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 14 October 2019

Decision of the

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

passed on 14 October 2019,

by Mr Geoff Thompson (England),

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 C

I. Facts of the case

1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of country A, the player, Player C (hereinafter: the Player), born on 23 November 1996, was registered with the Club A, from country A (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 3 February 2016 until 15 June 2016 and as from 20 June 2016 until 15 June 2017, on loan from the Club X, from country A.

2. The football seasons in country A during the relevant period of time ran as follows: from 1 July until 30 June.

3. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player was registered with the Club B, from country B (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 6 February 2019. The Respondent engaged the player, on a definitive basis and “out of contract”, directly from Club X, from country A.

4. Equally, according to the information contained in TMS, the Claimant and 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 12 July 2019, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting training compensation for the period of 3 February 2016 until 15 June 2017 on the ground that the transfer occurred before the end of the season his 23rd birthday. In particular, the Claimant requested EUR 42,500, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due date.

6. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not reply to the claim.

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 12 July 2019. 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 the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions June 2018, June 2019, October 2019) and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 6 February 2019, the June 2018 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, 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 42,500, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the respective 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 did not take position in the present matter, although having been invited to do so by FIFA. Therefore, the Single Judge deemed that, in this way, the Respondent renounced its right of defence and accepted the Claimant’s allegations.

7. As a consequence of the aforementioned considerations, the Single Judge established that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, he shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents on file.

8. 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.

9. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations, which stipulates that 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 article stipulates that any such loan is subject to the same rules as apply to the transfer of players, including the provisions on training compensation and the solidarity mechanism.

10. With due consideration to 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 in actual fact 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.

11. 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.

12. In this respect and for the sake of good order, the Single Judge deemed it essential to emphasise that, as to the liability to pay training compensation, the analogy established in art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations could not be extended to the case in which a player is loaned to a club and thus is not being definitively transferred to the latter club. In other words, the transfer of a player from the club of origin to the club that accepts the player on loan, as well as the return of the player from the club that accepted him on loan to the club of origin, do not constitute a subsequent transfer in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. The Single Judge was eager to point out that it could not have been the intention of the legislator of the relevant regulatory provision (i.e. art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations) to trigger the consequences of art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the occasion of a transfer on a loan basis and, thus, potentially deprive the loan of its essential flexibility and, in connection with the training and education of players, its purpose of providing young players with the opportunity to gain practical experience in another club in order to develop in a positive way, personally and, eventually, also for the benefit of the player’s new club.

13. Following the above, the Single Judge pointed out that the obligation to pay training compensation thus arises in case a player is definitively transferred from one club to another club belonging to a different association, but not when he is temporarily transferred to another club while still being contractually bound to his club of origin (yet, with the effects of the relevant contract being temporarily suspended), such as a loan. Hence, the relevant entitlement can only be claimed towards a new club that acquires the services of a player on a definitive and permanent basis subject to the fulfilment of the prerequisites established in art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations.

14. What is more, and while recalling that art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations stipulates that “In the case of subsequent transfers of the professional, training compensation will only be owed to his former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club”, the Single Judge pointed out that, within the framework of loans and for the purposes of the rules governing training compensation, the period of time that the player was registered with the Claimant on loan and the period of time that the player was registered with Club X, from country A should be considered as one entire timeframe. Any other interpretation would lead to the situation in which clubs accepting a player on loan would never be entitled to receive training compensation, even if they contribute to the training and education of players.

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 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 20 May 1997 and was registered with the Claimant as from 3 February 2016 until 15 June 2016 and as from 20 June 2016 until 15 June 2017, i.e. for 5 months during the season of the player’s 20th birthday and for 11 months of the season of the player’s 21st birthday.

18. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that, according to the information contained in TMS, the player was subsequently transferred as a professional from Club X, from country A to the Respondent, on a definitive basis as an out of contract player, on 6 February 2019, that is to say prior to the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.

19. Moreover, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the information contained in TMS, 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).

20. 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 Claimant EUR 40,000 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, in conformity with the longstanding practice of the DRC, interest of 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as from 9 March 2019 until the date of effective payment.

22. 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.

23. In respect of the above, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 42,500, 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, considering the fact that the Respondent never replied to the claim, the Single Judge determined the final costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 5,000 that shall be paid by the Respondent to FIFA.

25. The Single Judge concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.

26. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, the Single Judge referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.

27. In this regard, the Single Judge pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.

28. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that, in the event that the Respondent does not pay the amount due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

29. Finally, the Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned sanction will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.

III. Decision of the 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 the amount of EUR 40,000 + 5% interest p.a. as from 9 March 2019 until the effective date of payment.

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

4. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly, of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the amount plus interest mentioned under point 2. above.

5. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount plus interest in accordance with point 2. above to FIFA to the e-mail address psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if need be, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).

6. In the event that the amount due plus interest in accordance with point 2. above are not paid by the Respondent within 45 days as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the Respondent, the Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

7. The ban mentioned in point 6. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount plus interest are paid.

8. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest are still not paid by the end of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

9. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 5,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, within 45 days of notification of the present decision, 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: CH 27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

10. In the event that the aforementioned amount of costs is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

*****

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 Office