Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Training Compensation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover The Jurisprudence of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber

Part of the book series: ASSER International Sports Law Series ((ASSER))

  • 847 Accesses

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Case C-415/93 Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de football association ASBL v. Jean-Marc Bosman Royal Club Liègois SA v. Jean-Marc Bosman. SA d’Economic Mixte Sportive de l’Union Sportive du Littoral de Dunkerque, Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association ASBL, Union des Associations Européennes de Football Union des Association Européennes de Football v. Jean-Marc Bosman [1995] ECR I-4837.

  2. 2.

    With reference to an order of the United States District Court dated 28 July 1997, U.S. Soccer if of the opinion that it cannot impose, implement or enforce, in any way, those rules, statutes, or regulations adopted by FIFA relating to the payment of training and development fees.

  3. 3.

    The system of a solidarity mechanism only applies if the player is transferred before the expiry of his contract. In other words, the system of a solidarity mechanism will automatically be activated from the moment a transfer compensation needs to be paid.

  4. 4.

    This is another difference with the solidarity mechanism system. The applicability of the solidarity mechanism is not limited to the age of the player.

  5. 5.

    RSTP, 2016 edition, Annex 4, Article 2.

  6. 6.

    DRC 9 November 2004, no. 114707.

  7. 7.

    Case C-415/93 Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de football association ASBL v. Jean-Marc Bosman Royal Club Liègois SA v. Jean-Marc Bosman. SA d’Economic Mixte Sportive de l’Union Sportive du Littoral de Dunkerque, Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association ASBL, Union des Associations Européennes de Football Union des Association Européennes de Football v. Jean-Marc Bosman [1995] ECR I-4837.

  8. 8.

    Case C-325/08 Olympique Lyonnais SASP v. Olivier Bernard and Newcastle United FC [2010] ECR I-02177 (“Bernard Judgment”).

  9. 9.

    Oberlandesgericht (OLG) Bremen, 30 December 2014, 2U 67/14.

  10. 10.

    See also Weatherill 2014, p. 485.

  11. 11.

    See para 38 of the Bernard Judgment. Application of that measure would still have to be such as to ensure achievement of the objective in question and not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose.

  12. 12.

    See para 40 of the Bernard Judgment.

  13. 13.

    See para 45 of the Bernard Judgment.

  14. 14.

    See para 46 of the Bernard Judgment.

  15. 15.

    See para 47 of the Bernard Judgment.

  16. 16.

    DRC 5 December 2008, nos. 128921a and 128921b.

  17. 17.

    CAS 2009/A/1810 and 1811 SV Wilhelmshaven v. Club Atlético Excursionistas & Club Atlético River Plate, award of 5 October 2009.

  18. 18.

    This CAS award of 24 October 2013 has not been published.

  19. 19.

    Parrish and Miettinen 2008, p. 171.

  20. 20.

    CAS 2004/A/794 and CAS 2006/A/1027 Blackpool F.C. v. Club Topp Oss, award of 13 July 2006.

  21. 21.

    For the same reason, the benefit of the provision will automatically also be refused to a Turkish club.

  22. 22.

    CAS 2006/A/1125 Hertha BSC Berlin v. Stade Lavallois Mayenne FC, award of 1 December 2006.

  23. 23.

    CAS 2007/A/1338. See also CAS 2010/A/2075 Marítimo da Madeira SAD v. Coritiba Football-Club, award of 22 October 2010. In this case reference was also made to the Wilhelmshaven case (para 7.3.2). In this case, the Panel also emphasized that Article 6 para 3 of the RSTP depends on the location of the transferring clubs and not on the nationality of the players. This means that the difference made by the RSTP between a transfer within UE/EEA and outside this territory is therefore not based on the nationality of the player. Marítimo applied for the applicability of Article 45 TFEU (ex Article 39 EC Treaty), on the freedom of movement for workers within the EU. However, the Panel was clear and referred to the Wilhelmshaven case and stated that the arguments related to the freedom of movement of workers are only available to individual players and not to the club as an employer. Finally, the CAS rejected the request of Marítimo.

  24. 24.

    See also CAS 2012/A/2862 FC Girondins de Bordeaux v. FIFA (Vada II), award of 11 January 2013. This case contains an exception to Article 19 RSTP. From this case it can be derived that the exception contained in Article 19 para 2 under b RSTP also applies to players having the nationality of a member country of the EU/EEA on the understanding that the club still needs to fulfil the criteria as follows from Article 19 para 2 under b RSTP.

  25. 25.

    Another important case and legal crusade, such as the Wilhelmshaven saga, is the “Pechstein case”, which was also pending before the German Bundesgerichtshof. See Oberlandesgericht (OLG) Munich, 15 January 2015, Az. U 1110/14 Kart. In the Pechstein case, the OLG based itself on German antitrust law to challenge the validity of arbitration clauses in favour of the CAS. However, in appeal the decision of the OLG was not confirmed by the German Bundesgerichtshof (GBG). See Bundesgerichtshof, 7 June 2016, KZR 6/15. The GBG decided that Claudia Pechstein voluntarily accepted the jurisdiction of CAS and that the monopolistic situation of the ISU, the acceptance by athletes of the ISU regulations and of the arbitration clause in favour of CAS does not constitute an abuse of a dominant position in the sense of German competition law; Pechstein continued her legal crusade by appealing to the German constitutional court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) and her case is still pending before the European Court of Human Rights. See also Duval and Van Rompuy 2015.

  26. 26.

    DRC 17 August 2006, no. 86137, CAS 2005/A/383 and CAS 2004/A/691, no. 76 and no. 77.

  27. 27.

    DRC 24 November 2010, no. 1110955; See also CAS 2009/A/1810 & 1811 SV Wilhelmshaven v. Club Atlético Excursionistas & Club Atlético River Plate, award of 5 October 2009.

  28. 28.

    CAS 2010/A/2259. Furthermore, we face an unpublished DRC decision of 7 April 2011 in which the Chamber also stated that any possible dispute regarding the validity of the contractual relationship between the player and the respondent club (that was summoned to pay training compensation) could not be detrimental to the claimant’s entitlement to claim training compensation from the respondent, since the RSTP clearly defines the triggering element for the entitlement to training compensation as being the registration of the player with the respondent, but not the conclusion of a valid employment contract. According to the DRC in this matter, this was irrelevant.

  29. 29.

    DRC 17 January 2014, nos. 01141545a and 01141545b. See also DRC 17 January 2014, no. 01142929.

  30. 30.

    DRC 20 May 2011, no. 5111952.

  31. 31.

    CAS 2004/A/560. FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 3 para 1, p. 115, footnote 152.

