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 11 September 2020

Decision of the

Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed on 11 September 2020,

regarding training compensation for the player Sensy Abdoul Kader Kays RANNER SACKO

BY:

Stefano Sartori (Italy), Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC

CLAIMANT:

F.C. ISSY-LES-MOULINEAUX, France

RESPONDENT:

GNK Dinamo Zagreb, Croatia

I. FACTS OF THE CASE

1. According to the player’s passport issued by the Fédération Française de Football (hereinafter: FFF), the player, Sensy Abdoul Kader Kays Ranner (hereinafter: the player), born on 3 May 2000, was registered with several of its affiliated clubs, including FC Issy Les Moulineaux, (hereinafter: the Claimant), as follows:

Clubs

Registration dates

Status

Boulogne Billancourt AC

05.10.2011 - 30.06.2012

Amateur

Boulogne Billancourt AC

16.09.2012 - 30.06.2013

Amateur

Boulogne Billancourt AC

11.09.2013 - 30.06.2014

Amateur

Issy Les Moulineaux F.C.

17.09.2014 - 30.06.2015

Amateur

Meudon A.S.

02.11.2015 – 30.06.2016

Amateur

Meudon A.S.

01.07.2016 – 30.06.2017

Amateur

Issy Les Moulineaux F.C.

15.07.2017 – 21.11.2017

Amateur

Meudon A.S.

22.11.2017 – 30.06.2018

Amateur

Meudon A.S.

05.07.2018 – 13.02.2019

Amateur

2. Pursuant to the information provided by the FFF, the sporting seasons in France starts on 1 July and ends on 30 June of each following year.

3. According to the aforementioned player passport, the Claimant belonged to the category IV (indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year) during the period of time the player was registered with it.

4. Furthermore, according to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (hereinafter: TMS), the above-mentioned passport was uploaded to TMS when the Croatian club, GNK Dinamo Zagreb (hereinafter: the Respondent), registered the player on 15 February 2019.

5. In continuation, according to the information contained in the TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) at the time the player was registered with it, i.e. during the 2019/2020 season.

6. On 17 April 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA claiming the payment of training compensation from the Respondent on the ground that the player, in February 2019, had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant requested EUR 22,849.

7. For its part, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim and referred to the content of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players sustaining, inter alia, that the Claimant had failed to offer a contract to the player and thereby lost its right to claim training compensation. Equally, the Respondent deemed that, the Claimant had not "show a credible and genuine interest in retaining [the player] in the future" .

8. In the alternative, the Respondent deemed that, if at all, the Claimant should not receive more than EUR 13,205.48 as training compensation, calculated as follows: "player registration from 17/9/2014 to 30/6/2015 in the duration of 287 days it comes to the amount of EUR 7,863.01 (EUR 10,000 is one year of player training); player registration from 15/7/2017 to 21/11/2017 in the duration of 130 days we come to the amount of EUR 5,342.47 (EUR 15,000 is one year of player training)" .

II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER

1. First of all, the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: 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 17 April 2020 and the decision passed on 11 September 2020. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the June 2020 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 21 of the Procedural Rules).

2. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its jurisdiction in light of arts. 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfers of Players (August 2020 edition) (hereinafter: the Regulations). In accordance with art. 3 of Annexe 6 in conjunction with art. 24 par. 3 and art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations, the Single Judge is competent to decide on the present dispute relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations handled through TMS.

3. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with the Respondent on 15 February 2019, the Single Judge analysed which regulations 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, the June 2018 edition of 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, the Single Judge entered into the substance of the matter. The Single Judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasized 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. In particular, the Single Judge recalled that, in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 to the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in the TMS.

5. First of all, the Single judge took note that the Claimant deemed being entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 22,849, as the player had signed his first professional contract with the latter before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.

