F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – solidarity contribution/ contributo di solidarietà – (2019-2020) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 30 October 2019

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC)

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 October 2019,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Roy Vermeer (The Netherlands), member

Daan de Jong (The Netherlands), member

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 E

I. Facts of the case

1. According to the player passports issued by the Football Federation of Country B and the Football Federation of Country F, the player, Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 30 January 1999, was registered with the following clubs:

Club Country Registration dates Status

Club A (cat. 4)

Country B

20 April 2006 until 26 September 2016

amateur

Club G (cat. 4)

Country B

27 September 2016 until 21 July 2017

amateur

Club H(cat. 3)

Country F

21 July 2017 until 17 August 2017

professional

Club C (cat. 1)

Country D

as of “17 August 2017”

professional

2. Furthermore, according to an official confirmation from the Football Federation of Country B, the football seasons in Country B follow the calendar year.

3. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player was registered as a professional with Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 18 August 2017, on loan from Club H for the period from 11 August 2017 until 30 June 2018 against payment of a loan compensation of EUR 12,000 by the Respondent. The relevant loan agreement included an option in favor of the Respondent to engage the player on a permanent basis against payment of a transfer compensation of EUR 50,000. Furthermore, on 11 June 2018, the two clubs completed the transfer instruction “from loan to permanent”, by means of which the Respondent engaged the player on a permanent basis.

4. Equally, according to the information contained in TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category I (UEFA indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year) at the moment that the player was registered with it on a temporary and permanent basis. Furthermore, according to the information contained in TMS, Club H belonged to the category IV at the moment that the player was registered with it.

5. On 10 May 2018, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant) lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting training compensation on the basis of the alleged player’s first registration as a professional with the Respondent in August 2017. In particular, the Claimant requested the total amount of EUR 140,000.

6. In this respect, the Claimant pointed out that the player did not participate in any match with Club H and that the player was already negotiating his move to the Respondent during the process of his registration with Club H. With reference to CAS jurisprudence, the Claimant held that the Respondent is the club that has benefited from the training efforts invested by it and, therefore, should be obliged to pay training compensation.

7. With regard to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP, the Claimant argued that the financial means to offer a professional contract to all of the young player amateur players in order to avoid the risk of losing the right to training compensation is too costly and would contravene the spirit and purpose of the FIFA principles. While admitting that it did not offer the player a contract, the Claimant argued that it “invested a considerable training efforts in the player” and the “fact that the training have been productive and successful is proven by the fact that the player was selected for the various National youth teams of Country B”.

8. In its reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent referred to the loan agreement concluded with Club H and explained that it exercised the option for the permanent transfer of the player by means of a letter dated 30 May 2018. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the player had already been registered as a professional with Club H and, consequently, only the latter club was entitled to training compensation.

9. In continuation, the Respondent denied that a “bridge transfer” took place and, with reference to CAS jurisprudence, stated that the player’s movements are certainly not sufficiently unusual to determine that a “bridge transfer” has occurred. The Respondent then entered into a comparison with the facts in CAS XXXX/X/XXXX and highlighted that, in the latter case and contrary to the facts of the case at hand, the player moved on a permanent basis to the final destination club, with which he had already negotiated prior to his move to the “bridge club”. In casu, the player moved on a loan basis to the Respondent and the latter only had an option to sign the player permanently.

10. Furthermore, the Respondent maintained that there is nothing unusual for a player to move from a club of Country B to a club of Country F and pointed out that the player was registered with another club of Country B between leaving the Claimant and joining Club H. Consequently, the Respondent argued that “the link between [the Claimant] and [the Respondent] is weak”.

11. Moreover, the Respondent referred to the principle of the burden of proof and stated that the Claimant has not provided any evidence that negotiations had already taken place between the Respondent and the player before his move to Club H. Equally, with reference to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP, the Respondent argued that the Claimant failed to prove that it had a bona fide and genuine interest in keeping the player.

