This chapter considers the concept of training compensation. In accordance with Article 20 of the RSTP, an amount for training compensation must be paid and is due by a new club to the player’s former training clubs when a player signs his first contract as a professional and on each transfer of a professional until the end of the season of his 23rd birthday (subsequent transfer). In this chapter the main aspects related to training compensation and the applicable jurisprudence with regard to disputes relating to training compensation will be discussed. First, reference will be made to leading cases, such as the Bosman, Bernard and Wilhelmshaven cases. This chapter will also address under what conditions an amount for training compensation is not due. For example, pursuant to the RSTP, training compensation is not due if the former club terminates the player’s contract without just cause (without the right of the previous clubs), if the player is transferred to a category 4 club and in the event that a professional reacquires amateur status on being transferred. We will also note that an amount for training compensation is not due if the claim is prescript. A former club that claims for training compensation is obliged to lodge its claim within 2 years with FIFA, in the absence of which, the club waives its right to receive training compensation. Special attention will be given to the fact that within the EU/EEA, there is an extra requirement on whether or not training compensation is due. If the former club does not offer the player a contract within the EU/EEA under certain strict conditions, no amount for training compensation is payable by the new club unless the former club can justify that it is entitled to such compensation (bona fide interest). Parties often try to exclude the right of the former club(s) to receive training compensation. However, the jurisprudence is quite clear. Only the club which is officially entitled to receive training compensation may waive its right to training compensation. Any possible financial settlements concluded between the former club or the new club and the player cannot establish that the former club(s) loses its right to receive training compensation. In conclusion to this chapter, the completion of the training period will be discussed extensively. If it is evident that the player has terminated his training period before the age of 21, the player may have completed his training period as a result of which no training compensation is due as from the age that the training is completed. However, the DRC (and the CAS) are quite reluctant to establish that the training period of a player is terminated before the age of 21. Finally, we will also note that parties are free to request the DRC to reduce or increase the amount of training compensation based on this “clearly disproportionate rule”. All leading jurisprudence will be discussed extensively in relation to these subjects.
KeywordsTraining compensation Bosman Bernard Wilhelmshaven First professional contract Subsequent transfer Prescription Circumvention Offer of contract Player Passport Exceptions within EU/EEA Bona fide interest Loan Waiver of rights Completion of training period Clearly disproportionate rule
- Duval A, Van Rompuy B (2015) The compatibility of forced CAS arbitration with EU competition law: Pechstein reloaded. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2621983. Accessed 20 Apr 2016
- Monbaliu L (2014) Player contracts: training: Dundee United case and chain of entitlement. World Sports Law Rep 12:10Google Scholar