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 22 January 2021
Decision of the
Single Judge of the sub-committee of
The Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 22 January 2021
regarding training compensation for the player Pierre-Noah Mabika-Ndongo Tshibangu
BY:
Stefano Sartori (Italy), Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
CLAIMANT:
FC Swift Hesperange, Luxembourg
RESPONDENT:
FC Porto, Portugal
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player: Pierre-Noah MABIKA-NDONGO TSHIBANGU
Date of birth: 5 March 2002
Player passport: issued by the Fédération Luxembourgeoise de Football (“FLF”) on 14 March 2019:
Season
Birthday
Club
Registration
Status
T. Category
2016-2017
15th
Claimant
17.10.2016-30.06.2017
Amateur
IV
2017-2018
16th
Claimant
01.07.2017-30.06.2018
Amateur
IV
2018-2019
17th
Claimant
01.07.2018-04.10.2018
Amateur
IV
Sporting season: 1 July to 30 June (Luxembourg)
Date of transfer: 4 October 2018, Luxembourg to Portugal
Claimant club: FC Swift Hesperange (Luxembourg)
UEFA, category IV (EUR 10,000 per year)
Respondent club: FC Porto (Portugal)
UEFA, category II (EUR 60,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1. On 29 September 2020, the Claimant claimed training compensation of EUR 51,246.57 on the basis of the first registration as a professional of the player with the Respondent, plus 5% interests p.a. as of the due date.
2. In its calculation, the Claimant took into consideration the average of its and the Respondent’s categories, i.e. EUR 35,000, which it multiplied pro rata by the 718 days the player was registered with it.
3. In particular, the Claimant argued that because it could not compete with the economic strength and competition standards of the Respondent it was excused from having to offer the player a professional contract in accordance with article 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
4. The Claimant provided a comparative market value and competition data in support of its allegation.
5. The Respondent failed to provide its reply to the claim.
6. On 7 December 2020, the Claimant sent an unsolicited correspondence to the FIFA administration requesting the DRC to “recategorize” the Respondent under UEFA Category I and to be awarded training compensation in the amount of EUR 70,191.77, plus 5% p.a. as of the date until the date of effective payment.
7. Alternatively, the Claimant referred to the content of its initial claim.
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law: RSTP: June 2018 edition.
Procedural Rules: June 2020 edition.
Jurisdiction: Yes, uncontested
Admissible: Yes, uncontested
Decision:
8. It is undisputed that the player was registered for the first time as a professional with the Respondent.
9. Art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) is applicable as lex specialis to the matter at hand as the former club (the Claimant) and the new club (the Respondent) are clubs affiliated to associations which are based within the territory of the EU/EEA.
10. In accordance with the 1st sentence of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP, if the former club does not offer the player a contract, no training compensation is payable unless the former club can justify that it is entitled to such compensation.
11. It is undisputed that the Claimant did not offer a contract to the player.
12. According to the jurisprudence of the DRC, the provisions of art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP, do not apply to purely amateur clubs, which are per se not in a position to do so, but do definitively apply to clubs, which have amateur and professional status.
13. In very exceptional cases, the DRC has decided that a club that has not offered a contract in the sense of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP may retain its entitlement to training compensation by having shown a bona fide interest in keeping the player.
14. The Claimant is not a purely amateur club and did not argue having had a bona fide interest in retaining the services of the player.
15. Because the Claimant failed to offer a contract to the player, the latter did not fulfill the requirements of art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP and that therefore, the latter is not entitled to receive training compensation for the first registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent.
16. The claim of the Claimant is rejected.
17. 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).
DECISION
1. The claim of the Claimant, FC Swift Hesperange, 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 | chhelpdesk@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777