”. The Claimant added that “the declaration is only a statement confirming that the player was no longer linked to the Claimant, neither with economic rights nor with federative rights and for this reason no transfer fee would be due”. In this respect, it referred to the jurisprudence of the DRC, as per which “an agreement not to apply the provisions governing the payment of training compensation must be specific, signed in favor of the new club of the player and must be explicit in the sense that the former club is renouncing its right to claim the payment of FIFA’s training compensation from the new club”.

7. The Claimant concludes by reducing the amount originally claimed to EUR 110,630.14, plus an interest rate of 5% p.a. as from the due date, adjusted based on the Respondent’s category III in UEFA, as informed by FIFA in its proposal to the parties.

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 13 November 2019. Bearing in mind the wording of art. 21 of the 2019 Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the Single Judge concluded that such edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.

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. 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 and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 27 April 2018, the January 2018 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, after amending its claim, maintained that it is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 110,630.14, 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 and that the document issued on 12 April 2018 was not to be interpreted as a waiver of its right to claim training compensation as it was not issue by the competent club official and it is drafted in a general manner, with a view to confirm the release of the player and the club of any existing employment-related obligations.

6. Furthermore, the Single Judge duly noted that the Respondent, for its part, deems that the Claimant is not entitled to training compensation as the document of 12 April 2018 stated that “the player is free to sign with any club he wishes to, being this club dismissed of paying any kind of compensation to Figueirense Futebol Clube”, including training compensation, as per the Respondent.

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, the Single Judge recalled that as per his well-established jurisprudence 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.

9. In this respect, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Claimant signed the document dated 12 April 2018, available on TMS, which is drafted in very general terms, referring to “any type of compensation”, and which was uploaded as proof of the end of his last employment contract.

10. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the document in question, considering its general wording combined with the context in which it was issued and uploaded in TMS, 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.

11. Reverting to the facts of the matter at hand, and based on the documentation provided by the CBF 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 as from 25 April 2014 until 31 December 2017. Moreover, it can be confirmed that the Claimant was indicated as the player’s former club in the ITC issued in favour of the Respondent.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. In continuation, the Single Judge recalled that the player was born on 17 March 1997 and was registered with the Claimant from 25 April 2014 until 31 December 2017. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the player was subsequently transferred from the Claimant to the Respondent.

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 25 April 2014 until 31 December 2017, i.e. part of the season of his 17th birthday and the full seasons of his 18th, 19th and 20th birthdays.

17. Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the information contained in the TMS, the player was registered with the Respondent on 27 April 2018.

18. Equally, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the information contained in the 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 110,630.14 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 of 28 May 2018 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 220,000 related to the original claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules).

23. As a result, considering the outcome of the decision, the Single Judge determined the final costs of the current proceedings in the amount of CHF 25,000 shall be split in between the parties, namely CHF 15,000 on the Respondent and CHF 10,000 on the Claimant.

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

1. The claim of the Claimant, Figueirense FC, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, Vejle BK, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 110,630.14, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 28 May 2018 until the date of effective payment.

3. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.

4. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid by the Respondent 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 Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC of every payment received.

6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 25,000 are to be paid by the parties to FIFA as follows:

a) The Respondent shall pay procedural costs in the amount of CHF 15,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. TMS 5124/lsk:

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH 27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

b) The Claimant shall pay procedural costs in the amount of CHF 10,000 to FIFA to the aforementioned bank account with reference to case no. TMS 5124/lsk.

*****

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