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 3 October 2019

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC)

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 3 October 2019,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Tomislav Kasalo (Croatia), member

Stéphane Burchkalter (France), member

Jerome Perlemuter (France), member

Philippe Diallo (France), member

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

I. Facts of the case

1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of country A, the player, Player X, born on 20 January 1996, was registered as a professional with its affiliated clubs as follows:

- Club C, from country A on 23 January 2012;

- Club D, from country A(on loan)as from 23 January 2012 until 30 June 2012;

- Club C, from country A as from 1 July 2012 until 13 July 2015;

- Club A, from country A (on loan) as from 14 July 2015 until 30 June 2016;

- Club C, from country A as from 1 July 2016 until 30 June 2017.

2. Furthermore, according to the aforementioned player passport, the football seasons in country A start on 1 July and end on 30 June of the following year.

3. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player was registered as a professional with the club, Club B, from country B (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 18 August 2017.

4. Equally, according to the information contained in TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year within UEFA) at the moment that the player was registered with it.

5. On 11 October 2018, Club A, from country A (hereinafter: the Claimant) lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting training compensation on the basis of the player’s subsequent transfer as a professional from Club C, from country A (hereinafter: Club C) to the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant requested the total amount of EUR 57,868.85, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 20 August 2017.

6. In its claim, the Claimant referred to the jurisprudence of the DRC and CAS and explained that it is entitled to receive training compensation as the period of registration of the player with the club of origin, Club C, and the period of registration of the player with the Claimant on loan shall be considered one timeframe, entitling the Claimant to receive training compensation although it is not the player’s former club stricto sensu.

7. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent referred to art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 and art. 10 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players as well as to CAS jurisprudence and sustained that the loan transfer of the player from Club C, from country A to Club A, from country A “breached the chain of seasons of payable training compensation by [the Respondent]”. Consequently, the Respondent held that the training period with Club C after the player’s return from the Claimant is the only period that could be considered for the payment of training compensation by the Respondent.

8. In continuation, the Respondent argued that the Claimant has already been compensated by Club C for the training provided to the player. With reference to CAS jurisprudence, the Respondent maintained that “if a borrower club (like [the Claimant]) is supported or boosted with economic remuneration by the loaning club (Club C in casu), the borrower club does not suffer the training expenses to educate a player”. In this respect, the Respondent referred to the loan agreement concluded between Club C and the Claimant, which provided for “valorisation prizes” to be paid by Club C to the Claimant depending on the number of appearances of the player for the Claimant, and held that the player had played 33 matches leading to a payment of EUR 70,000.

9. Furthermore, the Respondent referred to art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations and argued that the player completed his training before the start of the season 2015/2016 when he was transferred on loan to the Claimant. In this respect, the Respondent pointed out that the player played 30 matches with the Claimant in the Serie B of country A, and attracted the interest of the club, Club Z, from country Z which made an offer on 31 August 2016 for the loan transfer of the player against payment of a loan compensation of EUR 200,000. In addition, the Respondent stated that the player obtained professional status already in January 2012.

10. In its replica, the Claimant reiterated its position outlined in its statement of claim and added that the player cannot be considered to have terminated his training period at the time of registration with it, as he did not have any professional experience and was mainly transferred to it on loan in order to gain experience.

11. In its duplica, the Respondent highlighted that the Claimant had not contested that it received an amount of EUR 70,000 from Club C. Finally, the Respondent reiterated its argumentation regarding the early termination of the player’s training period.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as the Chamber or the DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 11 October 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 members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2019), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns a dispute relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations.

3. Furthermore, the Chamber 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, it 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 18 August 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 DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the members of the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

5. First of all, the Chamber recalled that, considering the player passport provided by the Football Federation of country A, the player, born on 25 January 1991, was registered as a professional with the following clubs:

- Club C on 23 January 2012;

- Club D (on loan) as from 23 January 2012 until 30 June 2012;

- Club C as from 1 July 2012 until 13 July 2015;

- the Claimant (on loan) as from 14 July 2015 until 30 June 2016;

- Club C as from 1 July 2016 until 30 June 2017.