  32. 32.

    If the transfer takes place within one association, the national regulations are applicable. In that respect it is important that according to Article 1 para 2 of the RSTP, 2016 edition, the national regulations should also provide a system to reward the clubs investing in the training and education of young players.

  33. 33.

    RSTP, 2016 edition, Annex 4, Article 1 para 2.

  34. 34.

    RSTP, 2016 edition, Annex 4, Article 3 para 1, last sentence. FIFA Circular no. 826 dated 31 October 2002.

  35. 35.

    It must be noted that the CAS decided in its award of 13 August 2014, that in the event that a player is a free agent and signs with a foreign club, this will not be considered as a transfer in the meaning of Article 2 of Annex 4 of the RSTP. See CAS 2013/A/3417 FC Metz v. NK Nafta Lendava, award of 13 August 2014.

  36. 36.

    DRC 14 September 2007, no. 971059.

  37. 37.

    DRC 1 March 2012, no. 3121474.

  38. 38.

    DRC 17 August 2012, no. 8122321.

  39. 39.

    DRC 7 June 2013, no. 06131263, and DRC 12 December 2013, no. 12132748.

  40. 40.

    CAS 2007/A/1320-1321 Feyenoord Rotterdam v. Clube de Regatas do Flamengo, award of 26 November 2006.

  41. 41.

    See FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 2, para 2, p. 11. Semi-professionals should also be considered as professionals if they comply with the requirements. See also CAS 2013/A/3207 Tout Puissant Mazembe v. Alain Kaluyituka Dioko & Al Ahli SC, award of 31 March 2014. In this award it was confirmed that oral arrangements between a club and a player, although possibly admissible by and in conformity with local labour law, are not in line with the mandatory nature of the conditions of Article 2 para 2 RSTP.

  42. 42.

    FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 2 para 2, p. 12.

  43. 43.

    DRC 22 July 2004, no. 74557.

  44. 44.

    DRC 4 February 2005, nos. 25633a and 25633b.

  45. 45.

    DRC 28 July 2005, no. 75142.

  46. 46.

    DRC 2 November 2005, no. 115324.

  47. 47.

    In the previously mentioned DRC decision of 28 July 2005, no. 75142, the Chamber decided that the “scholarship agreement” concerned had to be seen as an amateur contract.

  48. 48.

    DRC 17 August 2006, no. 86137.

  49. 49.

    This was also confirmed by the CAS, see CAS 2005/A/383.

  50. 50.

    DRC 8 June 2007, no. 67709.

  51. 51.

    DRC 28 September 2007, no. 97782. See also DRC 30 November 2007, no. 117546.

  52. 52.

    DRC 3 July 2008, no. 78228. See also DRC 3 July 2008, no. 78229.

  53. 53.

    See the DRC decision of 9 January 2009, the Chamber also had to determine the player’s status. The DRC established that the sole relevant criteria to determine a player’s status are, on the one hand, the fact that the player has a written contract and, on the other hand, the player’s remuneration. In that respect, the DRC deemed it fundamental to emphasize that for the appreciation of a player’s status, the legal nature or the designation of the agreement between a club and a player, is irrelevant. In addition, the Chamber strongly affirmed that the mention of a player’s status on a Player Passport issued by the federation of the club for which he was registered neither constitutes a relevant criterion; DRC 9 January 2009, no. 191126.

  54. 54.

    DRC 20 May 2011, no. 5111131c. See also nos. 5111131a and 5111131b.

  55. 55.

    In its case of 10 August 2011, the DRC was of the firm opinion that it was beyond a doubt that the player was in fact paid more for his footballing activity. The Chamber decided that the player’s remuneration as per the criteria set out in Article 2 para 2 of the RSTP constitute the decisive factor in determining the status of the player and that the legal nature or the designation of the contract is of no relevance in this respect. Also the second element, the written contract, was met; See DRC 10 August 2011, no. 8112849.

  56. 56.

    DRC 20 July 2012, no. 7121208.

  57. 57.

    DRC 30 August 2013, no. 08131673.

  58. 58.

    DRC 17 January 2014, nos. 01141545a and 01141545b.

  59. 59.

    DRC 27 February 2014, nos. 02142877a and 02142877b. See also DRC 27 February 2014, no. 02142877.

  60. 60.

    CAS 2004/A/691 FC Barcelona SAD v. Manchester United FC, award of 9 February 2005. See also FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 2 para 2, p. 12.

  61. 61.

    CAS 2005/A/838 FC Girondins de Bordeaux v. Lyngby Boldklub & Lundtofte Boldklub, award of 8 August 2005.

  62. 62.

    In a case before the CAS between the club Guarani and the club FC St. Gallen AG of 2005, the CAS Panel had to deal with the status of a minor player, whose parents had signed an employment contract on his behalf. The CAS Panel found in this case that the club’s payment of USD 16,500 to the player’s parents did not produce a professional sports relationship, due to the fact that according to the agreement between the club and the player, this amount was paid to the player’s parents in consideration of the registration of the player with the club and the economic rights related to any future transfer of the player. Therefore, the fact that the club did not pay this money to the player as “a salary” was the decisive criterion for the amateur status of the player; CAS 2005/A/878 Club Guarani v. G. & Club FC St. Gallen AG, award of 20 March 2006.

  63. 63.

    CAS 2006/A/1027 Blackpool F.C. v. Club Top Oss, award of 13 July 2006.

  64. 64.

    CAS 2007/A/1177, award of 28 May 2007.

  65. 65.

    CAS 2007/A/1207 Parma F.C. v. Portsmouth City F.C., award of 21 August 2007. See also CAS 2007/A/1213 U.S. Fiorenzuola 1922 v. Portsmouth City F.C., award of 21 August 2007.

  66. 66.

    TAS 2009/A/1895.

  67. 67.

    This was also established in CAS 2009/A/1810 and CAS 2009/A/1811 SV Wilhelmshaven v. Club Atlético Excursionistas & Club Atlético River Plate, award of 5 October 2009 (and later in TAS 2009/A/1895 Le Mans Union Club 72 c. Club Olympique de Bamako, award of 6 May 2010).

  68. 68.

    CAS 2009/A/1810 and 1811 SV Wilhelmshaven v. Club Atlético Excursionistas & Club Atlético River Plate, award of 5 October 2009.

  69. 69.

    CAS 2009/A/1781 FC Siad Most v. Clube Esportivo Bento Gonçalves, award of 12 October 2009.

  70. 70.

    CAS 2010/A/2069 Galatasaray A.S. v. Aachener TSV Alemannia F.C., award of 16 August 2010.

