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 8 November 2019

Decision of the

Single Judge of the sub-committee of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC)

passed on 8 November 2019,

by Mr Stefano Sartori (Italy),

Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC,

on the claim presented by the club,

Club A, from country A

as Claimant

against the club,

Club B, from country B

as Respondent

regarding training compensation in connection with the player X

Training compensation in connection with the player, Player X

I. Facts of the case

1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Association of country A, the player, Player X (d.o.b. 19 December 1997, hereinafter: the player), was registered as an amateur with the following country A clubs:

- Club A, from country A: 14 April 2010 until 24 July 2014

- Club C, from country A: 5 August 2014 until 9 February 2016

- Club D, from country A: 19 February 2016 until 26 January 2017

2. Furthermore, according to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player was transferred “out of contract, free of payment” from Club D, from country A, to the Club B, from country B (hereinafter: the Respondent), where he was registered as a professional on 13 February 2017.

3. According to a confirmation from the Football Association of country A, the football seasons in country A run from 1 August until 31 July of the following year.

4. According to the information contained in TMS, 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 it.

5. On 28 January 2018, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting training compensation on the basis of the player’s first registration as a professional with the Respondent. In particular, after amending its claim, the Claimant requested the total amount of EUR 65,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2017.

6. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent argued, inter alia, that training compensation was not due in this particular case. In fact, the Respondent stated that when ending its registration with the player, the Claimant signed a release form and that, as such, it waived its right to any future training compensation.

7. In its replica, the Claimant held that the release form “does not mean quittance of training compensation requested from Respondent”. The Claimant explained that such release form is a mandatory document under the regulations of the Football Association of country A, which must be issued when a player moves to another club. According to the Claimant, the release form only governs the relationship between it and the player.

8. In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated its position. In particular, the Respondent stated that the Claimant unambiguously waived its right to training compensation by means of the release form, according to which it renounced to

Training compensation in connection with the player, Player X the “reimbursement of costs invested in the development of the player”. Furthermore, the Respondent referred to DRC and CAS jurisprudence as well as Swiss law, in support of its position that the release form is a valid waiver.

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 28 January 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 2016, 2018 and 2019) and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 13 February 2017, the 2016 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 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).

Training compensation in connection with the player, Player X

5. First of all, the Single Judge took note of the Claimant’s claim, according to which it is entitled to training compensation in the amount of EUR 65,000 on the basis of the player’s first registration as a professional with the Respondent.

6. Equally, the Single Judge took note of the main argument of the Respondent, according to which, when ending its registration with the player, the Claimant signed a release form and that, as such, it waived its right to any future training compensation.

7. In continuation, the Single Judge observed that the Claimant held that the release form “does not mean quittance of training compensation requested from Respondent”. The Claimant explained that such release form is a mandatory document under the regulations of the Football Association of country A, which must be issued when a player moves to another club. According to the Claimant, the release form only governs the relationship between it and the player.

8. Furthermore, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent referred to DRC and CAS jurisprudence as well as Swiss law, and stated that the Claimant unambiguously waived its right to training compensation by means of the release form, according to which it renounced to the “reimbursement of costs invested in the development of the player”.

9. 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. 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 professional 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.

10. Reverting to the facts of the matter at hand, and based on the documentation and the information contained in TMS, the Single Judge established that the player was indeed registered for the first time as a professional with the Respondent on 13 February 2017, following a transfer “out of contract, free of payment” directly from Club D, from country A.

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

Training compensation in connection with the player, Player X

12. Having established the aforementioned, the Single Judge turned his attention to the main argument of the Respondent, which stated that the Claimant had validly waived its entitlement to training compensation by means of issuing a release form on 24 July 2014.

13. On the other hand, the Single Judge observed that the Claimant explained that the relevant release form is a mandatory document under the regulations of the Football Association of country A and that it only governs the relationship between the club and the player.

14. Having analysed the content of the release form, the Single Judge understood that the relevant release form is merely an administrative requirement at national level to release a player when he is moving to another club, but that it cannot be considered a waiver of training compensation under the FIFA regulations. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that training compensation is payable by the Respondent to the Claimant.

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 amount of 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 19 December 1997 and, in accordance with the player passport issued by the Football Association of country A, was registered with the Claimant as from 14 April 2010 until 24 July 2014.

18. Equally, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the information contained in the TMS, the player was registered with the Respondent on 13 February 2017.

19. Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the information contained in TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA) during the season when the player was registered with it.

20. In view of all of 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 63,333 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent.

Training compensation in connection with the player, Player X

21. Moreover, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to pay interest at 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of 1 March 2017 until the date of effective payment.

22. Lastly, the Chamber 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 Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 65,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules).

24. As a result, considering the particularities of the present matter as well as the parties’ degree of success, the Chamber determined the final costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 5,000, which shall be entirely borne by the Respondent.

*****

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

1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, Club B, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 63,333 + 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2017 until the date of effective payment.

3. Any further claim from the Claimant is rejected.

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.

Training compensation in connection with the player, Player X

5. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 5,000 is to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows:

5.1. The amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. TMS XXXX

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

5.2. The amount of CHF 3,000 has to be paid back to the Claimant.

6. 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

Fax: +41 21 613 50 01

e-mail: info@tas-cas.org

For the Single Judge of the

sub-committee of the DRC:

Training compensation in connection with the player, Player X

(Club A, from country A/ Club B, from country B)

8/7

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer