F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee / Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori – club vs club disputes / controversie tra società – (2016-2017) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 10 March 2017

Decision of the

Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC)

passed on 10 March 2017,

by Mr Taku Nomiya (Japan),

Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC,

on the claim presented by the club,

Club A, from Country B

as Claimant

against the club,

Club C, from Country D

as Respondent

regarding training compensation in

connection with the player Player E

I. Facts of the case

1. According to the player passport issued by The Football Association of Country B, the player, Player E, born on 24 April 1994, was registered with its affiliated clubs as a professional as follows:

2. The football season in Country B lasts from 1 July to 30 June of the following year.

3. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player was registered as a professional with the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 21 August 2014. Equally, the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) of the player was issued by the Football Association of Country B in favour of the Football Federation of Country D on 21 August 2014, indicating Club F as the player’s last club.

4. According to the Football Federation of Country D, the Respondent belonged to the category 3 (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA) at the time the player was registered with it.

5. On 13 September 2016, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training compensation from the Respondent for the subsequent professional registration of the player. In particular, the Claimant requested EUR 15,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the 31st day after the registration of the player with the Respondent, “probably as of 19 September 2014”.

6. In this respect, the Claimant referred to the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and held that in spite of it not being the last club stricto sensu, within the framework of loans, the period of time that the player was registered with his club of origin as well as the period of time that the player was registered with a club on loan, should be considered as one entire timeframe. Consequently, the Claimant stated that it is entitled to receive training compensation for the time the player was registered with it, this is, for 5 months of the season of the player’s 20th birthday as well as for 1 month of the season of his 21st birthday.

7. On 12 February 2017, the Respondent submitted its reply to the claim, i.e. after the time limit set by FIFA to reply had expired on 8 February 2017.

II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC

1. First of all, the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as: the 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 13 September 2016. Consequently, the 2015 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Club Registration dates Registration basis

Club F

from 28 January 2013 until 30 January 2014

Definitive

Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant)

from 31 January 2014 until 1 August 2014

On loan from Club F

Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).

2. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its jurisdiction in light of arts 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016). In accordance with art. 3 of Annexe 6 in conjunction with art. 24 par. 3 and art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, 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, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2014, 2015 and 2016), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 21 August 2014, the 2014 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: 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, he 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 he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

5. In this regard, the Single Judge recalled that the player, born on 24 April 1994, was registered on a loan basis with the Claimant for the period between 31 January 2014 and 1 August 2014. Equally, the Single Judge observed that after the loan with the Claimant had expired, the player returned to his club of origin, Club F, i.e. the club with which the player was still contractually bound. Thereafter, on 21 August 2014, the player was internationally transferred from Club F to the Respondent on a definitive basis.

6. In continuation, the Single Judge took note that, on the one hand, the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 15,000. On the other hand, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent, in spite of having been invited to do so, had, for its part, failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant within the relevant time limit set by FIFA, i.e. 8 February 2017. In fact, the reply of the Respondent was only received on 12 February 2017. As a result, bearing in mind the Dispute Resolution Chamber’s constant jurisprudence in this regard and in application of art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Single Judge decided not to take into account the reply of the Respondent and established that, in accordance with the aforementioned provision, he shall take a decision on the basis of those documents on file that were provided prior to the deadline set by FIFA, in casu, on the statements and documents presented by the Claimant.

7. In this context, the Single Judge highlighted that the main issue in the present matter is whether or not a club that accepted a professional on loan is entitled to receive training compensation when, after the expiry of the loan, the professional returns to his club of origin, and, thereafter, is transferred from the club of origin to a club belonging to another association before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.

8. In consideration of the above-mentioned issue, the Single Judge, and hereby referring to the rules applicable to training compensation, started by stating that, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations as well as in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 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 for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday or when a professional is transferred between clubs of two different associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. In case the latter occurs, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that training compensation will only be owed to the player’s former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club.

9. 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 apply to the transfer of players, including the provisions on training compensation and the solidarity mechanism.

10. 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. This approach is also in line with the Chamber’s well-established jurisprudence that all clubs which have in actual fact 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.