  71. 71.

    CAS 2012/A/2711/2712/2713 Hamrun Spartans v. AFC/Quick Boys/Almere City, award of 10 July 2012.

  72. 72.

    See CAS 2010/A/2069 Galatasaray A.S. v. Aachener TSV Alemannia F.C., award of 16 August 2010.

  73. 73.

    DRC 22 July 2004, no. 74557.

  74. 74.

    DRC 28 July 2005, no. 75142.

  75. 75.

    DRC 21 February 2006, no. 26135.

  76. 76.

    DRC 17 August 2006, no. 86137; CAS 2005/A/383 and CAS 2004/A/691 FC Barcelona SAD v. Manchester United FC, award of 9 February 2005; See also DRC 9 January 2009, no. 191126.

  77. 77.

    RSTP, 2016 edition, Annex 4, Article 3 para 1.

  78. 78.

    RSTP, 2016 edition, Annex 4, Article 3 para 1.

  79. 79.

    DRC 15 March 2013, no. 03132589.

  80. 80.

    DRC 20 May 2011, no. 5111952. See also CAS 2013/A/3303 Bradford City Football Club v. Falkirk Football Club, award of 14 March 2014.

  81. 81.

    DRC 10 April 2015, no. 04152285. The DRC referred to previous decisions by FIFA’s decision-making bodies relating to this particular issue as well as to the CAS Award 2013/A/3425. The CAS established that a club is an acknowledged sporting entity, which is formed by a combined set of elements that constitute its image. In particular, the DRC fully adopted the reasoning of the Sole Arbitrator in the aforementioned award that reads as follows: “The Sole Arbitrator highlights that the decisions that had dealt with the question of the succession of a sporting club in front of the CAS (CAS 2007/A/1355; TAS 2011/A/2614; TAS 2011/A/2646; TAS 2012/A/2778) and in front of FIFA’s decision making bodies (…), have established that, on the one side, a club is a sporting entity identifiable by itself that, as a general rule, transcends the legal entities which operate it. Thus, the obligations acquired by any of the entities in charge of its administration in relation with its activity must be respected; and on the other side, that the identity of a club is constituted by elements such as its name, colours, fans, history, sporting achievements, shield, trophies, stadium, roster of players, historic figures, etc. that allow it to distinguish from all the other clubs. Hence, the prevalence of the continuity and permanence in time of the sporting institution in front of the entity that manages it has been recognised, even when dealing with the change of management companies completely different from themselves.” The DRC is of the opinion that the new club’s argument that it had not acquired any rights or assets of the old club cannot be upheld because the old and the new club competed in the A league under the name of club C, the logo of club C did not change after the change of license, the old and the new club held their local matches in the same stadium and sixteen players of the old club continued to play for club C after the relevant change of licence. The DRC concluded that there are sufficient elements to establish that club C has been the same club throughout its history, despite the change of the management company behind the operation of the team and by using the same name, logo, stadium and players, it is evident that the new club had the intention to maintain the identity and image of club C in order to be considered as the same club.

  82. 82.

    See also CAS 2012/A/2919 FC Seoul v. Newcastle Jets FC, award of 24 September 2013.

  83. 83.

    In the case before the CAS between Schalke and FC Twente, the Panel stated with reference to the deadline of 30 days in the aforementioned Article, that Article 102 para 2 of the Swiss Code of Obligations applied, and that interest is due by the debtor even in the absence of the creditor’s specific warning (reference was also made to CAS 2003/O469, CAS 2003/O/500 and CAS 2003/O/506). See CAS 2004/A/696 Schalke 04 v. FC Twente, award of 2 March 2005.

  84. 84.

    RSTP, 2016 edition, Article 7. It is furthermore stipulated that if a birthday falls between seasons, the player will be listed in the Player Passport for the club for which he was registered in the season following his birthday.

  85. 85.

    DRC 15 February 2008, no. 28428.

  86. 86.

    DRC 20 May 2011, no. 511126.

  87. 87.

    DRC 30 August 2013, no. 08121946.

  88. 88.

    As with the system of a solidarity mechanism, under the former editions before 2012, it must be noted that the “18-month term” was not equal to the prescription term of two years. For example, if a club made itself known in the 19th month after the registration of its former player, it was not too late and did not forfeit its claim for training compensation. Following the FIFA Commentary, if an association claims training compensation and a former club entitled to training compensation then appears, the claim of the association will (obviously) lose all effect. However, in the previous 2001 edition of the RSTP, this 18-month term was equal to the prescribed term of 24 months. FIFA modified this Article to prevent a situation where the association had to wait for 24 months, whereupon its claim would be prescript. Associations therefore have six months to make themselves known and if a club makes itself known after the 18th month after the registration of its former player, the claim of the club will then get priority above the right of the association after all. See also FIFA Commentary, Annex 4, explanation Article 3, p. 116.

  89. 89.

    FIFA Commentary, Annex 4, explanation Article 3 para 3, p. 116, footnote 155.

  90. 90.

    DRC 2 November 2007, no. 117526.

  91. 91.

    According to some national regulations, such as the regulations of the Royal Netherlands Football Association, it does not follow that a loan on a national level is subject to a national system of training compensation.

  92. 92.

    DRC 24 March 2004, no. 34368.

  93. 93.

    DRC 24 March 2004, no. 34432.

  94. 94.

    CAS 2008/A/1705 Grasshopper v. Alianza Lima, award of 18 June 2009. This was also confirmed in CAS 2013/A/3119 Dundee United FC v. Club Atletico Vélez Sarsfield, award of 20 November 2013.

  95. 95.

    DRC 23 March 2006, no. 36928.

  96. 96.

    DRC 16 July 2009, no. 79612.

  97. 97.

    DRC 29 September 2010, no. 10101596.

  98. 98.

    See DRC 7 September 2011, no. 911668.

  99. 99.

    DRC 1 March 2012, no. 3121474.

  100. 100.

    DRC 17 August 2012, no. 8122321.

  101. 101.

    See also DRC 7 June 2013, no. 06131263, and DRC 12 December 2013, no. 12132748.

  102. 102.

    DRC 1 March 2012, no. 3121474.

  103. 103.

    See also DRC 17 August 2012, no. 8122321, and DRC 7 June 2013, no. 06131263.

  104. 104.

    DRC 27 February 2014, no. 02141750. See also DRC 10 February 2015, no. 0215699.

  105. 105.

    CAS 2012/A/2908 Panionios GSS FC v. Parná Clube, award of 9 April 2013.

  106. 106.

    CAS 2007/A/1320-1321 Feyenoord Rotterdam v. Clube de Regatas do Flamengo, award of 26 November 2006.

