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 21 August 2020

Decision of the Single Judge

of the sub-committee of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed on 21 August 2020

regarding training compensation for the player Denis FRANCHI

BY:

Geoff Thompson (England)

CLAIMANT:

UDINESE CALCIO, Italy

RESPONDENT:

PARIS ST GERMAIN, France

I. FACTS

1. According to the player passport issued by the Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (hereinafter: FIGC, the player, Denis Franchi, (hereinafter: the player), born on 22 October 2002, was continuously registered as an amateur player, including but not limited with ASD Prata Falchi Visinale (hereinafter: the former club or Prata Falchi) and Udinese Calcio (hereinafter: Udinese Calcio or the Claimant), as follows:

Clubs

Registration Dates

Status

Prata Flachi

From 24.07.2017 to 30.08.2017

Amateur

Udinese Calcio

From 31.08.2017 to 30.06.2018

Amateur

Prata Falchi

From 01.07.2018 to 13.08.2018

Amateur

Udinese Calcio

From 14.08.2018 to 30.06.2019

Amateur

Prata Falchi

From 01.07.2019 to 15.08.2019

Amateur

2. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player was registered with the French club, Paris St Germain (hereinafter: Paris St Germain or the Respondent), on 16 August 2019 as a professional.

3. Equally, according to the information contained in the TMS, the Claimant as well as the Respondent belonged to the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year within UEFA) at the moment that the player was registered with Paris St Germain.

4. In addition, according to the information available in TMS, Prata Falchi belonged to the category IV (indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year within UEFA) when the player registered with the Respondent.

5. On 9 June 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting training compensation on the ground of the player’s first registration as a professional with the Respondent which occurred before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. In particular, the Claimant requested EUR 87,468.45, plus 5% interest “starting from the 31st day of the player’s registration with [the Respondent] until the date of effective payment”.

6. On 16 June 2020, the FIFA administration submitted a proposal (hereinafter: the proposal) to the Claimant and the Respondent, in line with Article 13 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber and FIFA Circular 1689, suggesting that Paris St Germain should pay training compensation in the amount of EUR 87,479.45 to Udinese Calcio. The FIFA administration requested the parties to provide their acceptance or rejection as to the proposal by no later than 1 July 2020, and, in case of rejection, to provide their positions by no later than 6 July 2020.

7. On 18 June 2020, the Claimant accepted the proposal.

8. On 1 July 2020, the Respondent rejected the proposal.

9. In this respect, Paris St Germain confirmed Udinese Calcio’s entitlement to training compensation for the first professional registration of the player, but disagreed with the amount to be paid.

10. In fact, the Respondent argued that as the player was permanently registered with Prata Falchi, (i.e. the parent club) from where he was twice loaned to the Claimant (i.e. the loaning club) therefore the training category of the parent club should the one taken into consideration for the amount of training compensation due to Udinese Calcio.

11. In particular, the Respondent relied on the principle that in case of a first registration of a player as a professional within the EU, training club(s) affiliated to different member association(s) than the member association of the registering club (i.e. previous training club(s)) should receive training compensation based on the average between the category of the former club and on the category of the club registering the player, and not on the category/categories of said each previous training club(s).

12. In view of the above, Paris St Germain concluded that the Respondent should be awarded EUR 52,446.24 only.

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, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 6 June 2020 and submitted for decision on 21 August 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.

2. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which states that he shall examine his jurisdiction in light of arts. 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations; edition June 2020). 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 16 August 2019, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the single judge confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the June 2019 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 were considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. In particular, the single judge recalled that, in accordance with art. 6 par. 4 of Annexe 3 of 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 maintained that it is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 87,468.45, plus 5% interest as from the due date, indicating that the first professional registration of the player occurred before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.

6. Furthermore, the Single Judge duly noted that the Respondent, for its part, confirmed its willingness to pay training compensation to the Claimant, but maintained that the amount awarded to Udinese Calcio should be calculated upon the former club’s category (Prata Falchi), i.e. category IV.

7. Having established the above, the Single Judge referred to the rules applicable to training compensation and stated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 par. 1 lit. i) 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 as a professional for the first time before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. In case of a first registration as a professional, art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of 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 (in accordance with the players’ career history as provided in the player passport) and that has contributed to his training starting from the season of his 12th birthday. The amount payable is calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of training that the player spent with each club.

8. Furthermore, according to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations, 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 provision stipulates that any such loan is subject to the same rules as those which apply to the transfer of players, including the provisions on training compensation and the solidarity mechanism.