11. In other words, the Single Judge emphasised that the nature of the player’s registration with a club claiming training compensation, i.e. on a definite or on a temporary basis, is in fact irrelevant with respect to the question as to whether such club would be entitled to receive training compensation for the period of time that the player was effectively trained by that club.

12. In this respect and for the sake of good order, the Single Judge deemed it essential to emphasise that, as to the liability to pay training compensation, the analogy established in art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations could not be extended to the case in which players were loaned to other clubs and thus are not being definitively transferred to a new club. In other words, the transfer of a player from the club of origin to the club that accepts the player on loan as well as the return of the player from the club that accepted him on loan to the club of origin do not constitute a subsequent transfer in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. The Single Judge was eager to point out that it could not have been the intention of the legislator of the relevant regulatory provision (art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations) to trigger the consequences of art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the occasion of a transfer on a loan basis and, thus, potentially depriving the loan of its essential flexibility and function of providing young players the opportunity to gain practical experience in another club in order to develop in a positive way, personally and, eventually, also for the benefit of the player’s new club.

13. Following the above, the Single Judge pointed out that the obligation to pay training compensation thus arises in case a player is definitively transferred from one club to another club belonging to a different association, but not when he is temporarily transferred to another club while still being contractually bound to his club of origin (yet, with the effects of the relevant contract being temporarily suspended), such as a loan. Hence, the relevant entitlement can only be claimed towards a new club that acquires the services of a player on a definitive and permanent basis subject to the fulfilment of the prerequisites established in art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations.

14. In this regard, the Single Judge wished to recall that art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 stipulates that “In the case of subsequent transfers of the professional, training compensation will only be owed to his former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club”. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Claimant was not the player’s former club stricto sensu, however, he pointed out that, within the framework of loans, the period of time that the player was registered with Club F and the period of time that the player was registered with the Claimant on loan, should be considered as one entire timeframe. Any other interpretation would lead to the situation in which clubs accepting a player on loan would never be entitled to receive training compensation, even if they contribute to the training and education of players.

15. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Single Judge deemed that any other interpretation of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations would clearly contravene the intention of the legislator of the Regulations according to which all training clubs shall, in principle, be rewarded for their efforts invested in training young players, including those clubs that have accepted a player on a temporary basis.

16. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant for the training of the player in accordance with art. 20 of the Regulations and art. 2 par. 1 lit. ii. and art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.

17. As a result, and considering 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, the Single Judge concluded that the effective period of time to be considered in the matter at stake corresponds to 5 months of the 2013/2014 season as well as 1 month of the season 2014/2015, i.e. as from 31 January 2014 until 1 August 2014.

18. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 5 par. 1 and par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates 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. In this respect, the Single Judge took into account that according to the documentation on file, the Respondent belonged to the club category 3 (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 within UEFA) at the moment that the player was registered with it.

19. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 15,000.

20. 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 its longstanding practice, interest at 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of the 31st day of the registration of the player with the Respondent on a definitive basis, i.e. as of 21 September 2014, until the date of effective payment.

21. Lastly, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the DRC relating to disputes regarding training compensation and the solidarity mechanism, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. It is further stipulated that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and that, in accordance with Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute.

22. In respect of the above, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 15,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules).

23. As a result, taking into account that the case at hand did compose some complex factual or legal issues as well as considering that the Respondent failed to take stance in the procedure within the given time limit, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 5,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent.

III. Decision of the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC

1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 15,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 21 September 2014 until the date of effective payment.

3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

4. Any further claim of the Claimant is rejected.

5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 5,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, to the following bank account with reference to case no. XXX:

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH 27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC of every payment received.

*****

Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):

According to art. 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives).

The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:

Court of Arbitration for Sport

Avenue de Beaumont 2

1012 Lausanne

Switzerland

Tel: +41 21 613 50 00

Fax: +41 21 613 50 01

e-mail: info@tas-cas.org

For the Single Judge of the

sub-committee of the DRC:

Omar Ongaro

Football Regulatory Director

Enclosed: CAS directives