  107. 107.

    CAS 2013/A/3119 Dundee United FC v. Club Atletico Vélez Sarsfield, award of 20 November 2013.

  108. 108.

    DRC 1 March 2012, no. 3121474. DRC 17 August 2012, no. 8122321.

  109. 109.

    CAS 2014/A/3620 Us Città di Palermo v. Club Atlético Talleres de Córdoba, award of 19 January 2015.

  110. 110.

    CAS 2014/A/3710 Bologna FC 1909 S.p.A. v. FC Barcelona, award of 22 April 2015.

  111. 111.

    Monbaliu 2014.

  112. 112.

    If the player breaches his employment contract without just cause, the new club obviously has to pay compensation. FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 1 para 1, p. 112.

  113. 113.

    Moreover, the DRC stressed that, as a general rule, on the occasion of a player's first transfer as a professional, the player's new club has to pay training compensation to the player's former club not only for the period of time during which the player was registered with the former club as a professional, but also for the seasons, if any, during which the player was trained by the former club as an amateur player, if the player is not registered with a third club in between. In this respect, the DRC referred to the constant and continuous jurisprudence of the DRC and of the CAS (e.g. CAS 20051A/891, CAS 20051A/894).

  114. 114.

    DRC 30 November 2007, no. 117698.

  115. 115.

    DRC 17 January 2014, no. 01143151.

  116. 116.

    See also DRC 17 January 2014, no. 01143038 and no. 01143151.

  117. 117.

    DRC 13 December 2013, no. 121311102.

  118. 118.

    DRC 30 November 2007, no. 117921. See also DRC 23 February 2007, no. 27395.

  119. 119.

    See SRC 10 August 2007, no. 87908. See also DRC 30 November 2007, no. 117921.

  120. 120.

    According to Article 3 para 2 of the RSTP, 2016 edition, a new club will pay training compensation in accordance with Article 20 of the RSTP, 2016 edition. See for example DRC 24 October 2011, no. 1011707, and 13 December 2013, no. 12131102.

  121. 121.

    DRC 13 December 2013, no. 121311102.

  122. 122.

    DRC 2 November 2007, no. 117526.

  123. 123.

    DRC 21 February 2006, no. 26595. See also DRC 9 November 2004, no. 114363 and no. 114312, DRC 13 June 2008, no. 3830, DRC 31 July 2008, no. 78026, DRC 9 January 2009, no. 19512, DRC 21 February 2006, no. 26595, DRC 9 November 2004, no. 114312 and no. 114363. See DRC 12 March 2009, no. 39328. See also CAS 2004/A/785 T. v. L., award of 30 August 2005. In the latter case, the CAS decided, that when negotiating the transfer agreement, there was a clear understanding between the parties that all financial aspects of the transfer were validly and fully agreed upon. If the appellant had wanted to reserve its right to claim a compensation, it would have had to address such issue with the respondent. Instead, the appellant agreed to a “free transfer”, reserving only the right to an additional fee of 25 % to be paid in case of another transfer to a third club. Against this background, the panel’s interpretation of the transfer agreement concluded by the parties in November 2002 was that the appellant was content to transfer the player G. to the respondent on the stated terms: through such transfer the appellant was indeed released from its obligation to pay a considerable sum of money, i.e. the second sign-on fee and the salary due to the player up to the end of his contract, as well as the applicable social charges. By agreeing to a free transfer without making any reservation for an additional compensation for training, the appellant effectively, at least towards the respondent, waived any right to claim an additional payment.

  124. 124.

    DRC 8 June 2007, no. 67499.

  125. 125.

    DRC 27 February 2013, no. 0213936. See also DRC 22 July 2010, no. 7101140. In the latter case, the Chamber considered that respondents 1 and 2 tried to circumvent the application of the provisions regarding the payment of training compensation by first registering the player as a professional with the first respondent, which is a category 4 club—thus with the aim to avoid payment of any training compensation—before concluding one, or several, loan agreements in favour of the second respondent, which is a category 3 club. In the CAS 2014/A/3536 Racing Club Asociación Civil v. FIFA, award of 5 May 2015, the CAS Panel had to deal with the question whether sanctions had to be imposed in relation to the use of TMS for a bridge transfer.

  126. 126.

    DRC 31 October 2013, no. 10131359.

  127. 127.

    See also DRC 20 August 2014, no. 08142533. In this case the player was registered as a professional with the involved club for only 4 days.

  128. 128.

    CAS 2011/A/2544 FK Ventspils v. FIFA & FC Stefan cel Mare, award of 10 February 2012.

  129. 129.

    See DRC 20 August 2014, no. 08142533. See also CAS 2011/A/2477 Spartak Moscow v. RFU & FC Rostov, award of 29 October 2012. In the latter case, the CAS Panel emphasized that Articles 15 and 22 of the RSTP do not provide for any rules in case of such circumvention by transferring a player through a club in a lower division. See also CAS 2012/A/2733, Stichting Heracles Almelo v. FC Flora Tallinn, award of 27 November 2012.

  130. 130.

    DRC 27 February 2014, nos. 02142877a and 02142877b. See also DRC 27 February 2014, no. 02142877.

  131. 131.

    CAS 2009/A/1757 MTK Budapest v. FC Internazionale Milano S.p.A., award of 30 July 2009. See DRC 31 October 2008, no. 108806.

  132. 132.

    DRC 16 April 2009, no. 49055. See also DRC 16 April 2009, no. 49444.

  133. 133.

    DRC 26 October 2006, no. 106421.

  134. 134.

    CAS 2012/A/2919 FC Seoul v. Newcastle Jets FC, award of 24 September 2013.

  135. 135.

    CAS 2012/A/2919 FC Seoul v. Newcastle Jets FC, award of 24 September 2013.

  136. 136.

    DRC 7 April 2011, no. 411375.

  137. 137.

    According to FIFA Circular no. 769 dated 24 August 2001. See also DRC 19 February 2009, no. 29540 and DRC 31 October 2008, no. 108806. FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 6, p. 125, footnote 176.

  138. 138.

    Vice versa, this means, following the RSTP, that if a player transfers from or to a club that is situated outside the EU/EEA, this exception is not applicable and the club is not obliged to offer a contract in order to maintain its right for training compensation.

  139. 139.

    RSTP, 2016 edition, Annex 4, Article 6 para 3.

  140. 140.

    RSTP, 2016 edition, Annex 4, Article 6 para 3.

  141. 141.

    DRC 17 January 2014, nos. 01141545a and 01141545b.

  142. 142.

