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 ALLAN RODRIGUES DE SOUZA
BY:
Stefano Sartori (Italy)
CLAIMANT:
APOLLON LIMASSOL, Cyprus
RESPONDENT:
ATLETICO MG, Brazil
I. FACTS
1. According to the player passport issued by the Cyprus Football Association (hereinafter: CFA), the player, Allan Rodrigues de Souza, (hereinafter: the player), born on 3 March 1997, was registered as a professional player with the Cypriot club APOLLON Limassol (hereinafter: APOLLON or the Claimant) as from 31 August 2017 until 22 July 2018, on loan from the player’s parent club, the English club Liverpool FC (hereinafter: Liverpool or the parent club).
2. In particular, according to the information inputted in the Transfer Matching System (hereinafter: TMS), the player was loaned without any compensation from Liverpool to the Claimant.
3. According to the information contained in the TMS, the player was transferred from Liverpool to the Brazilian club Atletico MG (hereinafter referred also as the Respondent) on a permanent basis against payment on 15 January 2020.
4. In this respect, according to the information available in TMS, including but not limited to the player passports uploaded by The Football Association (hereinafter: The FA), the career history of the player since joining Liverpool corresponds to the following:
Clubs
Registration Dates
Registration Type
Status
Liverpool
01.09.2015 to 09.09.2015
Permanent
Professional
SJK (Finland)
10.09.2015 to 14.01.2016
Loan
Professional
Sint-Truidense (Belgium)
15.01.2016 to 31.07.2016
Loan
Professional
Herta Berlin (Germany)
01.08.2016 to 30.08.2017
Loan
Professional
APOLLON (Cyprus)
31.08.2017 to 22.07.2018
Loan
Professional
Liverpool
23.07.2018 to 12.02.2019
Permanent
Professional
Eintracht Frankfurt (Germany)
13.02.2019 to 30.06.2019
Loan
Professional
Liverpool
01.07.2019 to 15.07.2019
Permanent
Professional
Fluminense (Brazil)
16.07.2020 to 31.12.2019
Permanent
Professional
Liverpool
01.01.2020 to 15.01.2020
Permanent
Professional
5. What is more, according to the information in TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category I (indicative amount of USD 50,000 per year within CONMEBOL) at the moment that the player was registered with it.
6. According to the CFA, the football season 2017/2018 started on 7 August 2017 and ended on 31 May 2018.
7. On 29 April 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting training compensation on the ground of the player’s registration as a professional with the Atletico MG which occurred before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
8. In particular, the Claimant requested the payment of the amount of USD 50,000 for the training and education it had provided to the player during his 21st birthday season, plus “5% p.a. from 30 days after the transfer”
9. The Respondent rejected the claim arguing that the player had already completed his training before he signed on a temporary basis with the Claimant.
10. In this respect, Atletico MG argued that when he signed with Liverpool in August 2015, the player was considered to be a “prodigy” and one of the “Most promising players in his age group”.
11. The Respondent further alleged that, during the first part of season 2015/2016, the player had been loaned to the Finnish club SJK (a club which participated in the first division of Finland at the time) because he could not obtain a work permit in England. According to the Respondent, the player had made 8 appearances in first team competitive fixtures with SJK.
12. In continuation, Atletico MG indicated that the player had then been loaned to the Belgian club Sint-Trudense (a club which participated in the first division of Belgium at the time) for the second part of season 2015/2016, where he participated in 9 first team competitive fixtures.
13. As alleged by the Respondent, Liverpool expressed its high hopes as to the qualities of the player and his expected progression ahead of season 2016/2017 but had to loan him once again in view of the difficulties encountered to obtain a work permit for the latter.
14. The player was consequently loaned to the German club Herta Berlin (a club which participated in the first division of Germany at the time) for which he made 16 first team appearances in competitive fixtures.
15. The Respondent also pointed out that during the season 2016/2017 the player had represented his country Brazil at U-20 level.
16. Atletico MG, referred to the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter referred also as DRC) and of the Court of Arbitration for Sports (hereinafter: CAS) with regards to the early termination of the training period of a player before the end of the player’s 21st birthday season, and argued that the number of first team appearances and the level of the competition in which a player played are to be considered as determining factors in order to assess whether the training of that player was concluded earlier.
17. In particular, the Respondent referred to a DRC decision in which the panel had determined that the player, having made 37 appearances for the first team of his parent club and being an “important player” of this club, was considered having completed his training period before the end of his 21st season birthday.
