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 10 November 2020
Decision of the
Single Judge of the sub-committee of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 10 November 2020,
regarding training compensation for the the player Bryan Salazar Haro
BY:
Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), Single Judge of the sub-committee of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber
CLAIMANT:
ATLETICO MORELIA, Mexico
RESPONDENT:
CD FEREINSE, Portugal
I. FACTS
1. According to the player passport issued by the Mexican FA, the player, Bryan Salazar Haro
(hereinafter: the player), born on 25 February 1998, was registered with the Mexican club, Atletico
Morelia, formerly Coras FC (hereinafter: Claimant), as from 8 January 2016 until 31 May 2016,
i.e. during 145 days of the season of the player’s 19th birthday. The player passport indicated that
the player was registered with the Claimant as a professional, on loan from the Mexican club,
Guadalajara.
2. The football season in Mexico runs from 1 June until 31 May of the following year.
3. According to information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 19 September
2019, the player was registered with the Portuguese club, CD Feirense (hereinafter: Respondent),
after a permanent transfer from Guadalajara Premier.
4. On 25 February 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA claiming the payment of
training compensation from the Respondent on the basis that the player was transferred between
clubs of two different associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday and
that the player had been on loan with the Claimant. In particular, the Claimant claimed the
amount of EUR 25,000 plus 5% annual interest as from due date from the Respondent.
5. In reply to the claim, the Respondent rejected the request of the Claimant, arguing that the latter
is not entitled to training compensation as it was not the former club of the player. Alternatively,
the Respondent stated that the calculation made by the Claimant was erroneous since the
Respondent was not a category II club, but rather a category III club. In this context, the
Respondent referred to the “Comunicado Oficial” number CO-00545 issued by the Portuguese
FA on 12 June 2019. As such, the Respondent held that the maximum amount of EUR 11,935.48
should be due to the Claimant as training compensation.
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE OF
THE DRC
1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Sub-Committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC)
(hereinafter also referred to as: “the Single Judge”) analyzed whether he was competent to deal
with the matter at hand. In this respect, it took note that, according to art. 21 of the October
2020 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the
Dispute Resolution (hereinafter: “the Procedural Rules”), said edition of the Procedural Rules is
applicable to the matter at stake.
2. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 3 of the Procedural Rules and
confirmed that in accordance with art. 3 of Annexe 6 in conjunction with art. 24 par. 1 and 2
and art 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: “the
Regulations”), he is competent to deal with the dispute at stake, which concerns a dispute
relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations.
3. Furthermore, the Single Judge analyzed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and
2 of the Regulations, and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on
19 September 2019, the June 2019 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. In this respect, the Single Judge started
by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Single Judge emphasized that in the
following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
5. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that the player, born on 25 February 1998, was
registered with the Claimant as from 8 January 2016 until 31 May 2016, on loan from
Guadalajara, and that, on 25 February 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim against the
Respondent, requesting the payment of training compensation due to the player’s registration
with the Respondent.
6. In continuation, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to
receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 25,000 plus interest,
since the player was transferred to a club belonging to a different association before the end of
the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
7. Moreover, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Respondent rejected the claim, arguing that
the Claimant was not the former club of the player and alternatively that the calculation made by
the Claimant was erroneous considering that the Respondent was not a category II club, but rather
a category III club based on the “Comunicado Oficial” number CO-00545 issued by the Portuguese
FA on 12 June 2019.
8. In this respect, and hereby referring to the rules applicable to training compensation, the Single
Judge stated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 in combination with art. 2 par. 1 lit. ii. 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 transferred between clubs of two different
associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
9. In this context, the Single Judge highlighted that the first issue to be addressed in the present
matter is whether or not a club that accepted a professional on loan is entitled to receive training
compensation when, after the expiry of the loan, the professional returns to his club of origin,
and, thereafter, is transferred from the club of origin to a club belonging to another association
before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
10. In consideration of the above-mentioned issue, the Single Judge, and hereby referring to the rules
applicable to training compensation, reiterated that, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations
as well as in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is payable, as a general rule, for the training incurred between the ages of
12 and 21 when a player is registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the
season of the player’s 23rd birthday or when a professional is transferred between clubs of two
different associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. In case the latter
occurs, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that training compensation
will only be owed to the player’s former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club.
11. Furthermore, according to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations, professionals may be loaned to
another club on the basis of a written agreement between the professional and the clubs
concerned. Moreover, the last sentence of said provision stipulates that any such loan is subject
to the same rules as apply to the transfer of players, including the provisions on training
compensation and the solidarity mechanism.