    DRC 27 April 2007, no. 4732. See also DRC 12 January 2007, no. 17897.

  143. 143.

    CAS 2009/A/1810 and 1811 SV Wilhelmshaven v. Club Atlético Excursionistas & Club Atlético River Plate, award of 5 October 2009.

  144. 144.

    CAS 2009/A/1810 and 1811 SV Wilhelmshaven v. Club Atlético Excursionistas & Club Atlético River Plate, award of 5 October 2009.

  145. 145.

    CAS 2010/A/2069 Galatasaray and Alemannia, award of 16 August 2010.

  146. 146.

    CAS 2010/A/2075 Marítimo da Madeira SAD and Coritiba Footballclub, award of 2010.

  147. 147.

    Despite the fact that the abovementioned exception is only applicable to players moving from one association to another within the territory of the EU/EEA, Marítimo referred to the “Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Consultation between the Federative Republic of Brazil and the Portuguese Republic”, and specifically to Article 12, in which it was stated that Brazilian nationals in Portugal and Portuguese nationals in Brazil enjoy the same rights. Therefore, Brazilian players, as workers, had to benefit from Article 6 para 3 of the RSTP. Coritiba was of the opinion that in the Midtjylland case (CAS 2008/A/1485 FC Midtjylland A/S v. FIFA, award of 6 March 2009), the Panel refused to directly apply the provision of an international treaty signed between several African countries and the European Community, the so-called Cotonou Agreement, over the RSTP. The Panel considered, as opposed by Coritiba, that in the present case there was neither evidence that the player had submitted an application to obtain the equal status referred to in the Treaty nor that the player was provided with an equal status.

  148. 148.

    The applicability of Article 6 para 3 of Annex 4 of the RSTP was also refused to a Brazilian player being transferred from a Brazilian club in the case CAS 2010/A/2075 Marítimo da Madeira SAD and Coritiba Footballclub, award of 2010, although the new club in which the player was being transferred was Portuguese and despite the provisions of the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Consultation between the Federative Republic of Brazil and the Portuguese Republic granting equal treatment between workers of both nationalities.

  149. 149.

    CAS 2013/A/3119 Dundee United FC v. Club Atletico Vélez Sarsfield, award of 20 November 2013. See also CAS 2009/A/1810 and 1811 SV Wilhelmshaven v. Club Atlético Excursionistas & Club Atlético River Plate, award of 5 October 2009, CAS 2010/A/2069 and CAS 2010/A/2075 Marítimo da Madeira SAD and Coritiba Footballclub, award of 2010.

  150. 150.

    A club will not forfeit its entitlement to claim training compensation and is not obliged to make a contract offer due to its sanctioning with demotion for its financial situation. See DRC 20 August 2014, no. 0814388.

  151. 151.

    FIFA Commentary, Annex 4, explanation Article 6 para 3, p. 125.

  152. 152.

    DRC 27 April 2006, no. 461185.

  153. 153.

    As said earlier and to avoid any misunderstanding, it is only an obligation for the former club to offer a contract and thus not for claiming clubs where the player had played before.

  154. 154.

    DRC 8 June 2007, no. 6754.

  155. 155.

    This also follows from the FIFA Commentary, Annex 4, explanation Article 6 para 3, p. 125.

  156. 156.

    DRC 16 April 2009, no. 49444.

  157. 157.

    In a DRC decision of 30 November 2007, no. 117221, the DRC deemed it appropriate to clarify that the written offer made via registered mail is not the only possible evidence for a club to document the relevant offer and thus its entitlement to training compensation. If the club is in a position to prove by other means that an offer of at least equivalent value to the current contract was actually made to the player in due time, this must be accepted and cannot just be dismissed by the fact that it was not a registered letter. In another DRC decision of 18 June 2009, no. 69816, the DRC emphasized that—in exceptional circumstances like the present case—the written offer made via registered mail is not the only option for clubs to make an offer in accordance with Article 6 para 3 of Annex 4 of the RSTP. If the training club can prove unambiguously by other means that an offer equivalent to the current contract was made to the player in due time, the training club’s arguments cannot be dismissed on the grounds of said article.

  158. 158.

    Nowadays we note that more and more amateur clubs do conclude contracts with their players. A purely amateur club is not in the position to offer a contract to its player.

  159. 159.

    DRC 8 June 2007, no. 6754.

  160. 160.

    DRC 1 February 2012, no. 2122003.

  161. 161.

    CAS 2005/A/838 FC Girondins de Bordeaux v. Lyngby Boldklub & Lundtofte Boldklub, award of 8 August 2005.

  162. 162.

    CAS 2006/A/1177 Aston Villa FC and B.93 Copenhagen, award of 28 May 2007. See also CAS 2004/A/785 T. v. L., award of 30 August 2005, to which case the DRC referred in its decision of 12 March 2009, no. 39328.

  163. 163.

    CAS 2006/A/1152 ADO Den Haag and Newcastle United FC, award of 7 February 2007.

  164. 164.

    CAS 2008/A/1521 VfB Admira Wacker Modling v. A.C. Pistoiese S.p.A., award of 12 December 2008.

  165. 165.

    CAS 2006/A/1152 ADO Den Haag and Newcastle United FC, award of 7 February 2007. It is also interesting to emphasize the fact that according to the CAS it is far from being evident and certain that the exercising of an option of unilateral renewal of a contract could be seen as an offer in writing. In its case of 30 July 2009, the CAS decided that even if the exercising of an option of unilateral renewal of a contract could be seen as an offer in writing, the club would have had to deliver the statement of unilateral renewal to the player via registered mail at least 60 days before the expiry of the current contract. This was not done in the specific matter at hand; See CAS 2008/A/1533, award of 30 July 2009. See also CAS 2014/A/3486 MFK Dubnica v. FC Parma, award of 2 February 2015.

  166. 166.

    Despite the fact that it is not absolutely sure what the CAS would decide, also due to the “Stare Decisis-principle”, it would be highly recommended that claiming training clubs do not take any risk on this point. In order to secure their rights for training compensation in future and in order to avoid any misunderstanding in this respect, these clubs should, insofar as they are financially able to do so, offer contracts to their high level amateur players whose stars they expect to rise in future. In that respect, small contracts can be offered since there are no prerequisites laid down in the RSTP, 2016 edition, regarding any minimum salary amounts.

  167. 167.

    DRC 10 August 2007, no. 87277.

  168. 168.

    DRC 30 November 2007, no. 117221.

  169. 169.

    DRC 18 June 2009, no. 69816.

  170. 170.

    DRC 10 August 2011, no. 8112849.

  171. 171.

    DRC 24 October 2011, no. 1011322.

