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 17 February 2021
Decision of the
Single Judge of the sub-committee of
The Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 17 February 2021
regarding training compensation for the player Adam Jan Chrzanowski
BY:
Philippe Diallo (France), Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
CLAIMANT:
Wigry Suwalki, Poland
RESPONDENT:
PORDENONE CALCIO S.R.L., Italy
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player: Adam Jan CHRZANOWSKI
Date of birth: 31 March 1999
Player passport: issued by the Polish Football Association (“PZPN”) on an unknown date:
Season Birthday Club(s) Registration dates Status Registration 15/16 16/17 17th 18th Lechia Gdansk 16/07/2015 – 19/09/2016 Professional Permanent
16/17
17/18
18th
19th
ACF Fiorentina (Italy)
19/09/2016 – 10/07/2017
Professional
Loan 17/18 18/19 19th 20th Lechia Gdansk 10/07/2017 – 11/02/2019 Professional Permanent
18/19
19/20
20th
21st
Wigry Suwalki
11/02/2019 – 01/07/2019
Professional
Loan 19/20 21st Lechia Gdansk 01/07/2019 – 17/02/2020 Professional Permanent
19/20
21st
Miedz Legnica
17/02/2020 – 30/06/2020
Professional
Loan 20/21 22nd Lechia Gdansk 01/07/2020 – 09/09/2020 Professional Permanent
20/21
22nd
Pordenone Calcio (Italy)
09/09/2020 – onwards
Professional
Permanent
Sporting season: 1 July to 30 June (Poland)
Date of transfer: 10 September 2020, from Lechia Gdansk (Poland) to Pordenone Calcio (Italy) as professional
Claimant club: Wigry Suwalki (Poland)
UEFA, category IV (EUR 10,000 per year)
Respondent club: Pordenone Calcio (Italy)
UEFA, category II (EUR 60,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1. On 30 December 2020, the Claimant requested EUR 15,342.47 as training compensation for the transfer of the player as a professional to the Respondent, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 10 October 2020 until the date of effective payment.
2. In its calculation, the Claimant took into consideration the the average of its and the Respondent’s categories, i.e. EUR 35,000, which it multiplied pro rata by the 160 days the player was registered with the Claimant. In this respect, the Claimant counted February 2019 as a full month.
3. The Claimant based its claim on the jurisprudence developed by the DRC according to which a club which had the player on loan from its parent club is in principle entitled to claim training compensation from the player’s next club should the player be registered permanently as a professional.
4. On 11 January 2021, the FIFA administration submitted a proposal to the parties, informing them that it was of the opinion that the Respondent should pay the amount of EUR 13,328.77 to the Claimant as training compensation, plus 5% interests p.a. as from 11 October 2020.
5. The proposal was accepted by the Claimant and rejected by the Respondent.
6. On 25 January 2021, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant arguing that the latter was not the former club of the player in the sense of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP).
7. In addition, the Respondent sustained that according to the “loan jurisprudence” of the DRC, in case of a subsequent transfer of a professional, only the parent club (i.e. the former club) and the last club to which it returned from the loan before being transferred to the Respondent (in casu Miedz Legnica), were actually entitled to training compensation.
8. Finally, the Respondent held that Miedz Legnica had waived its entitlement to training compensation.
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law: Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): August 2020 edition.
Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (Procedural Rules): 2021 edition.
Jurisdiction: Yes, uncontested
Admissible: Yes, uncontested
Decision:
1. The claim of the Claimant is based on the subsequent transfer of the player as a professional between clubs of two different associations.
2. The Claimant refers to the jurisprudence of the DRC in relations to loans according to which when a player registers with a club affiliated to a different member association from the one where he was previously registered, any club(s) that may have had that player on loan from the former club should be entitled to claim training compensation from the new club.
3. The Respondent held that no training compensation was due to the Claimant, the latter not being the player’s former club as per the RSTP.
4. The DRC has underlined on various occasions that the loan(s) that took place during a player’s registration with his former club did not interrupt the chain of entitlement of training compensation.
5. Bearing in mind the above, the period starting from the player’s registration with the former club (i.e. Lechia Gdansk) and ending with his registration with the new club (i.e. the Respondent) has to be considered as one timeframe and that the loans which occurred during this period are part of that timeframe.