6. Equally, the Single Judge noted that, for its part, the Respondent had rejected the claim of the Claimant, arguing that the latter had failed to offer a contract to the player in the sense of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations and had not "show a credible and genuine interest in retaining [the player] in the future". Finally, the Single judge duly noted that, in the alternative, the Respondent deemed that, if at all, only the sum of EUR 13,205.48 was payable to the Claimant as training compensation.

7. With the aforementioned considerations in mind, the Single judge referred to art. 20 of the Regulations as well as in art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations and pointed out that, as a general rule, training compensation is payable, when a player is registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday or when a professional is transferred between clubs belonging to two different associations before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. In case the player is registered for the first time as a professional, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations sets forth that the club with which the player is registered is responsible for paying training compensation within 30 days of registration to every club with which the player has previously been registered and that has contributed to his training starting from the season of his 12th birthday.

8. Moreover, the Single judge referred to art. 6 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations, which contains special provisions regarding players moving from one association to another association inside the territory of the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA). Considering that the player moved from a French to a Croatian club, art. 6 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations applies in the case at hand as lex specialis.

9. In continuation, the Single judge pointed out that the obligation to offer the player a contract in line with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations lie only with the last club with which the player was registered before being transferred to a new club or registered with a new club. Reverting to the player passport on file, the Single Judge recalled that the last club with which the player was registered before being registered with the Respondent was the French club Meudon A.S. and not the Claimant. As such, the Single judge concluded that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations is in casu not applicable.

10. Having established the aforementioned, the Single Judge referred to art. 5 par. 1 and par. 2 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations, which stipulate that as a general rule, to calculate the training compensation due to a player’s former club, it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself.

11. In continuation, the Single Judge reiterated that, pursuant to art. 6 par. 1 of the Annexe 4 to the Regulations, when a player moves from a lower to a higher category club within the territory of the EU/EEA, the amount of training compensation payable shall be calculated on the average training costs of the two clubs. In this respect, the Single Judge once again took into account that the Claimant belonged to the club category IV and that the Respondent belonged to the club category III on the date of the player’s registration with the Respondent.

12. As a result, and considering art. 3 par. 1 sent. 2 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations, which stipulates that the amount payable is calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of training that the player spent with each club, the Single Judge concluded that the effective period of time to be considered in the matter at stake corresponds to 287 days of the 2014/2015 season, i.e. as from 17 September 2014 until 30 June 2015, as well as to 130 days of the 2017/2018 season, i.e. as from 15 July 2017 until 21 November 2017.

13. In this context, the Single judge noted that, in accordance with art. 5 para. 3 of Annexe 4, for the period of 17 September 2014 until 30 June 2015 (i.e. the season of the player’s 15th birthday), the training costs shall be based on the training and education costs of category IV club, i.e. EUR 10,000 per year. Similarly, the Single Judge recalled that, for the period of 15 July 2017 until 21 November 2017 (i.e. the season of the player’s 18th birthday), the average of the two training costs applies, i.e. EUR 20,000 per year.

14. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 14,986.30 on the ground of the first registration as a professional of the player with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.

15. Thus the Single concluded its aforementioned reasoning by stating that the claim of the claimant was partially accepted.

16. In continuation, 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 the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Chamber relating to disputes regarding training compensation, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings.

17. However, in this respect, the Single Judge referred to art. 18 par. 1. ii. of the Procedural Rules according to which, for any claim lodged prior to 10 June 2020 which has yet to be decided, the maximum amount of the procedural costs shall be equivalent to any advance of costs paid. Thus, considering that no advance of costs was paid in the matter at hand, no procedural costs are due.

18. Thereafter, taking into account the consideration under number II./4. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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 DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER (DRC)

1. The claim of the Claimant, F.C. ISSY-LES-MOULINEAUX, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, GNK Dinamo Zagreb, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:

- EUR 14,986.30 as training compensation

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

4. The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.

5. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with this decision to psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).

6. In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the Respondent within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:

 1.

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 aforementioned ban mentioned will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.

(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players). 2.

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.

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer

NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:

According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of the notification of this decision.

NOTE RELATED TO THE 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