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 21 August 2020

Decision of the Single Judge

of the sub-committee of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed on 21 August 2020

regarding training compensation for the player Salis ABDUL AMED

BY:

Stefano Sartori (Italy)

CLAIMANT:

MADINA MANCHESTER UNITED FC, Ghana

RESPONDENT:

GUIDARS FC, Mali

I. FACTS

1. According to the player passport issued by the Ghana Football Association (hereinafter: GFA, the player, Salis Abdul Amed, (hereinafter: the player), born on 26 March 2000, was continuously registered as an amateur player with the Ghanaian club Madina Manchester United FC (hereinafter: Madina or the Claimant), as from 1 August 2012 until 31 October 2017.

2. According to the information contained in the TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount of USD 10,000 per year within CAF) at the moment that the player was registered with it.

3. As confirmed by the GFA, the football season in Ghana starts on 1 August and end on 31 July of the following year.

4. On 8 August 2019, the player was loaned from Malian club Guidars FC (hereinafter: Guidars or the Respondent) to the French club Clermont Foot. In particular, the player passport uploaded by the Federation Malienne de Football (hereinafter: FMF) in TMS indicated that the player was continuously registered with Guidars as from 2011 to 2019.

5. On 27 April 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting training compensation arguing that the player was registered for the first time as a professional with Guidars on 27 April 2018, i.e. before the end of the season of the his 23rd birthday.

6. In this respect, the Claimant requested the payment of USD 60,000 alleging that it had provided for the player’s training and education between the seasons of his 12th and 17th birthday.

7. The Claimant explained that after having made some inquiries regarding the registration of the player with the French club Clermont Foot in August 2019, it was made aware that the player had signed a professional contract with Guidars.

8. In this respect, the Claimant provided FIFA with the copy of an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) allegedly concluded between the player and Guidars on 27 April 2018, between 1 May 2018 and the end of the season 2019/2020, in accordance with which the player was entitled to receive a monthly remuneration of CFA 40,000 along with benefits in kind.

9. In addition, the Claimant provided FIFA with a statement under oath issued by the player on 5 March 2020 in which the latter Inter alia, indicated that he had been registered with Madina “from the age of 12 to 17” and that, subsequently, he had signed a professional contract with Guidars on 27 April 2018.

10. On 25 May 2020, the FIFA administration submitted a proposal (hereinafter: the proposal) to the Claimant and the Respondent, in line with Article 13 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber and FIFA Circular 1689, suggesting that Guidars should pay training compensation in the amount of USD 21,200 to Madina. The FIFA administration requested the parties to provide their acceptance or rejection as to the proposal by no later than 9 June 2020, and, in case of rejection, to provide their positions by no later than 14 June 2020.

11. On 9 June 2020, Guidars rejected the proposal.

12. In this respect, the Respondent contested the registration history inputted within the player passport submitted by the Claimant and alleged belonging to category IV and not to category III.

13. According to Guidars, the player had not been continuously trained by the Claimant since the season of his 12th birthday.

14. Equally, Guidars maintained that no reliable registration system existed in Ghana.

15. Guidars further alleged that the player had been playing with the “JMG EGYPRO MAKERS GHANA academy” (hereinafter: the JMG Academy) as from 16 December 2013 and that, therefore, during the 2012/2013 season, he could have not been registered with the Claimant.

16. The Respondent provided FIFA with the copy of a document entitled training contract (hereinafter: the training contract), allegedly signed by the player and by a representative of said academy on 16 December 2013 in accordance with which the player had been enrolled as student of the academy to study, train and develop his football skills.

17. The Respondent also provided an undated document entitled “release letter”, allegedly signed by the Claimant, in which it is inter alia indicated that “[the Claimant] release the player (…) to JMG Academy Accra”.

18. Additionally, Guidars provided several pictures of the player allegedly taking part in activities at the JMG Academy, as well as his “school card” and some school reports dated 2013, 2014 and 2015.

19. Finally, the Respondent provided a statement, apparently signed by the player on 7 June 2020 in which he declared the following:

“Somebody from Medina called me some months ago to ask me to sign a document whilst I was in France because I currently play for Clermont Foot. I did not really understand why I had to sign something and I never travelled to Accra and more importantly I was never told that this document would be used against Guidars.

I hereby certify, as it is proven within the training contract that I had signed with my parents at the end of 2013, that I always been at [JMG Academy] and not at Madina.”

20. Lastly, Guidars enclosed a statement issued by the FMF on 11 June 2020 in which it is indicated that “Guidars FC, playing in second division in Mali, is classified as category IV”.