12. Finally, the Respondent stated that it was a category 2 club at the moment that the player was registered with it on a permanent basis, i.e. 1 July 2018, and that it competed in second division in football League of country D for the 2018/2019 season. Consequently, if the DRC considered that training compensation is due by the Respondent, the correct amount would be EUR 110,000.

13. The Claimant submitted its replica after the expiry of the relevant deadline.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as the Chamber or the DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 10 May 2018. Consequently, the 2018 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 members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2019), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns a dispute relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations.

3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2018 and 2019), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on a definitive basis after 1 June 2018, the June 2018 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 DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the members of the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. In particular, the Chamber 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. First of all, the Chamber took note of the player’s career history as provided in the player passports issued by the Football Federation of Country B and the Football Federation of Country F (cf. point I.1.).

6. In continuation, the Chamber took note that the Claimant claimed that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 140,000. Equally, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant pointed out that the player did not participate in any match with Club H and that the player was already negotiating his move to the Respondent during the process of his registration with Club H. With reference to CAS jurisprudence, the Claimant held that the Respondent is the club that has benefited from the training efforts invested by it and, therefore, should be obliged to pay training compensation.

7. Equally, the Chamber observed that the Respondent denied that a “bridge transfer” took place and, with reference to CAS jurisprudence, stated that the player’s movements are certainly not sufficiently unusual to determine that a “bridge transfer” has occurred. In particular, the Chamber noted that the Respondent maintained that there is nothing unusual for a player to move from a club of Country B to a club of Country F and pointed out that the player was registered with another club of Country B between leaving the Claimant and joining Club H.

8. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Respondent explained that the player moved on a loan basis to the Respondent and the latter only had an option to sign the player permanently which it exercised by means of a letter dated 30 May 2018. On account of the above, the Respondent argued “the link between [the Claimant] and [the Respondent] is weak”.

9. In continuation, the DRC observed that the Respondent stated that it was a category 2 club at the moment that the player was registered with it on a permanent basis, i.e. 1 July 2018, and that it competed in second division in football League of country D for the 2018/2019 season. Consequently, if the DRC considered that training compensation is due by the Respondent, the correct amount would be EUR 110,000.

10. Finally, the Chamber noted that The Claimant submitted its replica after the expiry of the relevant deadline. Consequently, with reference to art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the DRC determined that its decision shall be taken upon the basis of the documents already on file.

11. In this context, the DRC highlighted that three issues need to be analysed in the present matter:

1) Is the Claimant entitled to receive training compensation?

2) If so, who is responsible for paying training compensation to the Claimant?

3) Depending on the answers to 1) and 2) above, what is the amount of training compensation due to the Claimant?

12. When addressing the first issue, the Chamber referred to the rules applicable to training compensation and stated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 par. 1 lit. i. 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 professional is registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 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.

13. At this point, the Chamber recalled that the player, born on 30 January 1999, was registered with the Claimant as an amateur from 20 April 2006 until 26 September 2016 and that, following another period as an amateur with a club of Country B, the player was registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday outside of Country B.

14. For the present purposes, the Chamber does not need to address the issue of whether the Claimant has offered the player a contract in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, considering that the Claimant was not the player’s former club before his first registration as professional.

15. Consequently, the Chamber held that the Claimant is entitled to training compensation from the player’s new club that registered him as a professional.

16. In continuation, the Chamber went on to examine who is responsible for the payment of training compensation to the Claimant.

17. In this respect, the members of the Chamber observed that, according to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of Country F, the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club H, as a professional from 21 July 2017 until 17 August 2017, i.e. less than one month.

18. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the player was subsequently transferred to the Respondent on a temporary basis, which was turned into a permanent transfer by means of the exercise of an option through a letter sent by the Respondent to Club H on 30 May 2018.

