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 2 December 2020
Decision of the
Single Judge of the sub-committee of
The Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 2 December 2020
regarding training compensation relating to the registration of the player Nazarii
KALYNCHUK with PFC Lviv (Ukraine)
BY:
Stefano Sartori (Italy), Single Judge of the sub-committee of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
CLAIMANT:
GKS GLUCHOLAZY, Poland
RESPONDENT:
PFC LVIV, Ukraine
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Player: Nazarii KALYNCHUK
Date of birth: 25 March 1998
Player passport: issued by Polish Football Association (PZPN), undated
Season Birthday Club(s) Registration dates Status
17/18 20th Zielona Gora 09.08.2017-05.03.2018 Amateur
17/18 20th GKS Glucholazy 05.03.2018-30.06.2018 Amateur
18/19 21st GKS Glucholazy 01.07.2018-16.08.2018 Amateur
Sporting season: 1 July to 30 June (Poland)
Date of transfer: 16 August 2018, from GKS Glucholazy (Poland) to PFC Lviv (Ukraine) as
professional (free agent)
Claimant club: GKS Glucholazy (Poland)
Respondent club: PFC Lviv (Ukraine)
UEFA, category II (EUR 60,000 per year)
Claim and Response:
1. On 6 August 2020, the Claimant requested training compensation “in an amount to be
determined” for the first registration of the player as professional with the Respondent, “plus 5
% interest p.a. as of the due date.”
2. On 28 September 2020, the FIFA administration submitted a proposal to the parties, informing
them that it was of the opinion that the Respondent should pay the amount of EUR 27,123.29
to the Claimant.
3. The Claimant accepted the proposal.
4. On 28 October 2020, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant, arguing that the latter
had waived its right to receive training compensation.
5. The Respondent provided a document, dated 3 August 2018, written in Polish as well as its
translation into English, in which the following is mentioned:
“Please be informed that [the player] was a player of our club in the period from March 4, 2018
to June 30, 2018 and had the status of an amateur. He did not sign the ‘Amateur Game
Declaration’ for the 2018/19 season; therefore, he is a free player. At the same time, we would like to inform you that the player has paid for sports equipment and has no obligations to our
club, and the club has no claims against the player and has no claims against the new club for
training compensation regarding the player.”
6. On 19 November 2020, the Claimant contested having waived its rights to receive training
compensation arguing that the document provided by the Respondent did not refer to the
Respondent nor to the FIFA training compensation and that its wording was vague.
7. The Claimant argued that the relevant document had been drafted in the context of the training
compensation system of the PZPN and was only meant to be valid in connection with national
transfer. In particular, the Claimant pointed out that the waiver had been drafted in Polish.
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable law: Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): June 2018 edition.
Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (Procedural Rules): June 2020 edition.
Jurisdiction: Yes, uncontested
Admissible: Yes, uncontested
Decision:
1. The claim is requesting training compensation on the basis of the first registration of the player
with the Respondent.
2. It is uncontested that the player was registered as a professional for the first time with the
Respondent on 16 August 2018, i.e. during the course of the season of the player’s 21st
birthday.
3. According to art. 1 and art. 2 par. 1 lit. i) of Annexe 4 RTSP in combination with art. 3 par. 1 of
Annexe 4 RSTP, the club registering the player as professional for the first time has in principle
to pay training compensation to all the clubs where the player was registered and has
contributed to his training as from the beginning of the season of the player’s 12th birthday up
until the end of the season of his 21st birthday.
4. It remained undisputed that the player was registered with the Claimant as follows: ccc during
the course of the season of the player’s 20th birthday and as follows ccc during the course of the
season of his 21st birthdays.
5. As such, the Claimant would in principle be entitled to receive training compensation for the
training and education it provided to the player during the above timeframe.
6. Nevertheless, the Respondent argued the existence of a waiver by means of which the Claimant
would have waived its training compensation entitlement in relation to the registration of the
player with the former (cf. point I.5. above).
7. The Claimant contested having intended to waive its rights to receive training compensation for
the player when the document in question was signed.
8. According to the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the validity of a conventional
waiver is subject to a clear and unequivocal declaration by the party concerned, requiring clear
language reflecting the party’s clear intention to renounce its rights. Implied waivers are not
recognized.
9. Only the party entitled to a right can waive this right.
10. The document signed by the Claimant indicates that the latter “has no claims against the new
club for training compensation regarding the player.”
11. The wording is unequivocal, and unambiguous and clearly indicates the Claimant’s intention not
to claim training compensation from the new club of the player.
12. No evidence was provided by the Claimant in support of the allegation that it had only intended
to waive its rights to receive training compensation at national level in the context of the PZPN
training compensation system (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). The wording of the
waiver does not indicate that it was intended to be valid in Poland only,
13. Because the Claimant waived its rights to receive training compensation for the player is the
claim of the latter has to be rejected.
14. 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, GKS Glucholazy, 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 | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777