F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – solidarity contribution/ contributo di solidarietà – (2018-2019) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 12 June 2019

Decision of the

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

passed on 12 June 2019,

by Stéphane Burchkalter (France),

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 passports issued by the Football Federation of Country B (hereinafter: the Football Federation F) on 6 July 2018 and 1 August 2018, the player, Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 6 February 1998, was registered with its affiliated club, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), (a) as an amateur from 18 September 2011 until 26 May 2012 and 16 August 2012 until 26 May 2013; and (b) as a professional from 1 July 2015 until 31 December 2017.

2. Pursuant to the information provided by Football Federation F, the sporting seasons in Country B ran as follows:

- From August of one year until May of the following year for seasons 2011/2012, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014;

- From June of one year until May of the following year for the season 2015/2016;

- From July 2016 to December 2016 for the season 2016; and

- From March 2017 until December 2017 for the season 2017.

3. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player, coming from the Claimant, was registered as a professional with the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 9 February 2018.

4. Pursuant to the information in the TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category III (UEFA indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) at the moment the player was registered with it.

5. In this framework, on 24 August 2018, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming its proportion of training compensation on the ground of the transfer of the player as a professional to a club of a different association, before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. In particular, the Claimant requested the amount of EUR 90,000.

6. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not reply to the Claimant’s claim.

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 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 24 August 2018. Consequently, the 2018 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution 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 2019). 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, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with the Respondent on 9 February 2018, 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 January and June 2018 as well as edition 2019), the January 2018 edition of the said regulations (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, the Single Judge 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. 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 TMS.

5. First of all, the Single Judge recalled that, in accordance with the player passports issued by the Football Federation F, the player, born on 6 February 1998, was registered with the Claimant (a) as an amateur from 18 September 2011 until 26 May 2012 and 16 August 2012 until 26 May 2013; and (b) as a professional from 1 July 2015 until 31 December 2017. Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that according to the information contained in the TMS, the player was subsequently registered with the Respondent on 9 February 2018, also as a professional.

6. In continuation, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant requested the payment of the training compensation from the Respondent on the ground of the definitive transfer of the player as a professional to the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. In particular, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant requested the amount of EUR 90,000.

7. Equally, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent, despite having been invited to do so, failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant and, in this way, renounced its right to defence.

8. As a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the Single Judge established that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, he shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant.

9. Furthermore, and hereby referring to the rules applicable to training compensation, the Single Judge stated that, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations in combination with art. 1 par. 1 and art. 2 par 1. 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.

10. In continuation, the Single Judge observed that, based on the documents at disposal, it can be established that the player was registered with the Claimant before the end of the season of his 21st birthday, i.e. (a) as an amateur from 18 September 2011 until 26 May 2012 and 16 August 2012 until 26 May 2013; and (b) as a professional from 1 July 2015 until 31 December 2017. Likewise, the Single Judge duly noted that the player was subsequently registered with the Respondent as a professional on 9 February 2018, i.e. before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday.

11. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant for the training of the player in accordance with art. 20 as well as Annexe 4 of the Regulations.

12. Turning his attention to the calculation of the training compensation, the Single Judge referred to 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. As such, the Single Judge concluded that the effective period of time to be considered in the matter at stake corresponds to 8 months of the season of the player’s 14th birthday, 10 months of the season of the player’s 15th birthday, as well as the entire seasons of the player’s 18th and 19th birthdays.

13. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 5 paras. 1 and 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.

14. In this respect, the Single Judge took due note that, according to the information contained in the TMS, the Respondent belonged to category 3 (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA) at the time the player was registered with it.

15. Consequently, taking into consideration all the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 74,999 to the Claimant for the training and education of the player.

16. Lastly, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in conjunction 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. The relevant provision further states 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.

17. In respect of the above, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 90,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the present proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000.

18. As a result, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 10,000 which should be split between the parties. In fact, the Single Judge, considering the lack of reply from the Respondent, decided that the amount of CHF 8,000 shall be borne by the Respondent. In addition, the Single Judge, taking into account the degree of success of the claim, was of the opinion that the amount of CHF 2,000 shall be borne by the Claimant.

19. The Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant.

*****

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 74,999.

3. In the event that the aforementioned sum 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. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.

5. The final costs of the p[proceedings in the amount of CHF 10,000 are to be paid, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows:

5.1. The amount of CHF 8,000 has to be paid by the Respondent.

5.2. The amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid by the Claimant. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of CHF 3,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, no additional amount has to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA.

5.3. The above-mentioned amounts have 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

6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 2. above 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

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer

Encl.: CAS directives