F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – solidarity contribution/ contributo di solidarietà – (2017-2018) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 26 June 2018

Decision of the

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

passed on 26 June 2018,

by Roy Vermeer (Netherlands),

Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC,

on the claim presented by the club,

Club A, Country B,

as Claimant

against the club,

Club C, 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 Federation of Country B (hereinafter: Football Federation F) on 22 February 2016, the player, Player E, born on 29 July 1996, was registered with its affiliated clubs as follows:

- in the 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 seasons, i.e. between 1 June 2009 and 31 March 2011, with Club G (hereinafter: Club G) as an amateur;

- in the 2011/2012, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 seasons, i.e. between 1 April 2011 until 31 December 2014, with Club A (hereinafter: Club A or Claimant) as an amateur;

- in the 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons, i.e. between 1 January 2011 and 19 February 2016, with Club H (hereinafter: Club H) as an amateur.

2. Further, after being requested to clarify the discrepancies in the player passport dated 22 February 2016, Club A submitted an updated player passport issued by the Football Federation F on 6 December 2017, in which the Football Federation F clarifies that the player passport dated 22 February 2016 contained an error in the registration dates with Club H. The Football Federation F explains that the correct period of registration of the player with Club H was between 1 January 2015 and 19 February 2016.

3. According to a confirmation of the Football Federation F, the football seasons in Country B during the period of time the player was registered with Club A, followed the calendar year.

4. According to the information contained in the TMS, the player was registered for the first time as a professional with the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: Club C or Respondent) on 22 February 2016.

5. Equally, according to the information contained in TMS, Club C belonged to the category III (UEFA, indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year, category IV corresponds to an indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year) at the moment the player was registered with it.

6. On 9 June 2017, Club A lodged a claim in front of FIFA, requesting training compensation on the basis of the player’s first registration as a professional with Club C. In particular, Club A requested the amount of EUR 87,616.43, plus 5% interest p.a. to be paid by Club C.

7. In its reply to the claim, Club C explained that it is a low-budget club, which cannot afford itself to pay training compensation and therefore, before signing a contract with a player, it investigates as to whether it has the obligation to pay training compensation. In this particular matter, Club C explained that before signing a contract with the abovementioned player on 22 February 2016, it based itself on information provided by the player, information from his previous clubs, as well as an official player passport issued by the Football Federation F on 22 February 2016.

8. According to Club C, the player passport dated 22 February 2016 mentioned that the player was registered with Club G between 2009 and 2011, with Club A between 2011 and 2014 and with Club H between 2011 and 2016. Based on this information, as well the information received from the player and his previous clubs, Club C argues that it concluded that the player was only registered with Club H as from 2011, and not with Club A. In this respect, Club C submitted a declaration of the player dated 18 January 2017, in which the player confirms that he was only registered with Club G and Club H before being transferred to Club C. Also, Club C indicated that it solved all issues regarding compensations to be paid with Club G and Club H.

9. Finally, Club C refers to the fact that the discrepancies in the player passports dated 22 February 2016 and 6 December 2017 are the result of the fact that the Football Federation F has admitted in several other cases that until recently, it did not have a registration system. Club C concludes that it cannot be held responsible for administrative errors by the Football Federation F.

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: Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 9 June 2017. Consequently, the 2017 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 (editions 2015, 2016 and 2018). 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 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2015, 2016 and 2018), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 22 February 2016, the 2015 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: 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. In this respect, the Single Judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Single Judge emphasised 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. In particular, the Single Judge recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 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 Transfer Matching System (TMS).

5. In this respect, the Single Judge first recalled that the player was born on 29 July 1996 and, according to the player passports in combination to a clarification issued by the Football Federation F, he was registered with the following Clubs of Country B, always as an amateur: with Club G between 1 June 2009 and 31 March 2011, with Club A between 1 April 2011 and 31 December 2014 and with Club H between 1 January 2015 and 19 February 2016.

6. In addition, the Single Judge took note that Club A maintained that it is entitled to receive training compensation from Club C in the amount of EUR 87,616.43, indicating that the player had signed his first professional contract with Club C before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday, having been registered with said club on 22 February 2016, and last registered in Country B with Club H.

7. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that Club C rebutted the claim of Club A, alleging that when it signed the employment contract with the player in February 2016, it thoroughly investigated his previous career, basing itself on information provided by the player and his previous clubs, as well as an official player passport issued by the Football Federation F on 22 February 2016. According to Club C, it follows from the aforementioned information that, as from 2011, the player was only registered with Club H and not with Club A. In this respect, Club C also referred to a declaration of the player dated 18 January 2017, in which he confirmed that he was only registered with Club G and Club H before being transferred to Club C.

8. Based on the foregoing, Club C argues that it only needed to pay compensation to the Clubs of Country B, Club G and Club H, with which clubs it apparently already agreed upon a solution, however that it had no financial obligations towards Club A, as the player allegedly never played for said club.

9. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the Single Judge highlighted that the main issue in the present matter is whether it can be established that Club A had in fact trained the player for a specific period of time and therefore should be entitled to receive any amount of training compensation from Club C. In this respect, for the sake of completeness and before entering in the substance of the matter, the Single Judge first of all wished to recall certain general principles regarding the payment of training compensation.

