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 3 February 2021

Decision of the

Single Judge of the sub-committee of

The Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed on 3 February 2021

regarding training compensation for the player Bruno Vinicius De Oliveira Dos Santos

BY:

Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

CLAIMANT:

AE Velo Clube Rioclarense, Brazil

RESPONDENT:

CD CF Salmantino UDS, Spain

I. FACTS OF THE CASE

Player: Bruno Vinicius De Oliveira Dos Santos

Date of birth: 11 August 2000

Player passport: issued by the CONFEDERAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE FUTEBOL (“CBF”) on 28.02.2020 (relevant abstract)

Season

Birthday

Club

Registration

Status

2018

18th

Claimant

01.06.2018-31.12.2018

Amateur

2019

19th

Claimant

01.01.2019-04.07.2019

Amateur

2020

20th

CD CF Salmantino UDS (Spain)

31.01.2020- onwards

Professional

Sporting season: 1 January to 31 December (Brazil)

Date of transfer: 30 January 2020, Brazil to Spain

Claimant club: AE Velo Clube Rioclarense (Brazil)

Respondent club: CD CF Salmantino UDS (Spain)

UEFA, category III (EUR 30,000 per year)

Claim and Response:

1. On 15 October 2020, the Claimant requested EUR 32,711 as training compensation based on the player’s first registration as a professional with the Respondent before the end of his 23rd birthday season, plus 5% interests p.a. as of the due date.

2. In its calculation, the Claimant took into consideration the Respondent’s category at the date of registration of the player, i.e. EUR 30,000, which it multiplied pro rata by the 398 days the player was registered with the Claimant.

3. On 20 October 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 32,794.52 as training compensation, plus 5% interests p.a. as from 1 March 2020.

4. The proposal was accepted by the Claimant and rejected by the Respondent.

5. On 19 November 2020, the Respondent contested the Claimant’s entitlement to receive training compensation for the player arguing that the latter had not been registered with it and as such that it never benefited of the player’s training.

6. The Respondent explained having signed a contract with the player and having carried out the necessary formalities so that the latter would obtain the initial authorization of temporary residence and permit. The Respondent added that, nevertheless, because the player had failed to obtain a VISA on time and as consequence of the Covid pandemic outbreak to obtain a VISA it was not possible to register the player in due time before the Real Federacion Espanola De Futbol (“RFEF”) in view of to the local competitions.

7. The Respondent further sustained that the player only earned EUR 900 per month which was less than the minimum local wage of EUR 950 per month, without any bonuses or benefits contractually provided.

8. As such, the player being not paid more for his footballing activity than the expenses he effectively incurs in the sense of art. 2 par. 2 of the RSTP, the Respondent deemed that he was to be considered as an amateur.

Statement of the RFEF:

9. On 21 January 2021, the RFEF confirmed that it had received the player’s ITC via TMS on 30 January 2020 and it specified that to date it did not receive the player’s professional license from the Respondent.

II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Applicable law: RSTP: January 2020 edition.

Procedural Rules: 2021 edition.

Jurisdiction: Yes, uncontested

Admissible: Yes, uncontested

Decision:

10. The claim of the Claimant is based on the first registration of the player as a professional.

11. The Respondent contested the entitlement of the Claimant to receive training compensation arguing that it could not profit from the player and that the latter had been de facto an amateur player.

12. In accordance with the specificities that govern the system of the international transfers through the Transfer Matching System (TMS) platform, in order for a transfer to occur on the TMS, i.e. the movement of the registration of a player from one association to the another association (according to nr. 23 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) Definitions), a duly signed employment contract between the player and the “new club” needs to be uploaded therein in the first place.

13. In addition, a transfer does not occur automatically in the TMS as, on the contrary, the receiving association, i.e. the RFEF in the case at stake, has to manually enter the registration date and confirm the ITC receipt from the former association, in casu the CBF.

14. Consequently, according to the information available in TMS (art. 6 par. 4 of Annexe 3 of the RSTP), the transfer of the player was concluded in the system on 30 January 2020, i.e. when the RFEF entered all the necessary requirements in the system.

15. The player was duly registered with the Respondent on 30 January 2020.

16. According to art. 2 par. 2 of the RSTP and to the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC, a player is considered a professional if he has signed a written contract with a club and is receiving a retribution (financial and/or in kind) for his footballing activity which is greater than the expenses he effectively incurs, even if the monthly salary of the player is of a relatively low amount in comparison to salaries received by other football players within the same country.

17. The DRC has established that a player’s remuneration as per the criteria set out in art. 2 par. 2 of the RSTP constitutes the decisive factor in the determination of the status of the player.

18. In casu, the player signed an employment contract entitled “Contrato de Trabajo De Jugador Profesional” with the Respondent, valid as from 20 January 2020 until 30 June 2021 providing for a monthly salary (“Sueldo Mensual”) of EUR 900.

19. The Respondent argued that the minimal local monthly wage was EUR 950. The Respondent did not provide any evidence as to the expenses incurred by the player.

20. A monthly salary of EUR 900 corresponds to more than EUR 10,000/year and appears to be reasonably high enough in order to cover more than the expenses effectively incurred by a player (accommodation, travel and food expenses mainly).

21. Consequently, it is assumed that the player was paid more than the expenses he effectively incurred for his footballing activity and that he was a professional in accordance with art. 2 par. 2 of the RSTP.

22. Therefore, training compensation is due to the Claimant in accordance with art. 2 par. 1 lit. a) and 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP.

23. In accordance with art. 5 par. 2 of Annexe 4 RSTP, the first time a player registered as a professional, the training compensation payable is calculated by taking the training costs of the new club multiplied by the number of years with the training club.

24. The training costs for players for the seasons between their 16th and 21st birthdays are based on the training and education costs of the new club at the moment of the player’s registration with it, in casu category III within UEFA.

25. In this regard, the training costs for category III clubs within UEFA are set at EUR 30,000 per year.

26. Art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 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.

27. The Claimant is entitled to training compensation for:

(i) 2018 season (season of the Player’s 18th birthday): 214 days;

(ii) 2019 season (season of the Player’s 19th birthday): 185 days.

28. The training costs are calculated, on a pro-rata basis, as follows:

(i) 2018 season - on the basis of a category III club, i.e. for UEFA, EUR 30,000 per year:

EUR 30,000 x (214 / 365) = EUR 17,589.04;

(ii) 2019 season - on the basis of a category III club, i.e. for UEFA, EUR 30,000 per year:

EUR 30,000 x (185 / 365) = EUR 15,205.48.

29. The Claimant would in principle be entitled to EUR 32,794.52 as training compensation.

30. The Claimant limited its claim to the amount of EUR 32,711.

31. In accordance with the legal principle of non ultra petita, the Claimant is entitled to EUR 32,711 as training compensation.

32. Taking into account the request of the Claimant as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 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 1 March 2020 until the date of effective payment.

33. 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).

34. Art. 24 bis RSTP is applicable.

III. DECISION

1. The claim of the Claimant, AE Velo Clube Rioclarense, is accepted.

2. The Respondent, CD CF Salmantino UDS, shall pay to the Claimant:

EUR 32,711 as training compensation, plus 5% interest per annum on that amount as from 1 March 2020, until the date of effective payment.

3. The Claimant shall immediately inform the Respondent of the bank account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount (including all applicable interest).

4. 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).

5. 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.

6. 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