  172. 172.

    CAS 2011/A/2682 Udinese Calcio S.p.A. v. Helsingborgs IF, award of 25 July 2012.

  173. 173.

    In an unpublished case of 8 August 2011, the PSC decided that information contained in emails are generally not considered as legally binding.

  174. 174.

    DRC 23 January 2013, no. 01132516.

  175. 175.

    DRC 27 February 2013, no. 02132668.

  176. 176.

    See also CAS 2010/A/2316 Stoke City FC v. Brescia Calcio S.p.A., award of 6 December 2011. In this case it was decided by the CAS that a registered letter was not a strict prerequisite (however, the 60-day condition was a prerequisite). See also CAS 2014/A/3486 MFK Dubnica v. FC Parma, award of 2 February 2015.

  177. 177.

    As mentioned previously, a club will also not forfeit its entitlement to claim training compensation and is not obliged to make a contract offer due to it having been sanctioned with demotion for its financial situation. See DRC 20 August 2014, no. 0814388.

  178. 178.

    DRC 9 November 2004, no. 114549.

  179. 179.

    DRC 27 April 2006, no. 461185.

  180. 180.

    DRC 27 April 2007, no. 4732. See also DRC 12 January 2007, no. 17897. In this case the DRC considered that the obligation of a club having offered the player a contract when claiming training compensation is a requirement that only needs to be met within the EU/EEA. Since the training club is not located within the EU/EEA, the DRC concluded that the aforementioned provision does not apply in the case at hand.

  181. 181.

    DRC 28 September 2007, no. 97349. In a DRC decision of 10 August 2007, the DRC stressed that the regulations do not oblige a training club to offer the player better contractual conditions than those possibly put forward by another club; DRC 10 August 2007, no. 87277.

  182. 182.

    In a DRC decision of 28 September 2007, the Chamber had to decide on whether an official offer had been done by the club as a result of which training compensation was due. The DRC emphasized that in accordance with Article 6 para 3 of Annex 4 RSTP, if the former club does not offer the player a contract, no training compensation is payable unless the former club can justify that it is entitled to such compensation. The Chamber deemed that such provision, in general, applies to circumstances under which a club is in the position to offer a professional contract to a player. The DRC acknowledged that it is uncontested by both the clubs that no contract was offered to the player by the claimant prior to the expiry of the player's contract relating to the 2004/2005 season. Finally, the DRC pointed out once more that the club had, prior to the expiry of the relevant federal contract for the 2004/2005 season, not offered a further contract to the player although it had thus been in a position to do so. Therefore, no training compensation was due; See DRC 28 September 2007, no. 97782. See also DRC 8 June 2007, no. 6754.

  183. 183.

    DRC 16 April 2009, no. 49444.

  184. 184.

    DRC 21 May 2010, no. 510425.

  185. 185.

    DRC 22 July 2010, no. 710567.

  186. 186.

    DRC 15 June 2011, no. 6113041.

  187. 187.

    DRC 28 September 2007, no. 97349. In a DRC decision of 10 August 2007, the DRC stressed that the regulations do not oblige a training club to offer the player better contractual conditions than those possibly put forward by another club; DRC 10 August 2007, no. 87277.

  188. 188.

    DRC 23 January 2013, no. 01132516.

  189. 189.

    DRC 27 February 2014, no. 02141750.

  190. 190.

    CAS 2014/A/3710 Bologna FC 1909 S.p.A. v. FC Barcelona, award of 22 April 2015.

  191. 191.

    CAS 2008/A/1521 VfB Admira Wacker Modling v. A.C. Pistoiese S.p.A., award of 12 December 2008.

  192. 192.

    CAS 2012/A/2968 Konyaspor Kulübü Dernegi v. Ituano Futebol Clube, award of 23 July 2013.

  193. 193.

    CAS 2009/A/1757 MTK Budapest v. FC Internazionale Milano S.p.A., award of 30 July 2009.

  194. 194.

    CAS 2006/A/1181 FC Metz v. FC Ferencvarosi, award of 14 May 2007.

  195. 195.

    In the case of CAS 2010/A/2316, it was decided in an obiter dictum that if the training club does not offer a new professional contract in writing to one of its professional players whose contract is expiring, and such player signs a new professional contract with another club, the training club should not be entitled to training compensation. In the CAS case between FC Nitra and FC Banik, the CAS decided that training compensation must be granted whenever it appears contrary to common sense to conclude that the training club was not interested in keeping the services of the player. See CAS 2012/A/2990 FC Nitra v. FC Banik Ostrava, award of 26 April 2013.

  196. 196.

    CAS 2011/A/2682 Udinese Calcio S.p.A. v. Helsingborgs IF, award of 25 July 2012.

  197. 197.

    See also in this regard CAS 2010/A/2316 Stoke City FC v. Brescia Calcio S.p.A., award of 6 December 2011. From this case it can be derived that a registered letter was not a strict prerequisite.

  198. 198.

    CAS 2012/A/2890 FC Nitra v. FC Banik Ostrava, award of 26 April 2013.

  199. 199.

    DRC 21 May 2010, no. 510425. See also DRC 22 July 2010, no. 710567.

  200. 200.

    DRC 9 November 2004, no. 114461.

  201. 201.

    DRC 9 November 2004, no. 114461.

  202. 202.

    CAS 2005/A/811 Galatasaray SK v. MSV Duisburg GmbH & Co. KgaA, award of 19 December 2005.

  203. 203.

    DRC 4 February 2005, no. 25528a.

  204. 204.

    DRC 2 November 2005, no. 115377. For the sake of good order, the DRC emphasized in this decision that Article 5 para 5 of the FIFA Regulations governing the Application of the FIFA Regulations should not be taken into consideration in the present matter, since the case did not involve two clubs in the EU/EEA area.

  205. 205.

    DRC 18 August 2006, no. 86130B. It must be noted that the player did not sign the covenant. However, irrespective of this, the DRC decided that the former club had not waived its right.

  206. 206.

    DRC 26 October 2006, no. 106574.

  207. 207.

    DRC 8 June 2007, no. 67516. In a DRC decision of 29 September 2008, no. 9101245, the respondent also denied the claimant’s entitlement to receive any training compensation, because the claimant decided not to receive any refund for expenses invested in the player’s development since it encircled the answer “No” to the question on whether the club wanted to receive a refund, on a form entitled “Clearance”. The DRC, however, decided that in accordance with the freedom of contract and the clear wording of the “Clearance” document, i.e. the expression “Refund of expenses invested in the player’s development”, it was to be considered that the claimant had renounced its right to receive training compensation.

  208. 208.

