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 23 February 2021
Decision of the Single Judge of the
sub-committee of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 23 February 2021
regarding training compensation for the player Omar Natami
BY:
Joseph Antoine Bell (Cameroon), Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC
CLAIMANT:
A.S.D ORANGE DON BOSCO, Italy
RESPONDENT:
F91 Dudelange, Luxembourg
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player: Omar NATAMI
Date of birth: 15 December 1998
Player passports:
issued by the Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC) on 17 April 2020:
Season Birthday Club(s) Registration dates Status 10/11 12th UNION TEAM CHIMERA AREZZO 07/09/10 – 30/06/11 Amateur (Permanent)
11/12
13th
O Range Chimera
Arezzo
18/08/11 – 30/06/12
Amateur (Permanent) 12/13 14th O Range Chimera Arezzo 13/09/12 – 30/06/13 Amateur (Permanent)
13/14
15th
Olmoponte Arezzo
19/08/13 – 30/06/14
Amateur (Permanent)
Sporting season: 1 July to 30 June (Italy)
Claimant club: A.S.D ORANGE DON BOSCO (formerly known as Orange Chimera
Arezzo) (Italy)
UEFA, category IV (EUR 10,000 per year)
Respondent club: F91 Dudelange (Luxembourg)
UEFA, category III (EUR 30,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1. On 27 November 2020, the Claimant requested EUR 16,657.53 as training compensation from the Respondent “plus interest”.
2. The Claimant based its claim on the alleged first registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent on 1 January 2020.
3. The Claimant argued that in past proceedings in front of FIFA training compensation was awarded to the Italian club Olmoponte Arezzo on the basis of the 1st registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent on 1 January 2020.
4. In its calculation, the Claimant took into consideration the amount set for category IV clubs in UEFA, i.e. EUR 10,000 per year and multiplied pro rata by the 317 days the player was registered with the Claimant.
5. The Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant arguing its prescription.
6. According to the Respondent the player had already been a professional on 15 July 2017.
7. The Respondent argued having concluded a “Contrat de louage d’ouvrage” (free translation: “Contract for the hire of services”) with the player on 15 July 2017, valid for two seasons, which provided for a monthly remuneration of EUR 1,250.
8. The Respondent, referring to art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), held that the player had already a written contract with it as from 2017 providing for a remuneration for his footballing activity which was higher than the expenses in which he effectively incurred.
9. Consequently, the player having already been a professional on 15 July 2017, the claim of the Claimant lodged on 27 November 2020 was prescribed.
10. In the alternative, the Respondent alleged that the player was never registered as a professional in accordance with the Fédération Luxembourgeoise de Football (FLF)’s records.
Information of the FLF:
On 2 and 3 December 2020, the FLF informed FIFA that the player had never been registered as a professional with the Respondent and provided a copy of the following player passport dated 10 November 2020:
Season Birthday Club(s) Registration dates Status 14/15 16th F91 Dudelange 01/02/15 – 30/06/15 Amateur (Permanent)
15/16
17th
F91 Dudelange
01/07/15 – 30/06/16
Amateur (Permanent) 16/17 18th F91 Dudelange 01/07/16 – 30/06/17 Amateur (Permanent)
17/18
19th
F91 Dudelange
01/07/17 – 31/01/18
Amateur (Permanent) 17/18 19th Mondorf-les- Bains US 01/02/18 – 30/06/18 Amateur (loan)
18/19
20th
Esch/Alzette AS
La Jeunesse
01/07/18 – 30/06/19
Amateur (loan) 19/20 21st F91 Dudelange 01/07/19 – 31/01/20 Amateur (Permanent)
19/20
21st
Mondorf-les-
Bains US
01/02/20 – 30/06/20
Amateur (Permanent)
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law: Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): January 2020 edition.
Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (Procedural Rules): 2021 edition.
Decision:
1. The claim of the Claimant is based on the first registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent which allegedly took place on 1 January 2020.
2. The admissibility of the claim is contested by the Respondent on the basis of prescription.
3. In this respect, the Respondent alleged having already registered the player as a professional on 15 July 2017.
4. According to the information available in the Transfer Matching System (TMS) as well as the in line with the statement of the FLF, the player was never registered as a professional with the Respondent.
5. In line with the jurisprudence of the DRC, other criteria than the qualification given by a Member
Association on the status of a player during its registration periods with its affiliated club(s) might be taken into account in order to determine whether a player was a professional with a particular club or not.
6. In accordance with art. 2 par. 2 RSTP as well as the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, a player is considered a professional if he has signed a written contract with a club and is receiving a retribution (financial and/or in kind) for his footballing activity which is greater than the expenses he effectively incurs.
7. The Respondent and the player signed a “Contrat de louage d’ouvrage” (free translation: “Contract for the hire of services”) on 15 July 2017 providing a monthly remuneration of EUR 1,250 for the latter.
8. Based on the above, on 15 July 2017 the player had a written contract with the Respondent and was receiving a monthly retribution for his footballing activity which is deemed greater than the expenses he effectively incurs.
9. Hence, it can be determined that the Respondent provided conclusive evidence that the player was to be considered as a professional as from 15 July 2017, i.e. date of its first “registration” as a professional.
10. In accordance with art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of Annexe 4 of the RSTP, training compensation is to be paid by the new club, 30 days following the registration of the player with the new association, to every club with which the player has previously been registered (in accordance with the players’ career history as provided in the player passport) and that has contributed to his training starting from the calendar year of his 12th birthday.
11. Any training compensation due as a result of the player being registered as a professional for the first time with the Respondent on 15 July 2017 was to be paid by the latter to his training club(s) on 14 August 2017, i.e. 30 days after the registration. The non-payment of training compensation (if any) became overdue on 15 August 2017, i.e. 15 July 2017 + 31 days.
12. The Claimant lodged its claim on 27 November 2020.
13. According to art. 25 par. 5 of the RSTP, the Players’ Status Committee, the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the single judge or the DRC judge (as the case may be) shall not hear any case subject to these regulations if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute.
14. Any claim for the payment of training compensation for the player’s first registration as a professional with the Respondent should have been lodged at the latest on 15 August 2019, i.e. 2 years and 31 days after 15 July 2017.
15. The Claimant lodged its claim 3 years, 3 months and 13 days since any potential training compensation became due.
16. As a result the claim of the Claimant is barred by the statute of limitations.
17. Consequently, the claim of the Claimant is inadmissible.
18. No procedural costs are levied (cf. arts. 17 par. 1 and 18 par. 1 of the Rules Governing the Procedure of the Players’ Status Committee and Dispute Resolution Chamber).
III. DECISION
1. The claim of the Claimant, A.S.D ORANGE DON BOSCO, is inadmissible.
2. No procedural costs are payable (cf. arts. 17 par. 1 and 18 par. 1 lit.i) 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 DRC:
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