18. Having underlined that the player had made 33 first team appearances in competitive fixtures before joining APOLLON on loan, the Respondent deemed that he had completed his training and education, and as such no training compensation was be due to the Claimant.
19. From the Respondent’s point of view, the fact that the player had made 26 first team appearances with the Claimant during his loan to the latter, indicated that he was already an established professional when he joined APOLLON.
20. In view of all the above, the Respondent asked for the claim of APOLLON to be rejected and for the procedural costs to be borne by the Claimant.
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: 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 29 April 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: 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: 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 15 January 2020, 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 January 2020 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. What is more, the Single Judge recalled the provisions of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules according to which Any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. During the proceedings, the parties shall submit all relevant facts and evidence of which they are aware at that time, or of which they should have been aware if they had exercised due care.
5. First of all, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant requested training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of USD 50,000 for the training provided to the player during the season of his 21st birthday on the basis of the subsequent professional registration of the latter with the Respondent which occurred before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.
6. Furthermore, the Single Judge duly noted that the Respondent, for its part, had rejected the claim of the Claimant arguing that by the time the player was registered with the Claimant, he had already concluded his training and education and therefore no training compensation was due.
7. With the aforementioned considerations in mind, the Single Judge turned his attention to the rules applicable to training compensation and recalled that, in accordance with art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 par. 1 lit. i) of Annexe 4 to the Regulations, training compensation is payable, as a general rule, to the former club for training incurred between the ages of 12 and 21, when a player is subsequently registered as a professional before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. The Single Judge further pointed out that in case of the subsequent registration of a player as a professional, in accordance with art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations, the club with which the player is registered is responsible for paying training compensation within 30 days of registration only to the last club with which the player was previously registered (in accordance with the players’ career history as provided in the player passport) for the time he was effectively trained by said club.
8. In continuation, the Single Judge highlighted that, in accordance with art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations a professional player may be loaned to another club on the basis of a written agreement concluded between the professional in question and the clubs concerned and 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. 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 the training clubs of a player which had registered him on a loan basis also benefit from the solidarity mechanism and training compensation, provided all the relevant prerequisites in the pertinent provisions of the Regulations are also fulfilled.
10. Recalling the specific jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber on loans, the Single Judge underlined 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 (i.e the loanee club(s)) should be entitled to claim training compensation from the new club.
11. The Single Judge highlighted that that the DRC considers that the loan(s) that took place during a player’s registration with the relevant former club did not interrupt the chain of entitlement of training compensation. In other words, the period starting from the player’s original registration with the former club up until his registration with the new club is considered as one timeframe, irrelevant of any loan(s) that may have taken place during this period.
12. Reverting to the facts of the case, the Single Judge observed that the player was registered on a permanent basis with Liverpool on 1 September 2015, from where he was loaned to APOLLON between 30 August 2017 and 22 July 2018.
13. In particular, reverting to the wording of art .5 par .2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Single Judge underlined that training compensation is based on the number of years of training a player received from clubs between the beginning of his 12th birthday season up until the end of his 21st birthday season. To ensure that training clubs receive the rightful compensation in line with the training provided, and recalling the wording of art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations according to which the calculation of training compensation is based on the period of training spent with a club, the Single Judge pointed out that the time of registration with each training club is to be taken into account, and not the football season of the training club, as training and education may occur outside of said football season.
14. Considering all of the aforementioned and taking into account the relevant jurisprudence of the DRC on loans, the Single Judge concluded that in casu Liverpool was the former club of the player, APOLLON the loanee club and Atletico MG the new club.
15. Therefore, the Single Judge determined that the Claimant is in principle entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent on the basis of the temporary registration of the player with it.
16. Nevertheless, the Single Judge recalled that the Regulations contained provisions that were applicable to clubs based in the EU/EEA, which are detailed in art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. In particular, the Single Judge pointed out that art. 6 par. 2 of said Annexe stipulated that inside the EU/EEA, the final season of training may occur before the season of the player’s 21st birthday if it is established that the player completed his training before that time. In this respect, the Single Judge duly noted that the Respondent had alleged that the player had completed his training before moving from Liverpool to the Claimant.
17. The Single Judge emphasized that he first had to verify whether art. 6 par. 2 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations applies to the present case as lex specialis.
18. In this regard, the Single Judge emphasized that art. 6 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations is only applicable to players moving from one association to another within the territory of the EU/EEA.