    DRC 13 June 2008, no. 68836a.

  209. 209.

    DRC 9 January 2009, no. 19512. DRC 21 February 2006, no. 26595, DRC 9 November 2004, nos. 114363 and 114312, DRC 13 June 2008, no. 3830, DRC 31 July 2008, no. 78026, DRC 21 February 2006, no. 26595, DRC 9 November 2004, nos. 114312 and 114363. See also DRC 12 March 2009, no. 39328. See also CAS 2004/A/785 T. v. L., award of 30 August 2005. In the latter case, the CAS decided that when negotiating the transfer agreement, there was a clear understanding between the parties that all financial aspects of the transfer were validly and fully agreed upon. If the appellant had wanted to reserve its right to claim a compensation, it would have had to address such issue with the respondent. Instead, the appellant agreed to a “free transfer”, reserving only the right to an additional fee of 25 % to be paid in case of another transfer to a third club. Against this background, the panel’s interpretation of the transfer agreement concluded by the parties in November 2002 was that the appellant was content to transfer player G. to the respondent on the stated terms: through such transfer the appellant was indeed released from its obligation to pay a considerable sum of money, i.e. the second sign-on fee and the salary due to the player up to the end of his contract, as well as the applicable social charges. By agreeing to a free transfer without making any reservation for an additional compensation for training, the appellant effectively waived, at least towards the respondent, any right to claim an additional payment. See also DRC 8 June 2007, no. 67499.

  210. 210.

    DRC 21 May 2010, no. 510425.

  211. 211.

    DRC 26 October 2006, no. 106574.

  212. 212.

    DRC 29 September 2010, no. 910245.

  213. 213.

    DRC 20 May 2011, no. 5111860.

  214. 214.

    DRC 7 September 2011, no. 9112744.

  215. 215.

    DRC 2 November 2007, no. 1171309.

  216. 216.

    DRC 28 September 2007, no. 9719.

  217. 217.

    DRC 24 November 2011, no. 11113518.

  218. 218.

    DRC 12 June 2012, no. 6122546.

  219. 219.

    See also DRC 23 July 2015, no. 07150005.

  220. 220.

    DRC 26 April 2012, no. 412107.

  221. 221.

    DRC 21 September 2012, no. 9122324.

  222. 222.

    CAS 2005/A/811 Galatasaray SK v. MSV Duisburg GmbH & Co. KgaA, award of 19 December 2005.

  223. 223.

    CAS 2009/A/1919 Club Salernitana Calcio 1919 S.p.A. v. Club Atlético River Plate & Brian Cesar Costa, award of 7 May 2010.

  224. 224.

    CAS 2009 Club Salernitana Calcio 1919, S.p.A. v. Club Atlético River Plate & Brian Cesar Costa, award of 7 May 2010.

  225. 225.

    CAS 2013/A/3119 Dundee United FC v. Club Atletico Vélez Sarsfield, award of 20 November 2013; See also CAS 2009/A/1810 and 1811 SV Wilhelmshaven v. Club Atlético Excursionistas & Club Atlético River Plate, award of 5 October 2009; CAS 2010/A/2069 Galatasaray A.S. v. Aachener TSV Alemannia F.C., award of 16 August 2010; CAS 2010/A/2075 Marítimo da Madeira SAD and Coritiba Footballclub, award of 2010.

  226. 226.

    See also FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 1, p. 112, footnote 150.

  227. 227.

    RSTP, 2016 edition, Annex 4, Article 4 para 2. The training costs and the categorization of clubs are updated at the end of every calendar year.

  228. 228.

    FIFA Circulars no. 1537 dated 3 May 2016.

  229. 229.

    See also FIFA Circular no. 1190 dated 20 May 2009.

  230. 230.

    See also FIFA Circular no. 1437 dated 23 July 2014.

  231. 231.

    DRC 30 August 2013, no. 08131673, DRC 30 August 2013, no. 08121946, and DRC 1 February 2012, no. 2122003. See CAS 2014/A/3500 FC Hradec Kralove v. Genoa Cricket and Football Club, award of 23 September 2014.

  232. 232.

    FIFA Circular no. 1437 dated 23 July 2014.

  233. 233.

    CAS 2014/A/3652 KRC Genk c. LOSC Lille Métropole, award of 5 June 2015. See also CAS 2006/A/1181 FC Metz v. FC Ferencvarosi, award of 14 May 2007, from which award the prohibition of issuing rules having retrospective effect follows.

  234. 234.

    DRC 1 March 2012, no. 3121501. See also DRC 2 September 2015, no. 0915471 from which it also follows that it must be proven that the association had committed a manifest error of assessment when categorising the club.

  235. 235.

    DRC 30 August 2013, no. 08131149.

  236. 236.

    CAS 2009/A/1810 and 1811 SV Wilhelmshaven v. Club Atlético Excursionistas & Club Atlético River Plate, award of 5 October 2009. See also the decision of the DRC of 26 November 2015, no. 1115310 from which it follows that the relevant club category is the one at the moment that the player was registered with the new club.

  237. 237.

    See CAS 2008/A/1705 and CAS 2013/A/3119 Dundee United FC v. Club Atletico Vélez Sarsfield, award of 20 November 2013.

  238. 238.

    RSTP, 2016 edition, Annex 4, Article 3 para 1; CAS 2004/A/560; FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 3 para 1, p. 115, footnote 152.

  239. 239.

    RSTP, 2016 edition, Annex 4, Article 5 para 2.

  240. 240.

    DRC 20 May 2011, no. 5111952, and CAS 2004/A/560. See also FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 3 para 1, p. 115, footnote 152.

  241. 241.

    CAS 2006/A/1027 Blackpool F.C. v. Club Top Oss, award of 13 July 2006.

  242. 242.

    Also following the FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 1 para 1, p. 112, footnote 149, the CAS decided in several cases on this issue. CAS 2003/O/527. See also CAS 2004/A/560; FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 3 para 1, p. 115, footnote 153. See also CAS 2004/A/594.

  243. 243.

    For the provisions regarding solidarity contribution it is irrelevant whether a particular player already ended his training period, because it is a concept different from training compensation. See DRC 17 March 2015, no. 03151545.

  244. 244.

    DRC 22 July 2004, no. 74353, DRC 2 July 2004, no. 74323, DRC 22 July 2004, no. 7472 B.

  245. 245.

    DRC 9 November 2004, no. 114556.

  246. 246.

    DRC 21 February 2006, no. 26562.

  247. 247.

    DRC 12 January 2007, no. 17266.

  248. 248.

    DRC 13 June 2008, no. 681123.

  249. 249.

