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 8 December 2020
Decision of the
Single Judge of the sub-committee of
The Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 8 December 2020
regarding training compensation relating to the registration of the player C with Club B (Country B)
BY:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
CLAIMANT:
Club A, Country A
RESPONDENT:
Club B, Country B
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player: C
Date of birth: xx xx xxxx
Player passport: issued by the Football Association of Country A on 20 March 2019
Season
Birthday
Club(s)
Registration dates
Status
14/15
17th
A
09.12.14-17.05.15 & 19.05.15-30.06.15
Professional
15/16
18th
A
01.07.15-30.06.16
Professional
16/17
19th
A
01.07.16-30.06.17
Professional
17/18
20th
A
01.07.17-30.06.18
Professional
18/19
21st
A
01.07.18-31.08.18
Professional
D (Country D)
01.09.18-31.12.18
Professional
(loan)
A
01.01.19-07.01.19
Professional
E (Country A)
08.01.19-05.05.19
Professional
(loan)
A
06.05.19-30.06.19
Professional
19/20
22nd
A
01.07.19-07.08.20
Professional
F (Country A)
08.08.19-03.01.20
Professional
(loan)
A
04.01.20-07.05.20
Professional
Sporting season: 1 July to 30 June (Country A)
Date of transfer: 19 August 2020, from Club A (Country A) to Club B (Country B) as professional
Claimant club: A (Country A)
UEFA, category I (EUR 90,000 per year)
Respondent club: B (Country B)
UEFA, category II (EUR 60,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1. On 16 September 2020, the Claimant requested EUR 233,589.04, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 15 September 2020, as training compensation for the subsequent registration of the player with the Respondent as a professional before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.
2. In its calculation, the Claimant took into consideration the average between its and the Respondent’s training categories, i.e. EUR 75,000, which the Claimant multiplied pro rata by the 1421 days the player was registered with it.
3. In its submissions, the Claimant explained having had a valid employment contract with the player which it terminated on 6 April 2020 as result of the player’s conduct.
4. In this respect, the Claimant added that, in response thereto, the player had lodged a claim in front of the relevant national tribunal for unfair dismissal.
5. The Claimant further clarified that finally a mutual termination agreement was concluded with the player on 7 May 2020, by which they settled their employment dispute.
6. The Claimant deemed that because the contractual relationship with the player had been terminated due to the misconduct of the latter, it had not lost nor given up its training compensation entitlement.
7. What is more, the Claimant pointed out that the provisions set out in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) were not applicable to the matter at hand, in view of the fact that Country A was no longer a member of the European Union (EU) nor the Economic European Area (EEA) at 11.00pm on 30 January 2020.
8. On 5 October 2020, the FIFA administration submitted a proposal to the parties, informing them that it was of the opinion that the Respondent should pay the amount of EUR 233'589.04 to the Claimant.
9. On 4 November 2020, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant in its entirety.
10. The Respondent deemed that the Claimant had failed:
a. To fulfill the requirements of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP, i.e. offer the player a contract at least 60 days before the end of the expiring contract; and
b. to meet the criteria established by the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in the application of said article, i.e. having shown a genuine and bona fide interest in retaining the services of the player.
11. As to the applicability of art. 6 of Annexe 4 RSTP to the Claimant, the Respondent underlined that even if Country A left the EU on 31 January 2020, the player nevertheless benefited from the “bilateral agreement between Country A and the EU on equal working conditions, which is still in force until 31 December 2020.”
12. In the alternative, the Respondent declared that the amount of training compensation claimed by the Claimant was clearly disproportionate, without elaborating any further.
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS Applicable law: Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): June 2020 edition.
Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (Procedural Rules): June 2020 edition.
Jurisdiction: Yes, uncontested
Admissible: Yes, uncontested
Decision:
1. The Claimant is arguing that training compensation is due on the basis of the subsequent registration of the player with the Respondent since the player’s behaviour led to the termination of their employment relationship. What is more, the Claimant maintains that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP is not applicable to the present matter since Country A is no longer a member of the EU/EEA.
2. The Respondent is of the opinion that the provisions set out in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP are applicable to the dispute and that the Claimant failed to meet the prerequisites of the provisions of reference, thus relinquishing its training compensation entitlement.
3. According to art. 2 par. 2 lit. i) of Annexe 4 RSTP, training compensation is not due if the former club terminates the player’s contract without just cause.
4. Equally, the DRC confirmed in previous decisions that training compensation remains due to the former club if the latter had just cause to terminate the contract of the player.
5. According to the Claimant the contract with the player was terminated on 6 April 2020 following a breach of contract by the latter.
6. The Claimant also clarified that the termination of contract with just cause was disputed by the player and that ultimately the parties concluded a settlement agreement on 7 May 2020.
7. Because the player contested the termination of contract by means of a claim and the parties subsequently settled the matter, no just cause for the termination by the Claimant can be established.
8. As a result, art. 2 par. 2 lit. i) of Annexe 4 RSTP is not applicable to the present dispute.
9. Art. 6 of Annexe 4 RSTP is applicable when the former club and the new club of a player are affiliated to associations that are located within the territory of the EU/EEA.
10. The Claimant is located in Country A, which is part of the UK, and the Respondent in Country B.
11. Country B is a member of the EU.
12. The UK withdrew from the EU on 31 January 2020.
13. However, the transition period agreed as part of the Brexit withdrawal agreement was set to end on 31 December 2020 only.
14. As a result, and up until that date, Country A is still to be considered part of the EU within the scope of the RSTP.
15. Hence, art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP is applicable as lex specialis to the matter hand.
16. Art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP establishes that in case of a subsequent registration of a professional player, the former club, in order to retain its entitlement to training compensation, shall evidence that it had made a contract offer to the player at least 60 days before the end of the expiring contract. Such offer shall be at least of an equivalent value to the current contract.
17. In accordance with the jurisprudence of the DRC, the requirements of art. 6 par .3 of Annexe 4 are to be fulfilled even in the context of a mutual termination of contract between the relevant club and the player.
18. In very exceptional cases, the DRC has decided that a club that has not offered a contract as per art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP may retain its entitlement to training compensation by having shown a bona fide interest in keeping the player.
19. It is undisputed that the Claimant did not offer a contract to the player.
20. It is undisputed that the Claimant was not interested in retaining the services of the player.
21. In fact, the Claimant itself specified having terminated the contract of the player on 6 April 2020 and that finally an amicable settlement was later concluded.
22. As a result, the requirements of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP and the ones developed by the jurisprudence of the DRC were not met and 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 levied in accordance with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules.
III. DECISION
1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, 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