F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – solidarity contribution/ contributo di solidarietà – (2020-2021) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 1 December 2020
Decision of the
Single Judge of the sub-committee of
The Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 1 December 2020
regarding training compensation relating to the registration of the player Edson JOAO
DE CEITA with LOSC Lille (France)
BY:
Stefano La Porta (Italy), Single Judge of the sub-committee of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
CLAIMANT:
SPORTING CP, Portugal
RESPONDENT:
LOSC LILLE, France
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player: Edson JOAO DE CEITA
Date of birth: 20 March 2001
Player passport: issued by the Federação Portuguesa de Futebol (FPF) on 20 March 2019
Season Birthday Club(s) Registration dates Status
12/13 12th Almada AC 17/10/12 – 30/06/13 Amateur
13/14 13th Almada AC 24/09/2013 – 30/06/14 Amateur
14/15 14th Almada AC 08/10/14 – 30/06/15 Amateur
15/16 15th Sporting CP 28/07/15 – 30/06/16 Amateur
16/17 16th Sporting CP 12/07/16 – 30/06/17 Amateur
17/18 17th Sporting CP 27/07/17 – 30/06/18 Amateur
Sporting season: 1 July to 30 June (Portugal)
Date of transfer: 4 September 2018, from Sporting CP (Portugal) to LOSC Lille (France) as
professional
Claimant club: Sporting CP (Portugal)
UEFA, category II (EUR 60,000 per year)
Respondent club: LOSC Lille (France)
UEFA, category I (EUR 90,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1. On 7 October 2020, the Claimant requested EUR 155,045 as training compensation, plus 5%
interest p.a. as of 4 October 2018.
2. In its calculation, the Claimant took into consideration the training category of the Respondent,
which it multiplied pro rata by the 1157 days the player was registered with the Claimant.
3. In its submissions, the Claimant confirmed that it did not offer the player a contract in line with
the provisions set out in art. 6 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (RSTP).
4. Nevertheless, the Claimant argued being entitled to receive training compensation for the first
registration of the player as a professional because it had shown a bona fide interest in retaining
the services of the player, in line with CAS jurisprudence.
5. In this respect, the Claimant submitted the following documents in support of the above
allegation:
a. A statement from one of its coaches;
b. Training evolution reports; and
c. Player’s statistics.
6. In the relevant statement, the coach indicated inter alia that it had advised the Claimant that the
“player was a very talented young player and that [it] should offer him a professional sports
employment contract”. The coach added that, in his assessment, the player “was a future
prospect for the A Team of Sporting.”
7. The Claimant maintained that the player “was a talented young player whose services [it] had a
genuine interest in maintaining”.
8. In view of the player’s talent, the Claimant deemed that, “it is logic to conclude that Sporting
was interest in keeping the services of the Player and that it was only normal that Sporting and
the Player entered a sports employment contract.”
9. In continuation, the Claimant alleged having tried to enter into negotiations with the player’s
agent of the player who however was “never available / interested in meeting”.
10. The Claimant added that the same player’s agent was representing one of its former player who
had left on bad terms in order to join the Respondent. From the Claimant’s point of view, the
player’s agent conduct was a “retaliation” against the Claimant.
11. The Claimant did not provide any evidence of any contractual negotiations with the player and/or
his entourage.
12. On 17 November 2020, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant in its entirety.
13. The Respondent underlined that because the Claimant had not offered a contract to the player,
it was in principle not entitled to training compensation.
14. The Respondent however acknowledged the jurisprudence developed by CAS in this respect,
according to which a club may safeguard its entitlement to training compensation although no
contract offer was made, if it’s able to demonstrate that it had a bona fide interest in retaining
the player’s services.
15. Nevertheless, the Respondent, deemed that the Claimant had failed to meet its burden of proof
as to having had a said bona fide interest in keeping the player.
16. The Respondent underlined that the training reports and the statement of a coach provided by
the Claimant only confirmed the player’s capacities and evolution but failed at demonstrating
any proactive stance from the Claimant to keep the player.
17. Finally, the Respondent pointed out that the Claimant had not provided any evidence in support
of the allegation it that would have been in contact with the agent of the player in order to
negotiate a possible employment contract, nor it did provide any documentation indicating that
it would have been in contact with the player and his entourage in this regard.
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law: Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): June 2018 edition.
Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (Procedural Rules): June 2020 edition.
Jurisdiction: Yes, uncontested
Admissible: Yes, uncontested
Decision:
1. The Claimant is located in Portugal and the Respondent in France, both countries being members
of the European Union (EU), hence art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP is applicable as lex specialis
to the matter hand and the registration of the player with the Respondent shall be considered a
first registration of a professional player between two clubs based within the EU.
2. As per the provisions set out in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RTSP, in case of a first registration of a
professional, the Claimant, in order to retain its entitlement to training compensation, shall
evidence that it had made a contract offer to the player during the course of his registration with
it.
3. In very exceptional cases, the DRC has decided that a club that has not offered a contract in the
sense of art. 6 par.3 of Annexe 4 RSTP may retain its entitlement to training compensation by
having shown a bona fide interest in keeping the player.
4. In this respect, it is undisputed that the Claimant did not offer a contract to the player.
5. Nevertheless, the Claimant alleged having shown bona fide interest in retaining the services of
the player.
6. In accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Claimant carries the burden of
proving that it did show a genuine interest in retaining the player’s services.
7. In this respect, the Claimant provided the statement of one of its coaches, along with several
training reports and statistics of the player.
8. The reports and statistics of the player were only provided in their original language, i.e.
Portuguese.
9. In line with art. 9 par. 1 lit. e) of the Procedural Rules according to which documents of relevance
to the dispute shall be translated into one of the official FIFA languages, i.e. English, French,
Spanish or German, the above reports and statistics have to be disregarded.
10. The statement of one the Claimant’s coach provided by the latter did not indicate that the
Claimant had shown a proactive stance vis-à-vis the retention of the player, it only mentions that
the coach had recommended the Claimant to keep the player.
11. In view of all of the above, the Claimant did not meet its burned of proof in the sense of art. 12
par. 3 of the Procedural Rules.
12. Therefore, it cannot be established that the Claimant had shown bona fide interest in retaining
the player’s services.
13. As a result, the Claimant did not comply with the requirements of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP
and/or the requirements developed by the jurisprudence of the DRC in its application of the
provisions set out in the aforesaid article.
14. Hence, the Claimant is not entitled to receive training compensation for the first registration of
the player as a professional with the Respondent.
15. Consequently, the claim of the Claimant is rejected.
16. No procedural costs are payable (cf. arts. 17 par. 1 and 18 par. 1 of the Rules Governing the
Procedure of the Players’ Status Committee and Dispute Resolution Chamber).
III. DECISION
1. The claim of the Claimant, Sporting CP, is rejected.
2. No procedural costs are payable (cf. arts. 17 par. 1 and 18 par. 1 of the Rules Governing the
Procedure of the Players’ Status Committee and Dispute Resolution Chamber).
For the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
Pursuant to article 58 paragraph 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed before the
Court of Arbitration for Sport within 21 days of notification.
NOTE RELATED TO PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party
within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted
version (cf. article 20 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777