When is the training period of a player completed before the age of 21?

• Author: de Weger, Frans

Introduction

According to Paragraph one of the first Article of Annex 4 of the current Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (hereinafter: "RSTP"), a player's training takes place between the ages of 12 and 23 for training incurred up to the age of 21, unless it is evident that a player has already terminated his training period before the age of 21. In order to lay emphasis on the aforementioned basic principle of the said Article, in Paragraph two of the sixth Article of the RSTP, it is stated that inside the territory of the EU/EEA, the final season of training may occur before the season in which the player had his 21st birthday if it is established that the player completed his training before that time. In other words, according to the RSTP, training compensation will be payable until the end of the season in which the player reaches the age of 23, although the calculation of the amount will be based on the years between 12 and the age when it is established that the player actually completed his training period.

The Dispute Resolution Chamber of FIFA (hereinafter: "DRC") as well as the Court of Arbitration for Sport (hereinafter: "CAS"), as being the authoritative committees at international level in the world of professional football, provided the football world with several decisions regarding the question under what circumstances the training period of a player is completed. This article will contain an extensive survey of all relevant decisions of the DRC and the CAS related to this question. Firstly, the relevant decisions of the DRC will be discussed. (1) The most important decisions will be discussed in a chronological course of time as from the first published decision in 2004 until now. Since parties have the possibility to appeal against decisions of the DRC before the CAS, the decisions of the CAS will also be analyzed and the line with the CAS will also have the same structure as with the DRC. (2) Please do note that all relevant cases will be discussed, however this does not mean that all decisions will be brought to the attention since the DRC and the CAS do not publish all their cases. The cases to be handled do give us a clear survey of the point of view of the DRC and the CAS. Please note that each case will be concluded with final remarks (see the italicized text). In the final conclusion of this article all relevant criteria that can be derived from the jurisprudence of the said courts, in order to establish whether or not the training period of a player is completed, will be high-lighted and enumerated.

This article is meant for anyone interested in this subject. Although this article has a scientific character since all cases before the DRC and the CAS will be discussed extensively, it must also be emphasized that it has great value for the daily practice of international professional football. Especially football clubs will be made more aware under what specific circumstances a training period of a player can be completed.

Decisions DRC

DRC 22 July 2004

In a decision of the DRC of 22 July 2004, the DRC took note of the new club's defence according to which the player finished his actual training period by the time he had started the 2001/2002 season with his former club. The new club was of the opinion that a shorter education period had taken place as result of which the training period of the player was completed in the season before that of his 21st birthday.

The new club submitted that in the playing season 2000/2001, the player was fielded on a regular basis, i.e. 15 times, in the club's A-team, scoring 3 goals. At that time the player concerned had already spent many years as a professional player from an early age and could thus be considered to have been a particularly successful player.

The new club's arguments before the DRC in this respect were accepted by the Chamber. Without any further explanation, the DRC concluded in the matter at hand, that the 2001/2002 training period would not be taken into consideration for calculation purposes. This was translated by the DRC into a reduction of [euro]90,000 over the total amount of [euro]550,000, resulting in a final sum of [euro]460,000 due.

This is the first published case in which the DRC decided that the training period was completed before the player's 21TH birthday. It is noteworthy to mention that the DRC explicitly noted with respect to the entitlement of training compensation that it is irrelevant whether or not the player signed his first professional contract during his education period with the training club, as it was not mentioned in any of the FIFA circulars, rules or regulations, that a training club which has benefited from the services of an amateur player who turned professional, loses its right to receive training compensation. However, we do see in this case that the fact that the player had already signed a professional contract with the training club is of relevance with respect to the question whether or not the training period has been completed.

DRC 9 November 2004

In a decision of the DRC of 9 November 2004, the Chamber referred to the fact that in case it is evident that the player has terminated his training period before the age of 21, training compensation will only be due for the period before that time. (3) The DRC explicitly noted that many clubs and players had erroneously invoked this provision, in cases where it cannot be said that a player had completed his training before the age of 21. The DRC wished to reiterate that it was the understanding of the legislator that such an exemption would only apply in cases of unusually talented young players, which are rarely encountered. This tends to be the case with young players, who at the age of 17 or 18 are globally known for their exceptional talents, who are regulars at the club and national level and who are frequently the focus of transfer arrangements to the world's top clubs. In such cases it would seem rather misplaced to discuss training compensation for these players, who at the age of 17 or 18 are considered absolute world class. The DRC decided that there were only a very few players with such an exceptional status that they had completed their training and would have gained all relevant experience before reaching the age of 21.

The DRC decided in this case that although the player could display considerable experience at first team level, the Chamber underlined that it is unquestionable that the player was still benefiting from instruction being offered and experience gained in performing for the club. The player only spent one year at the club, i.e., from the age of 18 to 19, and therefore the Chamber was of the opinion that the club was entitled to receive training compensation for the instruction received during this year. Finally, the club was entitled to receive training compensation in the amount of [euro]60,000.

In this case the DRC stated that the training period of the player concerned was not completed before the age of 21. The DRC explicitly noted for the first time that the training period of a player will only be terminated before his age of 21 in case the player can be entitled as absolute world class and have gained exceptional status. In other words, it can be said and derived from this case that only in case of exceptional circumstances a training period of a player can be completed before the age of 21.

DRC 21 February 2006

In a decision of the DRC of 21 February 2006, the DRC first turned to the question as to whether training compensation was due to the claiming club for the period of time during which the player was transferred on a loan basis to another club. (4) In that respect, the Chamber referred to the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC and the CAS, which had been confirmed by the CAS, according to which a club is only entitled to receive training compensation for the period of time during which a player has in fact been trained by the club claiming payment of such compensation. According to the DRC, this implied that no training compensation was due to the claiming club for the period during which the player was transferred on a loan basis.

With regards to the completion of the training, the DRC pointed out that the period of training to be taken into account would only be reduced if it was evident that the player had terminated his training period before the age of 21. The question was whether the player had completed his training with the claiming club already prior to his 21ST birthday, i.e. at the beginning of the season 2000/2001. In this case the new club stated that the player had played in numerous matches, i.e. no fewer than 25, for the senior team of his former club during the last season 2000/2001. The DRC underlined however that, in any case, more than just one indication to the possible earlier termination of the training period of a player must exist in order to justify the application of the relevant exception. In this case, the DRC decided that it was not evident that the player concerned had terminated his training before the age of 21.

It needs to be noted that the DRC decided in this matter that the training period was not completed in this case before the season of 2000/2001, despite the fact that the player had already signed a professional contract with the claiming club in the season of 1999/2000. Therefore, we can derive from this case that this was (thus) not a decisive element. Further to this, the fact that the player played in numerous matches was also not decisive. It is quite remarkable that these two elements, a professional contract and the amount of matches (no fewer than 25), combined were not enough in order to establish that the training period was completed since these two elements were sufficient in the case of the DRC of 22 July 2004 (no. 74353), in which the player had the professional status and played in (only) 15 matches...