10. Along those lines, the Single Judge referred to the rules applicable to cases regarding training compensation and stated that, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations as well as in art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is payable, as a general rule, 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.

11. What is more, in case the player is registered for the first time as a professional, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that the club with which the player is registered is responsible for paying training compensation within 30 days of registration, to every club with which the player has previously been registered and that has contributed to his training starting from the season of his 12th birthday to the season of his 21st birthday.

12. In connection with the above, the Single Judge duly noted the argument raised by Club C that, in fact, the player was never registered with Club A, as based on the information it received from the player, the Football Federation F and the player’s previous clubs, the only two clubs with which the player has been allegedly registered were Club G and Club H.

13. In this respect, the Single Judge stressed that the national association to which Club A is affiliated, i.e. the Football Federation F, had unequivocally confirmed, in both versions of the player’s passport on file, dated 22 February 2016 and 6 December 2017, that the player was registered with Club A as an amateur from 1 April 2011 to 31 December 2014. The player’s passport of 22 February 2016, however, mentioned an incorrect starting date of the player’s registration with Club H (i.e. 1 January 2011, instead of 1 January 2015), which error the Football Federation F subsequently clarified to be a clerical mistake, confirming his registration with Club A from 1 April 2011 until 31 December 2014.

14. In this context and considering the career history of the player, which indicated that prior to the player’s registration with the Club C, the player was registered as an amateur with Club G, Club A and Club H, as well as considering that Club C had not produced any evidence to the contrary, the Single Judge deemed that it could be established beyond doubt that the player was indeed registered as an amateur with Club A as from 1 April 2011 until 31 December 2014.

15. In continuation, the Single Judge turned his attention to Club C’ argument that it had contacted the player’s previous clubs Club G and Club H and that “it solved all issues regarding compensations to be paid” to these clubs. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that Club C had not submitted any documentation demonstrating the payment of any amounts to the aforementioned clubs or that it had requested the Football Federation F to inform it about the player’s career history and/or to clarify any possible discrepancies in the player’s passport at the moment of signing him. Moreover, Club C also failed to submit documentation proving that it contacted Club A, mentioned in both player passports, to clarify any possible issues regarding his registration and the payment of training compensation and/or other payments possibly due to said club. What is more, Club C seems to rely on a declaration submitted by the player – dated 18 January 2017, i.e. approximately 11 months after the player had been registered with Club C – that he never played for Club A. As the player by then had a direct employment relationship with Club C, his statement consequently cannot be considered as having a fully objective nature.

16. In view of all the foregoing, the Single Judge decided that the arguments raised by Club C in this regard cannot be upheld.

17. On account of the above and in accordance with art. 20 in combination with Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Single Judge considered that, as per the player passports as well as the clarification issued by the Football Federation F, Club A is, thus, entitled to receive training compensation for the period as from 1 April 2011 until 31 December 2014 from Club C, as the player was registered for the first time as a professional with Club C before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.

18. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Single Judge referred to the FIFA circular no. 1537 dated 3 May 2016, which provides details for the calculation of training compensation, as well as 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. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to the wording of art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, according to which the training costs for players for the seasons between their 12th and 15th birthdays shall be based on the training and education costs of category 4 clubs.

19. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that the player was born on 29 July 1996 and, according to the player passports issued by the Football Federation F, he was registered with Club A as from 1 April 2011 until 31 December 2014 as an amateur, i.e. during 9 months of the season of his 15th birthday and the entire seasons of his 16th, 17th and 18th birthdays.

20. Equally, the Single Judge stressed that according to the information contained in TMS, the player was registered as a professional with Club C on 22 February 2016, this is, in the season of his 20th birthday. In continuation, the Single Judge observed that according to the documentation on file, Club C belonged to the category III at the time the player was registered with it.

21. In view of all of the above and taking into account the amount claimed, the Single Judge decided to accept the claim of Club A and to hold Club C liable to pay the amount of EUR 87,616.43 to Club A as training compensation in relation to the first registration of the player as a professional with Club C.

22. Moreover, taking into consideration Club A’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Single Judge decided that, in conformity with its longstanding practice, Club C has to pay interest of 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of the date the claim was lodged by Club A, i.e. as of 9 June 2017, until the date of effective payment.

23. 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 or the DRC Judge relating to disputes regarding training compensation, 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 Annex A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute.

24. In respect of the above, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 87,616.43 related to the claim of Club A. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000 (cf. table in Annex A).

25. As a result, and taking into account that the case at hand did not compose any complex factual or legal issues as well as considering that Club C was the unsuccessful party in the present proceedings, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 8,000, which shall be borne by Club C.

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

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

2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant within 30 days of the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 87,616.43, plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 9 June 2017 until the date of effective payment.

3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid 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. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 8,000 is to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows:

4.1. The amount of CHF 6,000 has to be paid to FIFA 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: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

4.2. The amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid to the Claimant.

5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 4.2. above are 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

Encl.: CAS directives