6. It is undisputed that the player was registered with Lechia Gdansk between 16 July 2015 until on 9 September 2020, i.e. when he registered with the Respondent.
7. During said timeframe, the player was loaned to several third clubs, including the Claimant.
8. It is undisputed that the player was registered with the Claimant on loan as from 11 February 2019 until 1 July 2019.
9. Consequently, the Claimant is in principle entitled to training compensation for the period the player was registered on loan with it and the argument of the Respondent cannot be accepted.
10. The Respondent further contested the entitlement of the Claimant to receive training compensation arguing that Miedz Legnica had waived its entitlement to training compensation.
11. In accordance with the jurisprudence of the DRC, a club that is entitled to receive training compensation for a particular player may waive such right. In order to be valid, a waiver for training compensation must be clear and unambiguous and needs to have been signed by the relevant club.
12. In casu, the waiver referred to by the Respondent has been issued by Miedz Legnica, not by the Claimant. As a result, the Claimant has not waived its right to receive training compensation for the player and the waiver issued by Miedz Legnica is irrelevant in the present mater.
13. Therefore, training compensation is due to the Claimant in accordance with art. 2 par. 1 lit. b) of Annexe 4 of the RSTP and the jurisprudence of the DRC, i.e. the subsequent transfer of the player as a professional between clubs of two different associations.
14. Art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP foresees special provisions regarding training compensation for clubs that are located within the territory of the European Union (EU) and/ or the European Economic Area (EEA).
15. In casu, the Claimant is based in Poland and the Respondent in Italy, both countries being member of the EU.
16. Therefore, art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the RTSP is applicable to the matter at hand as lex specialis.
17. In accordance with art. 6 par. 1 lit a) of Annexe 4 of the RSTP, for players moving from one association to another inside the territory of the EU/EEA, the calculation shall be based on the average training costs of the two clubs if the player moves from a lower (in casu category IV within UEFA, i.e. EUR 10,000) to a higher category club (in casu category II within UEFA, i.e. EUR 60,000).
18. In view of the above, the amount to be taken into account in casu as training cost is EUR 35,000 per year, i.e. (EUR 10,000 + EUR 60,000) / 2.
19. Art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP stipulates that the amount payable of training compensation is calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of training that the player spent with each club.
20. The player was registered with the Claimant as from 11 February 2019 until 30 June 2019, i.e. during 139 days (1 July 2019 being considered as the 1st day of registration of the player’s 21st birthday season with the former club).
21. As a result, The Claimant is entitled to training compensation for:
(i) 2018-2019 season (season of the Player’s 20th birthday): 139 days.
22. The training costs are calculated, on a pro-rata basis, as follows:
(i) 2018-2019 season - on the basis of the average between a category IV and category II club within UEFA, i.e. EUR 35,000 per year:
EUR 35,000 x (139 / 365) = EUR 13,328.77
23. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and the latter is entitled to EUR 13,328.77 as training compensation.
24. Taking into account the request of the Claimant as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP, 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 31 days after the registration of the player with it, i.e. one day after the amount was due, in casu as from 11 October 2020 until the date of effective payment.
25. No procedural costs are levied (cf. arts. 17 par. 1 and 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
26. Art. 24 bis of the RSTP is applicable.
III. DECISION
1. The claim of the Claimant, Wigry Suwalki, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, PORDENONE CALCIO S.R.L., shall pay to the Claimant:
- EUR 13,328.77 as training compensation, plus 5% interest per annum on that amount as from 11 October 2020, until the date of effective payment.
3. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4. The Claimant shall immediately inform the Respondent of the bank account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount (including all applicable interest).
5. The Respondent shall provide evidence of full payment to chhelpdesk@fifa.org. If applicable, the evidence shall be translated into an official FIFA language (English, French, German, Spanish).
6. If the due amount (including all applicable interest) is not paid by the Respondent within 45 days as from notification of the bank account details, the following consequences shall apply:
1. 2.
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.
The ban will be lifted immediately, and prior to its complete serving, following confirmation that the due amount (including all applicable interest) has been received by the Claimant. 3.
In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is 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 the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
7. 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 | chhelpdesk@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777