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 November 2020
Decision of the
Single Judge of the sub-committee of
The Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 November 2020
regarding training compensation relating to the registration of the player Drago Lovric
with Anorthosis Famagusta FC
BY:
Philippe Diallo (France), Single Judge of the sub-committee of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
CLAIMANT:
HNK VUKOVAR 1991, Croatia
RESPONDENT:
ANORTHOSIS FAMAGUSTA FC, Cyprus
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player: Drago Lovric
Date of birth: 13 February 1996
Player passport: issued by the Croatian Football Federation on 27 February 2020
Season Birthday Club(s) Registration dates Status Category
07/08 12th HNK Cibalia 01.07.07 – 30.06.08 Amateur III
08/09 13th HNK Cibalia 01.07.08 – 30.06.09 Amateur III
09/10 14th HNK Cibalia 01.07.09 – 30.06.10 Amateur III
10/11 15th HNK Cibalia 01.07.10 – 30.06.11 Amateur III
11/12 16th HNK Cibalia 01.07.11 – 09.01.12 Amateur III
11/12 16th FC Osijek 15.02.12 – 30.06.13 Amateur III
12/13 17th FC Osijek 01.07.12 – 30.06.13 Amateur III
13/14 18th FC Osijek 01.07.13 – 30.06.14 Amateur III
14/15 19th FC Osijek 01.07.14 – 14.07.14 Amateur IV
14/15 19th FC Mladost 13.08.14 – 27.06.15 Amateur IV
15/16 20th HNK Vukovar 1991 12.08.15 - 30.06.16 Amateur IV
16/17 21st HNK Vukovar 1991 01.07.16 – 20.06.17 Amateur IV
17/18 22nd HNK Vukovar 1991 01.07.17 – 17.05.18 Amateur IV
Sporting season: 1 July to 30 June (Croatia)
Date of transfer: 8 August 2018, from HNK Vukovar 1991 (Croatia) to Anorthosis Famagusta FC
(Cyprus) as professional
Claimant club: HNK Vukovar 1991 (Croatia)
UEFA, category IV (EUR 10,000 per year)
Respondent club: Anorthosis Famagusta FC (Cyprus)
UEFA, category III (EUR 30,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1. On 20 April 2020, the Claimant claimed training compensation of EUR 40,000 on the basis of
the first registration as a professional of the player with the Respondent, plus 5 % interests as
of “the due date”, for the training and education provided to the player during his 20th and 21st
birthday seasons.
2. On 8 May 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 37,753.42 as training
compensation, plus 5% interests p.a. as from the due date.
3. The proposal was accepted by the Claimant and rejected by the Respondent.
4. On 20 May 2020, the Respondent rejected the claim arguing the following:
I. “The player was actually a professional with the Claimant, who had never offered the player
a new contract before signing with the Respondent.
II. Even if the player signed his first professional contract with the Respondent, the Claimant
is still not entitled to training compensation because it had no bona fide and genuine
interest in retaining the player.
III. Due to the very low remuneration by the Respondent, the player cannot be considered that
he became a professional when he registered with the Respondent.
IV. The Respondent never had any actual or real benefit from the player.”
5. The Respondent alleged that the Claimant had been a professional with the Claimant.
6. The Respondent provided a copy of a document entitled the “additional activity contract” (the
agreement) signed between the Claimant and the player, pointing out that this document
foresaw a monthly lump sum of approximately EUR 211 to be paid to the player and that the
Claimant had undertaken to pay any costs related to the his activity as a football player.
7. According to the agreement, the player had to inter alia “train according to the training program
(…) regularly play matches in accordance with the program of the competition (…) regularly
perform other obligations determined by the Club, and which obligations are related to sports
activities of the Club.”
8. In return, the Claimant guaranteed inter alia “To provide training space (…) To provide sports
equipment and equipment. (…) To provide adequate professional care and appropriate medical
staff (…) To provide transportation, accommodation, and selection of Players at matches and
trainings that are take place outside the seat of the Club (…). To provide professional guidance
by the coach (…). To inform the player regularly and on time about the dates of training and
competitions, and about the need to engage in the performance of other obligations. (…) To
pay the Player the food allowance specified in Article 7 of this Agreement.”
9. In this respect, art. 7 of the agreement indicated “a monthly amount of 1,600.00 kuna
[corresponding to in or around EUR 200] and a fee for the use of a personal car according to
the form for local driving, for the period in which sports activities are performed in Club.”
10. The Claimant declared that such lump sum corresponded to a “food allowance” and provided
an undated statement from the Croatian Football Federation confirming the amateur status of
the player.
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law: RSTP: June 2018 edition.
Procedural Rules: June 2020 edition.
Jurisdiction: Yes, uncontested
Admissible: Yes, uncontested
Decision:
11. In accordance with art. 2 par. 2 RSTP as well as the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution
Chamber, 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.
12. in accordance with the agreement, the player had to inter alia follow the train, play matches and
perform obligations determined by the Claimant.
13. In return, the player was inter alia entitled to:
a. A sum of in or around EUR 200 per month;
b. A fee for the use of a personal car;
c. Equipment;
d. Adequate professional care;
e. Transportation;
f. Accommodation.
14. Based on the above, it appears that the Claimant paid for all expenses incurred by the player in
connection with his footballing activity, and that, in addition, he received a monthly allowance
of EUR 200 as well as a fee “for the use of a personal car”.
15. As such, it can be determined that the player was registered as a professional with the Claimant.
16. Thus, since the player had already acquired professional status with the Claimant and moved to
the Respondent as a professional, the registration of the player from the former to the latter
shall be considered a subsequent registration of a professional player before the end of his 23rd
birthday season in the sense of art. 2 par. 1 lit. ii) of Annexe 4 RTSP.
17. In view of the fact that the former club (in casu the Claimant) and the new club (in casu the
Respondent) are both based inside the territory of the EU/EEA, the provisions set out in art. 6
par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP and the corresponding jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution
Chamber are applicable to the matter at hand.
18. In case of a subsequent transfer of a professional within the EU/EEA, the former club, in order
to retain its entitlement to training compensation, shall evidence that it had made a contract offer to the player within at least 60 days from the expiry of its contract with the latter, and that
such offer was at least on the same term as the expiring contract.
19. In very exceptional cases, the Dispute Resolution Chamber has decided that a club that has not
offered a contract as per the above terms may retain its entitlement to training compensation if
it can demonstrate that it had shown a bona fide interest in retaining the services of the player.
20. In the case at hand, it is undisputed that the Claimant did not offer a contract to the player.
21. What is more, the Claimant did not provide any documentation in order to prove that it had
shown a bona fide interest in retaining the services of the player.
22. In view of the above, it shall be concluded that the Claimant did not fulfil the requirements set
out in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP nor those established by the jurisprudence of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber. Therefore, the Claimant is not entitled to receive training compensation
for the subsequent registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent.
23. Consequently, the claim of the Claimant is rejected.
24. 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).
III. DECISION
1. The claim of the Claimant, HNK Vukovar 1991, 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 | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777