II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER

1. First of all, the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 27 April 2020 and submitted for decision on 21 August 2020. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the June 2020 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.

2. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which states that he shall examine his jurisdiction in light of arts. 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations; edition June 2020). In accordance with art. 3 of Annexe 6 in conjunction with art. 24 par. 3 and art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations, 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 1 May 2018, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the single judge confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the January 2018 edition of 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. 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 were considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. In particular, the single judge recalled that, in accordance with art. 6 par. 4 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. What is more, the Single Judge recalled the provisions of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules according to which Any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. During the proceedings, the parties shall submit all relevant facts and evidence of which they are aware at that time, or of which they should have been aware if they had exercised due care.

5. First of all, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant had requested the payment of USD 60,000 as training compensation from the Respondent arguing that the player had been registered for the first time as professional with the latter on 1 May 2018, i.e. before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday and that it had trained the player between 1 August 2012 and 31 October 2017.

6. Furthermore, the Single Judge duly noted that the Respondent, for its part, had contested the validity of the player passport at the basis of the Claimant’s claim and alleged that it belonged to category IV.

7. With the aforementioned considerations in mind, the Single Judge turned his attention to the rules applicable to training compensation and stated that, in accordance with 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 player is registered as a professional for the first time before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. In case of a first registration as a professional, art. 3 par. 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 (in accordance with the players’ career history as provided in the player passport) and that has contributed to his training starting from the season of his 12th birthday. The amount payable is calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of training that the player spent with each club.

8. Bearing in mind the above and to begin with, the Single Judge recalled that it had remained undisputed between the parties that the player had signed his first professional contract on 27 April 2018 with the Respondent, contract which became effective on 1 May 2018 upon registration of the player with Guidars.. As a result and in line with the aforementioned provisions, the Respondent would, in principle, be liable to pay training compensation to any club that had trained the player between the start of the season of the player’s 12th birthday and the moment the latter was registered with it.

9. However, the Single Judge remarked that Guidars had contested the accuracy of the information included in the player passport provided by the Claimant.

10. Hence, the Single Judge considered that, in order to assess the matter at hand, he had to first establish the accurate career history of the player before his registration with the Respondent occurred.

11. In doing so, the Single Judge examined the following documents that had been submitted by the parties during the course of the proceedings and/or made available to him through TMS:

- The player passport issued by the GFA (cf. I. 1. above);

- A statement of the player dated 5 March 2020 (cf. I. 9. above);

- The training contract apparently signed by the player and JDG Academy on 16 December 2013 (Cf. I. 15-16 above);

- The document entitled release letter signed by Madina (cf. I. 17 above);

- The second statement issued by the player and dated 7 June 2020; (cf. I. 19 above);

- The player passport issued by the FMF and uploaded in TMS in the context of the transfer of the player from Guidars to Clermont Foot (cf. I.4 above);

12. In continuation, the Single Judge, referred to the first sentence of art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in accordance with which any training compensation due in connection with the first registration as a professional of a player shall be distributed, by the club registering the player as a professional for the first time in accordance with the players’ career history as provided for in the player passport.

13. In line with the aforementioned provision, the Single Judge pointed out that the career of a player should be established via the player passport(s).

14. In this context, the Single Judge recalled that based on art. 5 par. 1 of the Regulations, all professional and amateur players must be registered with an association in order to play for a club whereas the associations are the ones responsible for such registrations. Equally, the Single Judge underlined that according to art. 7 of the Regulations, an association has to provide its affiliated club registering a player with a player passport indicating the complete player’s football career as from the season of his 12th birthday.

15. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that the player passport issued by the GFA indicated that the player had been registered with Madina as from 1 August 2012 until 31 October 2017.

16. The Single Judge indicated that in principle, he should rely on the information inputted in the player passport issued by the GFA, unless there is clear evidence that would contradict the information it contains.

17. The Single Judge noted that the Respondent had contested the information included in the aforementioned player passport alleging that the player had been registered with JMG Academy since the end of year 2013.

18. In this regard, the Single Judge analysed the documentation submitted by Guidars and remarked that the JMG Academy offered schooling and football training to the player (cf. I. 15 and 16 above).

19. Equally, the Single Judge remarked the following:

- The training contract does not make any reference to the player’s registration with JMG Academy in order to play in competitions affiliated to the GFA;

- no documentary evidence was provided indicating that JMG Academy is a club affiliated to the GFA;

- no documentary evidence was provided indicating that the player participated in any official fixtures with JMG Academy.

