Compensation and equivalent for player training (part 2) .
In the previous section, we focused on regulations concerning training fees for players when the player changed clubs and the acquiring club belongs to a different football association than the releasing club. In this part of the article, we will focus on "domestic" regulations, established by the relevant resolutions of the Polish Football Association (PZPN). Unlike FIFA, PZPN also provides for the calculation of fees in the case of a change of club affiliation by amateur players. Therefore, this article may also be of interest to the parents of junior footballers, whose change of club affiliation is associated with the obligation to pay training fees.
As a reminder, in the previous part of the article, I pointed out that the issues of training compensation are regulated by the resolutions of the Polish Football Association (PZPN), namely resolution III/39 regarding the status of players in Polish football clubs and the rules of changing club affiliation, and resolution No. VIII/121 of June 16, 2011 - rules for determining the lump-sum compensation for the training of an amateur player, a professional player, and a professional player to whom the club did not offer a contract extension. In a simplified manner, the first resolution defines the basis for determining the training compensation 1)although not exhaustively, while the second one specifies its amount. Let's start with what training compensation is. It is a form of compensation for the training club for developing a player's football skills.
Some argue that it is the Polish equivalent of the solidarity mechanism. I wrote about the solidarity mechanism here. However, I believe this is an unfounded claim, and there are many more similarities between training compensation and the training compensation provided for in FIFA regulations, hence these provisions are discussed in one block.
§ 34 para. 3 of resolution III/39 states that if a player who has not yet turned 23 changes clubs, regardless of his status, the releasing club is entitled to training compensation. A player has amateur status if he does not receive remuneration for playing football, or if he only receives a reimbursement of expenses incurred during participation in official PZPN and/or professional league matches. A professional player, on the other hand, is a person who has a contract with the club according to the PZPN template (a professional football playing contract) and a player who receives remuneration (or other monetary or non-monetary benefits) for playing football.
The last change in the regulations, made in July 2014, provides that training compensation is also due if a player changes clubs up to the age of 28, provided that the releasing club offered him a professional football playing contract before he turned 23. Training compensation is due for each year of training a player at the club between the ages of 9 and 23. The amount of training compensation is determined by the appropriate table, and the rules for its calculation are similar to those for training compensation. When determining the amount of training compensation, the category of the acquiring club, the age at which the player played for the releasing club, and the player's status are important.
Clubs are divided into categories from 1 to 4. Category 1 includes only top-flight clubs. Category 2 includes clubs from the I and II leagues, category 3 includes clubs from leagues III-IV. Clubs not mentioned above are classified into category 4 (including all clubs participating in futsal competitions).
In the case of a player changing clubs with amateur status and a player who was not offered a contract extension in the form of a registered letter at least 60 days before the contract expiration, the table presented below shall apply.
For example, if an amateur player played in Class A club from the age of 9 to 15 and decides to move to a club in the Second League, that club is required to pay 4200 PLN (3 x 200 + 3 x 1200).
The rates for a professional player whose contract for professional football playing has expired and the club offered to extend the contract (in the form of a registered letter, at least 60 days before the contract expiration, on at least the same financial terms) and who did not accept the offer, as well as for an amateur player to whom the club offered to sign a professional football playing contract taking into account their age, the league they play in, and the average financial terms resulting from professional football playing contracts in the club and who did not accept the offer, are as follows:
There are many controversies surrounding the fees for training compensation. One might ask whether it was justified to introduce training compensation for amateur players? Such players do not necessarily tie their future to football, and the necessity to pay a fee when changing clubs, which can often have its source in non-sporting reasons, becomes a barrier that leads the player to stop practicing this sport. Although, according to the regulations, the acquiring club is obligated to pay the compensation, in practice, due to the poor financial situation of sports clubs (especially those at lower levels of competition), parents of young players are often forced to cover these fees. In cases where a parent is required to pay a monthly fee to the club, independently finance the purchase of sports equipment, and cover all training trips, the additional fee raises justified objections.
Controversies related to training compensation are not only about amateur players. The wider public probably associates training compensation with the case of Krzysztof Danielewicz. This player was a member of the Cracovia team, with which he had a signed professional contract. The player's contract expired on June 30, 2014, and was not renewed despite the club's offer. On July 26, 2014, the player turned 23 years old, and if not for the change in regulations, as mentioned above, introduced on July 22, 2014, the new club of the player would not have had to pay compensation for him (only a lump sum fee, as mentioned in a separate resolution). 2)Resolution No. 8/52 regarding the lump sum fee for the releasing club for players between 23 and 28 years old The Śląsk Wrocław club was interested in signing a contract with the player.
However, if Danielewicz had joined Śląsk, the club from Wrocław would have been required to pay Cracovia 160,000 Polish zloty. Why? Danielewicz played for Cracovia for 2 years between the ages of 22 and 23. Cracovia offered him a contract extension before the contract expired. After the latest change in regulations, compensation is due for a player who was offered a contract extension before turning 23 and who changes clubs before turning 28. Śląsk is a top-tier club, classified in the first category.
The annual rate of compensation for a player aged between 18 and 23 years old, moving to a first-category club, is 80,000 Polish zloty. However, Krzysztof Danielewicz ended up at Sokoł Marcinkowice, which must have been surprising, considering it is a district-level club. He did not play a single match for this club and shortly thereafter moved to Śląsk Wrocław. It is important to note that the amount of compensation depends on the category of the acquiring club, which is why Sokół Marcinkowice paid Cracovia 8,000 Polish zloty, as it is classified as a fourth-category club. Cracovia, of course, accused this transaction of being a mere formality and brought the matter before the PZPN Commission for Determining Training Compensation.
However, there have been conflicting reports in the press and online media regarding the terms of Danielewicz's move from Sokoł to Śląsk. Some sources indicate that Danielewicz moved from Sokoł to Śląsk on a permanent transfer basis, while others suggest that he was only loaned out. The latter version is supported by the decision of the Commission itself, which ruled that Cracovia was only entitled to 8,000 in compensation. Point 6 of Resolution VIII/121 provides that if a player for whom training compensation has been paid changes clubs within 1-12 months from the date of payment of the lump sum fee, the last club is obligated to pay 80% of the difference between the lump sum fee received by the home club and the fee that would have been received in the case of a direct change of affiliation. Therefore, if the transfer to Śląsk was a permanent transfer and not just a temporary loan, Cracovia would be entitled to an additional 121,600 Polish zloty. Cracovia announced its intention to appeal to the Supreme Appeals Commission.
The situation described is an example of a so-called "Bridge Transfer" in Polish conditions. It seems undisputed that Danielewicz's move to a district-level club and then subsequently to an Ekstraklasa club was aimed at the goal of reducing the owed payment for training compensation. It must be added that, for now, it has been effective. However, on the other hand, FIFA has started punishing such actions.
Photo credit: DrabikPany / iW / CC BY