19. The Single Judge observed that the Claimant was located in Cyprus, a country member of the EU/EEA.
20. However, the Single Judge duly noted that the Respondent was located in Brazil, that is to say outside of the EU/EEA territory.
21. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that art. 6 par. 2 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations does not apply in the case at hand as lex specialis.
22. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge, making reference to art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations, emphasised that as a general rule training compensation is payable up until the end of the player’s 23rd birthday season unless it is evident that a player has already terminated his training period before the age of 21.
23. In this context, the Single Judge recalled that, in accordance with the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC, allegations of an early completion of a player’s training period have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, while considering the specific circumstances and the documentary evidence provided.
24. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge pointed out that, so far, both the Dispute Resolution Chamber as well as the CAS have adopted a strict approach when establishing that a player’s training has indeed been completed before the season of his 21st birthday.
25. In particular, the Single Judge highlighted that factors such as (1) the player’s value at a club, reflected in the salary a player is paid, in the loan fee that is achieved for his services or in the value of the player’s transfer, (2) the player’s reputation at national and international level, his position at the club if established as a regular or even holding the captaincy, and (3) his regular inclusion in the national team were decisive in analysing the potential early termination of a player’s training.
26. With the aforementioned in mind, the Single Judge took turned his attention to the specific circumstances of the present matter and to the documentation produced by the parties of the dispute.
27. In this respect and to begin with, the Single Judge remarked that, while he was registered with the Claimant, the player had never played any competitive fixture for his parent club, Liverpool.
28. The Single Judge further noticed that, according to the Respondent the player could not play in Liverpool because he was not granted a work permit for England at the start of season 2015/2016 and at the start of season 2016/2017.
29. However, the Respondent had failed to provide documentary evidence in support of such allegation. Therefore, the Single Judge, referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, decided to disregard such argument.
30. In continuation, the Single Judge took into account that the player was loaned three times during the abovementioned seasons:
- To SJK in Finland where he played 8 times;
- Sint-Truidense in Belgium where he made 9 appearances; and
- Herta Berlin in Germany where he participated in 16 fixtures.
31. The Single Judge further noted that the player had been part of the U-20 national team of Brazil.
32. The Single Judge outlined that although the player’s participation with the U-20 national team of Brazil could be considered as an indication of his talent, skills and level of training, such fact alone was not enough to conclude that he had already completed his training period.
33. In addition, the Single Judge pointed out that the player had been loaned to clubs playing in the first division in Finland and Belgium but that those leagues are of a lower competition level than the first division of England where Liverpool plays.
34. Equally and although the player had been loaned to a club playing in the first division in Germany during season 2016/2017, he only featured in 16 games out of 34 league fixtures. Hence, from the Single Judge’s point of view, while the player might have gained experience in Germany, he could not be considered as a regular player of Herta Berlin.
35. In view of all of the aforementioned, the Single Judge determined it could not be established that the player had already completed his training and education when he joined APOLLON on 31 August 2017.
36. Consequently, the Single Judge determined that training compensation was due to the Claimant for the time it had trained the player, i.e. during the course of his 21st birthday season from 31 August 2017 until 30 June 2018.
37. In this respect, 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 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.
38. Referring to his previous considerations (cf. point II. 14 and 15 above) the Single Judge concluded that the player had been registered with APOLLON for 304 days during his 21st birthday season, i.e. as from 30 August 2017 and 22 July 2018.
39. In continuation and because the Respondent was classified under the training category I in Brazil at the time of the player’s registration with it on 15 January 2020 (USD 50,000 training amount per year), the Single Judge calculated that the sum of USD 41,643 is due to the Claimant as training compensation for the training and education provided to the player during 304 days of the season of his 21st birthday
40. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Respondent has to pay the amount of USD 41,643 to the Claimant.
41. Finally, and taking into consideration the Claimant’s specific request as well as the longstanding practice of the DRC, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to payinterest of 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of the day after the relevant amount became due (cfr. art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations), i.e. as of 15 February 2020 until the date of effective payment.
42. 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.
43. 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, APOLLON Limassol, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, Atletico MG, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
- USD 41,643 as training compensation plus 5% interest p.a. as from 15 February 2020 until the date of effective payment.
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.
7. The decision is free of procedural costs (cf. FIFA Circular Nr. 1720 of 11 June 2020 and art. 17 par. 1 and 18 par. 1 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