12. Following the above, the Single Judge stressed that one of the aims of the last sentence of art. 10
par. 1 of the Regulations is to ensure that training clubs which register a player on a loan basis
also benefit from the solidarity mechanism and training compensation, provided that the relevant
prerequisites in the pertinent provisions of the Regulations are fulfilled. This approach is also in
line with the Single Judge’s well-established jurisprudence that all clubs which have in fact
contributed to the training and education of a player as from the age of 12 are, in principle,
entitled to training compensation for the timeframe that the player was effectively trained by
them.
13. In other words, the Single Judge emphasised that, in case of a permanent transfer, the nature of
the player’s registration with a club claiming training compensation, i.e. on a definite or on a
temporary basis, is in fact irrelevant with respect to the question as to whether such club would
be entitled to receive training compensation for the period of time that the player was effectively
trained by that club.
14. Having said that, the Single Judge turned his attention to the argument of the Respondent that
the Claimant is not the former club in the sense of the Regulations. In this respect, the Single
Judge wished to recall that art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 stipulates that “In the case of
subsequent transfers of the professional, training compensation will only be owed to his former
club for the time he was effectively trained by that club”. In this context, the Single Judge
acknowledged that the Claimant was not the player’s former club stricto sensu, however, the
Single Judge pointed out that, within the framework of loans and for the purposes of the rules
governing training compensation, the period of time that the player was registered with
Guadalajara and the period of time that the player was registered with the Claimant (and any
other club) on loan, should be considered as one entire timeframe. Any other interpretation would
lead to the situation in which clubs accepting a player on loan would never be entitled to receive
training compensation, even if they contribute to the training and education of players.
15. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Single Judge deemed that the Respondent’s interpretation of
art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations would clearly contravene the intention of the
legislator of the Regulations according to which all training clubs shall, in principle, be rewarded for their efforts invested in training young players, including those clubs that have accepted a
player on a temporary basis.
16. Subsequently, the Single Judge turned his attention to the argument of the Respondent that the
calculation made by the Claimant was erroneous considering that the Respondent was not a
category II club, but rather a category III club based on the “Comunicado Oficial” number CO-
00545 issued by the Portuguese FA on 12 June 2019.
17. Against such background, the Single Judge pointed out that according to the information at his
disposal in the TMS (art. 6 par. 4 of Annex 3 of the Regulations), the Respondent belonged to the
club category II on 19 September 2019, i.e. date on which it registered the player.
18. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge
concurred that it had to reject the Respondent’s arguments and decided that 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. ii. and art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations.
19. As a result, and considering art. 3 par. 1 sent. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates
that the amount payable is calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of training that
the player spent with each club, the Single Judge concluded that the effective period of time to
be considered in the matter at stake corresponds to 145 days of the 2015/2016 season, i.e. as
from 8 January 2016 until 31 May 2016.
20. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to the FIFA circular no. 1673 dated 28 May 2019 which
provides details for the calculation of training compensation as well as 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. In this respect, the Single Judge took
into account that according to the documentation on file and the information at his disposal in
the TMS, the Respondent belonged to the club category II.
21. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training
compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 23,835.62.
22. Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of
the Regulations, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to pay, in conformity with its
longstanding practice, interest of 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as
of the registration of the player with the Respondent on a definitive basis, i.e. as of 19 September
2019, until the date of effective payment.
23. In continuation, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with
art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which in the proceedings before the Dispute
Resolution Chamber relating to disputes regarding training compensation, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree
of success in the proceedings.
24. However, in this respect, the Single Judge referred to art. 18 par. 1. i. and ii. of the Procedural
Rules and concluded that no procedural costs shall be levied.
25. Thereafter, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, the Single Judge
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.
26. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
27. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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.
28. Finally, the Single Judge 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 SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE DRC
1. The claim of the Claimant, Atlético Morelia, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, CD Feirense, has to pay to the Claimant, EUR 23,835.62, as training
compensation plus 5% interest p.a. as from 19 September 2019 until the date of effective
payment.
3. 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.
4. The Respondent shall provide evidence of full payment to psdfifa@fifa.org. If applicable, the
evidence shall be translated into an official FIFA language (English, French, German, Spanish).
5. If the due amount (including all applicable interest) is not paid by the Respondent within 45 days
as from notification of the bank account details, the following consequences shall apply:
1.
2.
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 ban will be lifted immediately, and prior to its complete serving, following confirmation
that the due amount (including all applicable interest) has been received by the Claimant.
3. 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.
6. 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 DRC:
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