6. In continuation, the Chamber took note that the Claimant claimed that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 57,868.85. Equally, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant argued that, despite not being the player’s former club stricto sensu, it would still be entitled to training compensation in accordance with the jurisprudence of the DRC.

7. Equally, the Chamber took note of the various arguments of the Respondent, according to which the player’s loan transfer from Club C to the Claimant “breached the chain of seasons of payable training compensation by [the Respondent]”. Moreover, the Respondent argued that the only period that could possibly be considered for the purposes of training compensation is the player’s registration with Club C after his return from the Claimant.

8. In continuation, the DRC observed that the Respondent argued that the Claimant has already been compensated by Club C for the training provided to the player, considering that a payment of EUR 70,000 was made to the Claimant on the basis of the loan agreement between the two clubs.

9. Moreover, the members of the Chamber observed that the Respondent referred to art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations and argued that the player completed his training before the start of the season 2015/2016 when he was transferred on loan to the Claimant, pointing out that the player played a certain number of matches for the Claimant and attracted the interest of a foreign club.

10. In this context, the DRC highlighted that three issues need to be analysed in the present matter:

1) Is a club with which the player is registered on a temporary basis entitled to training compensation?

2) Was the Claimant compensated for the training provided to the player?

3) Was the player’s training already completed at the time the player joined Club A on loan?

11. When addressing the first issue, the Chamber referred to the rules applicable to training compensation and stated that, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations as well as in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 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 or 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 the latter occurs, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that training compensation will only be owed to the player’s former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club.

12. Furthermore, the Chamber 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.

13. With due consideration to the above, the DRC 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.

14. In other words, the Chamber 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.

15. In this respect and for the sake of good order, the members of the Chamber 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 DRC 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.

16. Following the above, the Chamber 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.

17. 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 DRC 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 C, 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.

18. On account of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent would be, in principle, liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations.

19. In continuation, the Chamber went on to examine whether the Claimant had already been compensated for the training provided to the player during the relevant loan period.

20. In this respect, the members of the Chamber observed that the loan agreement concluded between Club C and the Claimant provided for certain “development fees” to be paid by the former to the latter, depending on the number of appearances of the player for the Claimant during the loan period.

21. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Respondent stated that Club C had in fact paid the amount of EUR 70,000 to the Claimant following the 33 appearances of the player for the latter, and took note of the documentation provided by the Respondent in support of the latter fact.

22. Moreover, the DRC took into consideration the conclusion reached by the sub-committee of the DRC in the training compensation dispute involving Club C and the Respondent (case ref. TMS 2012), from which it transpired that Club C had indeed paid the amount of EUR 70,000 to the Claimant for the loan period of the player with the latter. What is more, from the documentation submitted in the present proceedings, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant did not contest having received the aforementioned payment from Club C.

23. Having established the above, the Chamber referred to the jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), according to which a club which is loaned a player, in casu the Claimant, and thus effectively trains that player, is in principle entitled to training compensation corresponding to the period it provided training to the player, unless the loaning club, in casu Club C, can demonstrate that it bore the costs for the player’s training for the duration of the loan.

24. In view of all the above, the Chamber was comfortably satisfied in its conclusion that the Claimant had already received the amount of EUR 70,000 from Club C for the loan period of the player, an amount higher than what the Claimant claimed as training compensation during the present proceedings, and that said payment covered the costs for the player’s training for the duration of the loan.

25. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided to reject the claim of the Claimant.

26. Having reached the above conclusion, the members of the Chamber decided that there was no need to address the third issue established above.

27. 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.

28. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 57,868.85 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).

29. 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 8,000, which shall be entirely borne by the Claimant.

*****

III. Decision of the Disptue Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is rejected.

2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 8,000 are to be paid by the Claimant within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of CHF 2,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the amount of CHF 6,000 is to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. TMS XXXX:

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

*****

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 Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer

Enclosed: CAS directives