    DRC 29 September 2010, no. 10101596.

  250. 250.

    DRC 17 August 2012, no. 8122321.

  251. 251.

    In its case of the DRC of 31 October 2013, the Chamber decided on the completion of the training of the player and considered that it could not be established that he was a regular first team player during the 2007/2008 season with the claimant. The Chamber also held that the fact that the player was voted ‘best player’ of country G in the 2010/2011 season does not imply that his training period had been completed. The Chamber concurred that, taking into account all the relevant elements and circumstances, it could not be established that the player had indeed completed his training period before his 21st birthday; DRC 31 October 2013, no. 10131359.

  252. 252.

    DRC 12 December 2013, no. 12132748.

  253. 253.

    CAS 2003/O/527 Hamburger Sport-Verein e.V. v. Odense Boldklub, award of 21 April 2004; See also FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 1, p. 112, footnote 149.

  254. 254.

    CAS 2004/A/594. See also FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 1, p. 112, footnote 149. See also CAS 2004/A/785 T. v. L., award of 30 August 2005.

  255. 255.

    CAS 2004/A/696 Schalke 04 v. FC Twente, award of 2 March 2005.

  256. 256.

    CAS 2006/A/1029 Maccabi Haifa FC v. Real Racing Club Santander, award of 2 October 2006.

  257. 257.

    CAS 2007/A/1320-1321 Feyenoord Rotterdam v. Clube de Regatas do Flamengo, award of 26 November 2006.

  258. 258.

    CAS 2008/A/1705 Grasshopper v. Alianza Lima, award of 18 June 2009.

  259. 259.

    CAS 2011/A/2682 Udinese Calcio S.p.A. v. Helsingborgs IF, award of 25 July 2012.

  260. 260.

    See also CAS 2014/A/3486 MFK Dubnica v. FC Parma, award of 2 February 2015. In this case the player’s training was also completed before the age of 21. See also CAS 2014/A/3518 Zamalek Sporting Club v. Accra Hearts of Oak Sporting Club, award of 31 October 2014. In CAS 2012/A/2968 Konyaspor Kulübü Dernegi v. Ituano Futebol Clube, award of 23 July 2013, the club failed to provide any data concerning the number of times the player was actually fielded in the first team. The CAS stressed that only under exceptional circumstances can a player be considered as having completed his training before the age of 21.

  261. 261.

    See DRC 23 January 2013, no. 01132988, and CAS 2013/A/3303 Bradford City Football Club v. Falkirk Football Club, award of 14 March 2014.

  262. 262.

    CAS 2011/A/2682 Udinese Calcio S.p.A. v. Helsingborgs IF, award of 25 July 2012.

  263. 263.

    DRC 12 January 2007, no. 17897. See also DRC 12 January 2007, no. 17266.

  264. 264.

    DRC 12 March 2009, no. 39234.

  265. 265.

    DRC 19 August 2010, no. 8101159.

  266. 266.

    DRC 24 November 2010, no. 1110955.

  267. 267.

    DRC 12 March 2009, no. 39234.

  268. 268.

    DRC 26 January 2011, no. 1111959.

  269. 269.

    In an unpublished DRC decision of 7 April 2011, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that the “clearly disproportionate rule” does not stipulate the obligation of the Chamber to reduce amounts which are, allegedly, disproportionate but only the possibility to do so on a case-by-case basis. Equally, the DRC underlined that this possibility exists only in cases of clear disproportionality and that, in any case, the party invoking such disproportionality had to carry the burden of proof in this respect.

  270. 270.

    DRC 17 August 2012, no. 8122742.

  271. 271.

    DRC 17 January 2014, nos. 01141545a and 01141545b. See also DRC 17 January 2014, no. 01142929.

  272. 272.

    DRC 27 February 2014, no. 0214390.

  273. 273.

    CAS 2004/A/560. See also FIFA Commentary, p. 120, footnote 160.

  274. 274.

    CAS 2004/A/594 Hapoel Beer-Sheva v. Real Racing Club de Santander S.A.D., award of 1 March 2005. The CAS also decided that the FIFA DRC is given the discretion to vary the training compensation fee based on the tariff in the rules, is limited to circumstances where such amount is “clearly disproportionate”. Such clear lack of proportion has to be proven by the clubs that stated that the amount is disproportionate.

  275. 275.

    CAS 2004/A/696 Schalke 04 v. FC Twente, award of 2 March 2005.

  276. 276.

    Also in CAS 2009/A/1908 Parma FC S.p.A. v. Manchester United F.C., award of 9 July 2010, the CAS Panel decided that the guidelines as referred to in FIFA Circular no. 799 can be used to determine whether training compensation calculated on the basis of the indicative amounts is clearly disproportionate to the specific circumstances of this case.

  277. 277.

    CAS 2009/A/1810 and 1811 SV Wilhelmshaven v. Club Atlético Excursionistas & Club Atlético River Plate, award of 5 October 2009.

  278. 278.

    CAS 2006/A/1027 Blackpool F.C. v. Club Topp Oss, award of 13 July 200 and CAS 2007/A/1218.

  279. 279.

    CAS 2010/A/2259.

  280. 280.

    CAS 2013/A/3119 Dundee United FC v. Club Atletico Vélez Sarsfield, award of 20 November 2013. See also CAS 2009/A/1810 and 1811 SV Wilhelmshaven v. Club Atlético Excursionistas & Club Atlético River Plate, award of 5 October 2009; CAS 2010/A/2069 and CAS 2010/A/2075 Marítimo da Madeira SAD and Coritiba Footballclub, award of 2010.

  281. 281.

    CAS 2011/A/2681, CAS 2003/O/500, CAS 2009/A/1908, CAS 2009/A/1810 and 1811 SV Wilhelmshaven v. Club Atlético Excursionistas & Club Atlético River Plate, award of 5 October 2009 and CAS 2003/A/506.

  282. 282.

    CAS 2014/A/3518 Zamalek Sporting Club v. Accra Hearts of Oak Sporting Club, award of 31 October 2014. See also CAS 2013/A/3082 Budapest Honvéd FC v. América FC, award of 3 September 2013.

References

  • 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 12:10

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish R, Miettinen S (2008) The sporting exception in European Union Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2014) European sports law—collected papers, 2nd edn. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Legal Counsel, Dutch Federation of Professional Football Clubs (FBO), Zeist, The Netherlands

    Frans de Weger

Authors
  1. Frans de Weger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frans de Weger .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

de Weger, F. (2016). Training Compensation. In: The Jurisprudence of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber. ASSER International Sports Law Series. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-126-5_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-126-5_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-125-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-126-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation