F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2020-2021) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 18 March 2021

Decision of the Single Judge of the

sub-committee of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed on 18 March 2021,

regarding training compensation in relation with the registration of the player C with B

BY:

Geoff Thompson (England), Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC

CLAIMANT:

A, Country A

RESPONDENT:

B, Country B

I. FACTS OF THE CASE

Player: C

Date of birth: XXXXX

Player passport: issued by the Country A Football Association on 15 July 2019

Season

Birthday

Club(s)

Registration dates

Status

13/14

12th

n/a

n/a

n/a

14/15

13th

A

2014

Amateur (Permanent)

15/16

14th

A

02/09/2015 – 01/07/2016

Amateur (Permanent)

16/17

15th

D (Country A)

02/09/2016 – 31/08/2017

Amateur (Permanent)

17/18

16th

D

01/09/2017 – 31/08/2018

Amateur (Permanent)

18/19

17th

D

01/09/2018 – 01/07/2019

Amateur (Permanent)

Sporting season: 1 September to 31 August (Country A)

Date of transfer: 16 July 2019, from D (Country A) to B (Country B) as a professional (free agent)

Claimant club: A (Country A)

Respondent club: B (Country B)

UEFA, category II (EUR 60,000 per year)

Claim and Response:

1. On 14 October 2020, the Claimant requested EUR 30,000 as training compensation “plus 5% p.a. interest as of the due date, until the date of effective payment”. The Claimant is basing his claim on the first registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent.

2. 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 it by three.

3. In this respect, the Claimant argued that the player was continuously registered with it for the entirety of his 12th, 13th and 14th birthdays seasons.

4. In support of its allegation, the Claimant referred to the player passport issued by the Country A Football Association on 15 July 2019 and to “further evidence enclosed to the present claim”, which however were not presented to FIFA.

5. The Claimant provided a document issued on 14 October 2020 by the Country A Football Association in which the following is stated:

“As we have advised FIFA in the past, by order of the Country A District Court for the District of xxx, Country A Football Association cannot ‘impose, implement or enforce, in any way, those rules, statutes or regulations adopted by the Federation Internationale de Football Association relating to the payment of transfer fees or training and development fees for professional soccer players who are free of contractual obligations to other teams (“out of contract players”).

While Country A Football Association wants to work with FIFA to comply in every way possible with its regulations, at this time, Country A Football Association cannot implement or enforce FIFA’s rules pertaining to training compensation. Thus, we feel it would be most appropriate to set the training compensation amounts for all Country A clubs at zero”

6. On 20 November 2020, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant arguing that “the Player Passport issued by the Country A Football Association does not support the alleged fact that the Player was registered with the Claimant during the seasons 2013/2014 and 2014/2015. The Player passport merely provides the information that the Player was registered with the Claimant for a time not specified any further in 2014 (a day? A week?) and from 2 September 2015 until 1 July 2016.”

7. In continuation, the Respondent referred to the “long-standing practice of both, Country A League and the Country A Football Association torefrain from seeking either training compensation or solidarity contribution pursuant to the FIFA RSTP as – from the point of view of Country A League and the Country A Football Association – the implementation of these systems constitutes i.e. an unlawful restraint of trade under Country A antitrust laws”.

8. The Respondent added that “against this background, in May 2019, before signing the Player” it had contacted the Country B Football Association and received an oral confirmation that clubs affiliated to the Country A Football Association would not claim training compensation.

9. As such, the Respondent argued the inapplicability of the training compensation system foreseen in art. 20 and Annexe 4 RSTP to clubs affiliated to the Country A Football Association in view of Country A Law.

10. The Respondent deemed that, when registering the player, it could validly rely on the “long standing praxis” of the Country A League and on the confirmation of the Country B Football Association and assume that no training compensation would be due/claimed for the player to/by his training club(s) in Country A.

11. The Respondent also indicated that although it seemed that Country A League clubs had recently started to claim solidarity contribution and training compensation, this was not the case for any other clubs affiliated to the Country A Football Association such as the Claimant.

12. The Respondent concluded that the claim should be rejected because of the common practice of said Country A Football Association affiliated clubs.

II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Applicable law: Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP): June 2019 edition.

Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (Procedural Rules): January 2021 edition.

Jurisdiction: Yes, uncontested

Admissible: Yes, uncontested

Proposed Decision:

1. The claim of the Claimant is based on the first registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent.

2. The player passport provided by the Country A Football Association indicates that the player was registered with the Claimant in 2014 as well as between 2 September 2015 and 1 July 2016.

3. The season of the player’s 12th, 13th and 14th birthday in Country A started on 1 September and ended on 31 August.

4. Since the player passport solely indicates 2014 as start and end date of the first registration time frame, it is assumed that the player was registered with the Claimant for the entire calendar year 2014.

5. No evidence was provided by the Claimant in support of the allegation that the player was registered with it for the entire duration of the season of his 12th birthday and 13th birthday, i.e. as from 1 September 2012 until 31 August 2013 and as from 1 September 2013 until 31 August 2014 (cf. art. 12 par 3 of the Procedural Rules).

6. Consequently, the career history of the player included in the player passport issued by the Country A Football Association on 15 July 2019 is the one to take into account when assessing the dispute at stake.

7. Therefore, it is determined that the player was registered with the Claimant as from 1 January 2014 until 31 December 2014; and as from 2 September 2015 until 1 July 2016, that is to say during:

a. 243 days of the season of the player’s 12th birthday, i.e. from 1 January 2014 until 31 August 2014;

b. 123 days of the season of the player’s 13th birthday, i.e. as from 1 September 2014 until 31 December 2014; and

c. 304 days of the season of the player’s 14th birthday, i.e. as from 2 September 2015 until 1 July 2016.

8. It is uncontested that the player was registered as a professional for the first time with the Respondent on 16 July 2019, during the course of the season of his 17th birthday.

9. In accordance with art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 RSTP, on registering as a professional for the first time, 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).

10. The Respondent argued the inapplicability of the training compensation system foreseen in art. 20 and Annexe 4 RSTP to clubs affiliated to the Country A Football Association in view of Country A Law adding that, when registering the player, it could validly rely on the “long standing praxis” of the Country A League as well as on the confirmation received by the Country B Football Association and assume that no training compensation would be due/claimed for the player to/by his training club(s) in Country A.

11. None of the parties submitted a copy of the above Country A law decree and no evidence was provided indicating that such law would applies to the Respondent

12. In line with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the mentioned Country A law cannot be taken into account while assessing the matter at hand.

13. In addition, it has to be stressed that the Claimant and the Respondent are clubs affiliated to member associations of FIFA and that, as such, they are bound by the Regulations of FIFA.

14. The training reward system regulated in the 2019 edition of the RSTP applies to transfer of players with an international dimension between clubs affiliated to the member associations of FIFA.

15. The transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent is an international transfer between clubs affiliated to member associations of FIFA that falls within the scope of the RSTP.

16. As a result, the training rewards system of FIFA applies to the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent.

17. In accordance with the jurisprudence of the DRC, clubs have an overall obligation to act with due diligence.

18. When registering the player, the Respondent relied on an oral confirmation allegedly received by the Country B Football Association and on a general statement of the Country A Football Association that no training compensation would have been due to the Claimant for the player.

19. However, the Respondent failed to contact the Claimant directly. By omitting to do so, the Respondent did not act with the due diligence that it is expected of a club in such circumstances.

20. Thus, the Respondent, when signing the player, could not rely in good faith on the assumption that training compensation would have not been due to any of the player’s training club(s).

21. Therefore, it is established that training compensation is due to the Claimant.

22. In accordance with art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 RSTP the training costs for players for the seasons between their 12th and 15th birthdays (i.e. four seasons) are based on the training and education costs of category 4 clubs.

23. In this regard, the training costs for category IV clubs within UEFA are set at EUR 10,000 per year.

24. Art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 RSTP stipulates that the amount payable of training compensation is calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of training that the player spent with each club.

25. As established in point II. 7. above, the player was registered with the Claimant for:

a. 243 days of the season of the player’s 12th birthday;

b. 123 days of the season of the player’s 13th birthday; and

c. 304 days of the season of the player’s 14th birthday.

26. Consequently, the Claimant is entitled to receive EUR 18,356.16, corresponding to:

a. EUR 6,657.53 for the training and education provided to the player during the course of the season of his 12th birthday;

b. EUR 3,369.86 for the training and education provided to the player during the course of the season of his 13th birthday; and

c. EUR 8,328.77 for the training and education provided to the player during the course of the season of his 14th birthday;

27. Furthermore, the Claimant requested to be awarded interest amounting to 5% per annum, “as per the due date”.

28. Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 RSTP, the Respondent has to pay, in conformity with the longstanding practice of the DRC, interest of 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of 31 days after the registration of the player with it, i.e. as from 16 August 2019 until the date of effective payment.

29. In view of all the above, the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and the Claimant is entitled to receive EUR 18,356.16 as training compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. on that amount, as from 16 August 2019 until the date of effective payment.

30. Any further claim of the Claimant is rejected.

31. 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).

32. The relevant provisions of art. 24bis RSTP are applicable to the present matter.

III. DECISION

1. The claim of the Claimant, A, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, B, has to pay to the Claimant EUR 18,356.16 as training compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. on that amount, as from 16 August 2019 until the date of effective payment.

3. Any further claim of the Claimant is rejected.

4. The Claimant shall immediately inform the Respondent of the bank account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount (including all applicable interest).

5. 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).

6. 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.

7. 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 | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777