9. Following the above, the Single Judge 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.

10. Furthermore, the Single Judge stressed that the aforementioned principles were also applicable to loans of amateur players that took place at national level.

11. This approach is also in line with the DRC’s well-established jurisprudence that all clubs which have 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.

12. Reverting to the facts of the matter at hand, and based on the documentation provided by the Claimant and the information contained in TMS, the Single Judge concluded that it could indeed be established that the player had been registered with the Claimant from 31 August 2017 until 30 June 2018 and as from 14 August 2018 until 30 June 2019 as an amateur, on loan from the Italian club, Prata Falchi.

13. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Single Judge concluded that it can be established that the player was registered as a professional for the first time before end of the season of his 23rd birthday.

14. Recalling the specific jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber on loans, the Single Judge underlined that it has been consistently established that when a player registers with a club affiliated to a different member association (i.e. the new club) of the one where he was previously registered (i.e. the former club), any club(s) that may have had the player on loan from the player’s former club should be entitled to claim training compensation from the new club.

15. In fact, the Single Judge highlighted that it is considered that any loan(s) that took place during a player’s registration with the former club did not interrupt the chain of entitlement of training compensation. In other words, the Single Judge explained that the period starting from the player’s original registration with the former club up until his registration with the new club constitutes one timeframe, irrelevant of any loan(s) that may have taken place during this period.

16. Taking into consideration that although loans are, within the sense of the Regulations only permitted for professional players when taking place between two clubs affiliated to two different member associations (cf. art. 10 of the Regulations), the Single Judge acknowledged that at national levels, member associations may sanction loans of amateur players between their affiliated clubs.

17. As such, the Single Judge determined that the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent on the basis of the temporary registration of the player with Udinese Calcio.

18. Subsequently, the Single Judge considered that he had to determine which should be the relevant amount of training compensation to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. In this regard, the Single Judge went on to establish the proper calculation of the relevant training compensation due to the Claimant.

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

20. In addition, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 sent. 2 of Annexe 4 of 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. What is more, the Single Judge referred to art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which contains special provisions in case a player moves from a lower to a higher category club or from a higher to a lower category club within the territory of the EU/EEA.

21. In continuation, the Single Judge recalled that the player was born on 22 October 2002 and was registered with the Claimant on loan from 31 August 2017 until 30 June 2018 and as from 14 August 2018 until 30 June 2019. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the player was then transferred from the former club to the Respondent.

22. On account of the above, the Single Judge considered that the Claimant is, thus, entitled to receive training compensation for the period as from 31 August 2017 to 30 June 2018 and as from 14 August 2018 to 30 June 2019.

23. Recalling the argumentation of Paris St Germain, the Single Judge again referred to the aforementioned jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber on loans (cf. point II.14 and 15 above), and indicated that it is established that when granting training compensation to a club who had a player on loan from a former club before registering from said former club to a new club within the EU/EEA, the training category of the loaning club (in casu the Claimant) should be taken into consideration, and not the category of the loanee club (in casu Prata Falchi).

24. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the training category of the Claimant should be taken into consideration in the present dispute, in line with the longstanding jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard.

25. Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the information contained in the TMS, the player was registered with the Respondent on 16 August 2019 as a professional for the first time.

26. Equally, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the information contained in the TMS, both the Claimant and the Respondent belonged to the category I at the moment of the player’s registration with it (UEFA indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year).

27. In view of all the above, the Single Judge decided to accept the claim of the Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 87,468.45 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent.

28. Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Single Judge decided that 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 16 September 2019 until the date of effective payment.

29. Lastly, the Single Judge referred to FIFA Circular 1720 of 11 June 2020, in which it is stipulated that for any claims lodged in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and/or the Players’ Status Committee before 10 June 2020, the maximum amount of the procedural costs shall be equivalent to any advance of costs paid.

30. Bearing in mind that in line with art. 17 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, no advance of costs shall be payable for disputes concerning the distribution of solidarity contribution and/or training compensation, the Single Judge concluded that the present decision shall be free of procedural costs.

DECISION OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER

1. The claim of the Claimant, Udinese Calcio, is accepted.

2. The Respondent, Paris St Germain FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:

- EUR 87,469.45 as training compensation plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 September 2019 until the date of effective payment.

3. 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.

4. 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).

5. 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.

6. The decision is free of procedural costs (cf. FIFA Circular Nr. 1720 of 11 June 2020 and art. 17 of the Rules Governing the Procedure of the Players’ Status Committee and Dispute Resolution Chamber).

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 receipt 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