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 19 November 2020
Decision of the
Single Judge of the sub-committee of
The Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 November 2020
regarding training compensation for the player Botond Balogh
BY:
Daan de Jong (Netherlands), Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
CLAIMANT:
MTK Budapest, Hungary
RESPONDENT:
PARMA CALCIO 1913 S.R.L., Italy
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player: BOTOND BALOGH
Date of birth: 6 June 2002
Player passport: issued by the Hungarian Footbal Federation (“HFF”) on an unknown date
Season
Birthday
Club(s)
Registration dates
Status
Category
2015-2016
14th
MTK Budapest
12.08.2015-30.06.2016
Amateur
II
2016-2017
15th
MTK Budapest
01.07.2016-30.06.2017
Amateur
II
2017-2018
16th
MTK Budapest
01.07.2017-30.06.2018
Amateur
II
2018-2019
17th
MTK Budapest
01.07.2018-30.06.2019
Amateur
II
2019-2020
18th
MTK Budapest
01.07.2019-15.10.2019
Amateur
II
2019-2020
18th
Parma Calcio 1913
15.10.2019-onwards
Professional
-
Sporting season: 1 July to 30 June (Hungary)
Date of transfer: 15 October 2019, Hungary to Italy
Claimant club: MTK Budapest (Hungary)
UEFA, category III (EUR 30,000 per year)
Respondent club: PARMA CALCIO 1913 S.R.L. (Italy)
UEFA, category I (EUR 90,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1. On 28 July 2020, the Claimant claimed training compensation of EUR 161,876 on the basis of the first registration as a professional of the player with the Respondent, plus 5% interests p.a. as of 15 November 2019.
2. The Claimant argued that as of May 2019 it had expressed its wish to sign the player as a professional.
3. In particular, the Claimant referred to a meeting that apparently took place on 19 May 2019 and to a Whatsapp message dated 5 July 2019 that it had allegedly sent to the players’ agent of the player.
4. On both occasions the Claimant argued having offered a contract to the player.
5. The Claimant added having received an offer from the Respondent for the player which amounted to EUR 120,000, payable as training compensation that it had refused as well as another increased one on 17 July 2019 which it had also declined.
6. The Claimant deemed being entitled to receive training compensation on the basis of art. 20 RSTP combined with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP).
7. The Claimant sustained that because the player had been registered with it as an amateur, only the first sentence of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 to the RSTP was applicable and that by means of its communication sent to the player’s agent on 5 July 2019, it had provided the player with a written contract offer in the sense of the RSTP.
8. In the alternative, the Claimant held that, in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP (last part of the first sentence), it had showed a bona fide and genuine interest in keeping the player by means of its proactive attitude vis-á-vis the latter.
9. The Claimant considered having showed the player that it counted on him for future seasons. In this respect, the Claimant referred , inter alia, to the “oral negotiations with the Player for a professional contract, joint television interviews about future prospects and plans, chat offer to the Player’s agent, etc…”.
10. The Claimant calculated the claimed amount on the basis of the provisions set out in art. 6 of Annexe 4 to the RSTP (special provisions for the EU/EEA) arguing that in the relevant time period of registration it had belonged to different categories: category II during the seasons 2016/17 and 2018/19 and category III in the seasons 2017/18 and 2019/20.
11. On 13 August 2020, the FIFA administration made a proposal to the parties to the settle the matter suggesting that the Respondent should pay the Claimant the sum of EUR 157,630.14 as training compensation, plus 5% interests p.a. as from 15 November 2019.
12. The proposal was accepted by the Claimant and rejected by the Respondent.
13. On 17 September 2020, the Respondent contested the Claimant’s entitlement to receive training compensation for the player arguing that it had failed to offer a contract to the player and did not justify a genuine and bona fide interest in maintaining the services of the player.
14. In the alternative, the Respondent argued that the Claimant was only entitled to receive the amount EUR 145,000 as training compensation considering the Claimant’s category III upon registration and its sayings admitting that it trained the player only until 24 July 2019 .
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law: RSTP: October 2019 edition.
Procedural Rules: June 2020 edition.
Jurisdiction: Yes, uncontested
Admissible: Yes, uncontested
Decision:
15. The registration of the player with the Respondent is a first registration of a professional player. The former club (the Claimant) and the new club (the Respondent) being based within the EU/EEA, the provisions set out in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP and the corresponding jurisprudence of the DRC are applicable to the matter at hand.
16. As such, in principle, the 1st sentence of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP unequivocally establishes that, in general, when a player move from two clubs affiliated to different associations within the EU/EEA before the end of the player’s 23rd birthday season, if the former club does not offer the player a contract, no training compensation is payable unless the former club can justify that it is entitled to such compensation.
17. If the former club is a professional club and the player had been registered with it as amateur, such club will have to justify its entitlement to receive training compensation by way of a contract offer made to the player, i.e. the provisions set out in art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 RSTP are applicable, but not sent. 2 and 3.
18. In exceptional cases, the DRC has recognized that a club that has not offered a contract to a player in line with the above, may retain its entitlement to receive training compensation by showing a bona fide interest in retaining the player.
19. In casu, the player was always registered as an amateur with the former club.
20. The Claimant failed to provide concrete evidence as to the content of the meeting dated 19 May 2019: the statements of the Claimant’s employees provided by the latter cannot be retained as they might not be entirely impartial, there are no minutes of the meeting and the Respondent strongly contested its existence. The Claimant also failed to provide evidence that the content of the WhattsApp communication of 5 July 2019 was remitted by the Claimant to the player.
21. According to the jurisprudence of the DRC, bona fide interest can in general be manifested by showing a proactive attitude vis-à-vis the respective player, so as to clearly manifest that the club intends to keep the player in the future and that it counts on his presence. Such proactive attitude can been demonstrated if there is evidence that concrete contractual negotiations have taken place.
22. The Claimant failed to provide substantiated evidence that it had made an offer to the player and that it was in bona fide interested in keeping the services of the player (cfr. Art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules).
23. As a result, the Claimant failed to demonstrate that it had fulfilled the requirements of art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP and that therefore, the latter is not entitled to receive training compensation in connection with the first registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent.
24. The claim of the Claimant is rejected.
DECISION
1. The claim of the Claimant, MTK Budapest, 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 | chhelpdesk@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777