20. The Single Judge concluded that, based on the documentation at his disposal, it could not be established that the information included in the player passport provided by the GFA were not correct.

21. Having determined the aforementioned, the Single Judge turned his attention to the allegation of the Respondent that it belonged to category IV and not category III.

22. In this respect, the Single Judge duly remarked that Guidars had provided a document issued by the FMF confirming that on 11 June 2020 the Respondent was classified under the training category IV.

23. In this context and to begin with, the Single Judge recalled that, in accordance with art. 2 par. 2 lit. ii) of Annexe 4 to the Regulations, training compensation is not due if a player is transferred to a category IV club.

24. Having said the above, the Single Judge underlined that the payment on training compensation is triggered by a player’s first or subsequent registration as a professional with a new club, and that such payment is foreseen to be made within 30 days as of said registration (cf. art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations). Consequently, the Single Judge highlighted that as a general rule only the training category of the new club at the time of registration should be taken into account.

25. In this light, the Single Judge remarked that, as per the information contained in the TMS, the Respondent belonged to the training category III at the time the player was registered with it.

26. Moreover, the Single Judge wished to underline that the Respondent never disputed the fact that on the date of the player’s registration with the Respondent, it had belonged to the training category III.

27. Therefore, the Single the Single Judge decided to reject the Respondent’s allegation that no training compensation would be due because at the time of the present dispute it belonged to the training category IV.

28. Consequently, given all of the above considerations, the Single Judge decided the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant for the training of the player in accordance with art. 20 of the Regulations and art. 2 par. 1 lit. i. and art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.

29. Having established the aforementioned, the Single Judge 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 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.

30. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that the Respondent belonged to category III when the player was registered with it.

31. As a result, the Single Judge determined that the yearly amount to take into consideration when calculating the training compensation due to the Claimant in connection with the first registration of the player as professional with the Respondent amounted to USD 10,000 per year (i.e. yearly amount set out for CAF training category III clubs) for the time he was trained with Claimant from the season of his 16th birthday onwards, and that the amount of USD 2,000 (i.e. yearly amount set out for CAF training category IV clubs) has be taken into account for the seasons between his 12th and 15th birthday (cf. art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations).

32. Equally, the Single Judge acknowledged that the seasons in Ghana start on 1 August and finish on 31 July of the following year.

33. Taking into account all of the aforementioned as well as his established jurisprudence in accordance with which football seasons in the context of a solidarity contribution or training compensation claim are counted either in calendar years or following the July to June of the following year pattern, the Single Judge concluded that the effective periods of time to be considered in the matter at stake corresponds to:

- Season of the player’s 12th birthday: as from 1 August 2012 until 30 June 2013, amounting to USD 1,830.14;

- Season of the player’s 13th birthday: as from 1 July 2013 until 30 June 2014, amounting to USD 2,000;

- Season of the player’s 14th birthday: as from 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2015, amounting to USD 2,000;

- Season of the player’s 15th birthday: as from 1 July 2015 until 30 June 2016, amounting to USD 2,000;

- Season of the player’s 16th birthday: as from 1 July 2016 until 30 June 2017, amounting to USD 10,000;

- Season of the player’s 13th birthday: as from 1 July 2017 until 31 October 2017, amounting to USD 3,369.86.

34. As a result the Single Judge calculated that the amount of USD 21,200 corresponds to the training compensation payable to the Claimant for the training and education of the player between 1 August 2012 and 31 October 2017.

35. Hence, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to pay the amount of USD 21,200 to the Claimant.

36. Lastly, the Single Judge referred to FIFA Circular 1720 of 11 June 2020, in which it is stipulated that for any claims lodged in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and/or the Players’ Status Committee before 10 June 2020, the maximum amount of the procedural costs shall be equivalent to any advance of costs paid.

37. Bearing in mind that in line with art. 17 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, no advance of costs shall be payable for disputes concerning the distribution of solidarity contribution and/or training compensation, the Single Judge concluded that the present decision shall be free of procedural costs.

DECISION OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER

1. The claim of the Claimant, Madina Manchester United FC, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, Guidars FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:

- USD 21,200 as training compensation.

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

4. The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.

5. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with this decision to psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).

6. In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the Respondent within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:

 1.

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. The aforementioned ban mentioned will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.

(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players). 2.

In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is 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 the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.

7. The decision is free of procedural costs (cf. FIFA Circular Nr. 1720 of 11 June 2020 and art. 17 of the Rules Governing the Procedure of the Players’ Status Committee and Dispute Resolution Chamber).

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer

NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:

According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.

NOTE RELATED TO THE 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 | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777