Compensation For Uncontracted Youngsters

[Ian M]

From reading this forum lately I've noticed that there is a lot of uncertainty amongst the fans/media as to when a club is (and isn't) entitled to compensation for a young player who is out of contract.

In an attempt to clear this up I went to the FIFA website and dug out their transfer regulations (which, incidentally, in the case of young players is based upon the original English model).

Link to full pdf document

Feel free to scroll straight past the quotes to the plain english below

Training Compensation shall be paid to a player’s training club(s): (1)

when a player signs his fi rst contract as a Professional, and (2) on

each transfer of a Professional until the end of the Season of his 23rd

birthday. The obligation to pay Training Compensation arises whether

the transfer takes place during or at the end of the player’s contract.

The provisions concerning Training Compensation are set out in annex

4 of these Regulations.

1. A player’s training and education takes place between the ages of 12

and 23. Training Compensation shall be payable, as a general rule,

up to the age of 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 the latter case, Training Compensation shall

be payable until the end of the Season in which the player reaches the

age of 23, but the calculation of the amount payable shall be based

on the years between 12 and the age when it is established that the

player actually completed his training.

2. Accordingly, the first time a player registers as a Professional, the Training

Compensation payable is calculated by taking the training costs of

the New Club multiplied by the number of years of training in principle

from the Season of the player‘s 12th birthday to the Season of his 21st

birthday. In the case of subsequent transfers, Training Compensation

is calculated based on the training costs of the New Club

Basically, if I have understood it all correctly, it breaks down like this (in Chris Porter's case):

1) The fact that he is now "23" not "under 23" is irrelevant. His 23rd birthday fell in the same season that his contract expires in, meaning that, if Oldham were deemed responsible for his training (or at least part of it), they would be eligible for compensation.

2) However, a player's education is understood to be completed by the end of the season in which he turned 21. Chris Porter turned 21 on 12/12/04. Therefore his training was understood to be completed by the end of the 04/05 season.

3) Oldham signed Chris Porter from Bury in the Summer of 2005 after the completion of the season of his 21st birthday so are not entitled to any compensation. If Porter had been signed a year earlier then they would have been entitled.

4) Incidentally, if compensation had been payable, I strongly doubt it would be anywhere near the £700k they are purported to want for him despite proof of a fee Plymouth were willing to pay in January as it is a set figure calculated based on the level Oldham are classed by the FA at (a maximum of four levels based on training expenditure per annum) & the amount needed to train one player for one year multiplied by an average “player factor”, which is the ratio between the number of players who need to be trained to produce one professional player. Previous transfer offers don't factor in the equation at all.

So, in conclusion, Chris Porter is available on a free transfer

[CiderHider]

Interesting, but how or who decided on how much the training was worth?

How much thought is given into how good, potentially the kid is? Is this decided by the tribunal or somthing?

Oh ok, it makes sence now i've read it again, thanks Madger.

[Henry]

Well done Madger.

Sure Nibor will be very pleased.

[Nibor]

Yep, Madger's explained excellently what I've said unclearly in a couple of other posts.

I'm sure that Chris Porter's agent knows the score.

The overriding fact is that with the way training compensation is calculated, even if I've misunderstood the regs and Oldham are entitled to a fee, it would be a pittance because they didn't develop the player so could only expect a maximum of the compensation they paid his last club.

[Guest Ron]

Yep, Madger's explained excellently what I've said unclearly in a couple of other posts.

I'm sure that Chris Porter's agent knows the score.

The overriding fact is that with the way training compensation is calculated, even if I've misunderstood the regs and Oldham are entitled to a fee, it would be a pittance because they didn't develop the player so could only expect a maximum of the compensation they paid his last club.

A figure I heard floating around was £100k. Could he be the next Jamie McCombe?