19. In continuation, the Chamber took note of the Claimant’s allegation that the player had not participated in any match with Club H. Furthermore, the Chamber took note of the documentation provided by the Claimant, according to which the player was invited for a trial by two clubs of Country D in October 2015 and August 2016. What is more, the members of the Chamber observed that the player had apparently participated regularly in matches of different National youth teams of Country B between 2014 and 2017.

20. Considering the aforementioned elements, the members of the Chamber observed that the player was apparently known in Country D at a young age, and that he was on the radar of several clubs of Country D. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber noted that the Respondent did not contest that the player had not participated in any match with Club H during the short period of time that he was registered with the latter.

21. In this respect, the members of the Chamber had considerable doubts as to how the Respondent became aware of the player. In this regard, the Chamber found that the Respondent’s explanation that “the player was introduced to the club as a professional player registered with Club H” was not convincing, especially considering that the player was just registered with the latter days before.

22. Taking into consideration all the elements at its disposal, the Chamber held that it is not satisfied with the Respondent’s explanation as to why a talented player who has attracted the attention of several clubs of Country D would opt to join a small club of Country F and to stay there for less than a month before moving to the Respondent, which was a team of first division in football League of Country D at the time.

23. Consequently, the members of the Chamber unanimously concluded that the player’s short period of registration with Club H was intended to circumvent the application of the relevant provisions for training compensation and that the Respondent was the club that benefitted from the training efforts of the Claimant. As a result, the Chamber held that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant.

24. Turning its attention to the third question, the Chamber referred 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, 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 Chamber referred to the exception contained in the first sentence of art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which stipulates that to ensure that training compensation for very young players is not set at unreasonably high levels, the training costs for players for the seasons between their 12th and 15th birthdays (i.e. four seasons) shall be based on the training and education costs of category 4 clubs.

25. In continuation, the DRC referred to art. 6 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which contains special provisions in case a player moves from a lower to a higher category club within the territory of the EU/EEA. In this respect, the Chamber stressed that the Football Federation of Country B had allocated the Claimant as a category IV club.

26. With regard to the category of the Respondent, the members of the Chamber took note that, according to the information contained in the TMS, the relevant transfer instruction “from loan to permanent” was completed by the parties involved in the transfer on 11 June 2018. Consequently, the Chamber held that, at this point, the player had been permanently transferred to the Respondent. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that, according to the information contained in the TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category I at that moment.

27. As a result, the Chamber decided that the Respondent had to be considered a category I club for the purpose of the calculation of training compensation due to the Claimant.

28. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the player, born on 30 January 1999, was registered with the Claimant during the entire seasons of his 12th until 16th birthdays, as well as part of the season of his 17th birthday.

29. In view of all of the above, the DRC decided to partially accept the claim of the Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 127,500 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent.

30. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to 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, 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.

31. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 140,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 20,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules).

32. As a result, considering the particularities of the present matter as well as the parties’ degree of success, the Chamber determined the final costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 20,000, of which CHF 15,000 shall be borne by the Respondent and CHF 5,000 shall be borne by the Claimant.

33. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, the Chamber referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.

34. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.

35. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the Respondent does not pay the amount due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

36. Finally, the Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned sanction will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.

*****

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

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

2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 127,500.

3. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.

4. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly, of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the amount plus interest mentioned under point 2. above.

5. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount plus interest in accordance with point 2. above to FIFA to the e-mail address psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if need be, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).

6. In the event that the amount due plus interest in accordance with point 2. above are not paid by the Respondent within 45 days as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the Respondent, the Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

7. The ban mentioned in point 6. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount plus interest are paid.

8. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest are still not paid by the end of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

9. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 20,000 are to be paid, within 45 days of notification of the present decision, as follows:

9.1. The amount of CHF 15,000 has to be paid by the Respondent.

9.2. The amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid by the Claimant. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of CHF 4,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the additional amount of CHF 1,000 has to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA.

9.3. 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

10. In the event that the aforementioned amount of costs is not paid within the stated time limit, upon request, the present matter shall be submitted to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

*****

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. 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.

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 Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer