The Legal Relationship between Football Academies and Minor Trainees – Status Quo and the Way Forward
As operators at the grassroot level, it is a pervasive (and legitimate) concern among football academies in
India as to how they can secure proportionate compensation for their role in the training and development of
athletes who subsequently turn professional. After all, it is these academies who identify athletes, train and
prepare them for the professional world.
The rewards for the efforts of such academies start flowing much later, after the athlete successfully turns
professional. By that time, the academies have virtually no legal standing to claim rewards for their efforts
and it is only the athlete and clubs which said athlete represents that share such rewards to the exclusion of
the academies. In other words, the academies are left out of the value chain unless they are affiliated to a
club. This bears significance for standalone academies which are not affiliated to clubs and for whom such
compensation would be a crucial component of their revenue stream.
The Indian legal position on contracts with minors
The legal regime in India is of limited assistance in this regard, since contracts entered into with athletes
before they turn 18 years of age are invalid and those entered into with their guardians before they turn 18 do
not bind the athlete once they attain majority.
The solution under the FIFA regulatory regime
However, all is not lost. It turns out that academies around the world (including in countries with more
favourable laws on contracts with minors) were facing similar issues. Recognising the crucial role played by
academies in sustaining the football ecosystem and to address challenges, FIFA introduced two new concepts of
“Training Compensation” and “Solidarity Mechanism” in the FIFA Regulation on the Status and Transfer of Players
(“RSTP”).
a) Training Compensation
Article 20 of the RSTP (read with its Annex 4) entitles training clubs to compensation whenever a player
trained by it is registered for the first time as well as each time the player is transferred till the end of
the calendar year in which he turns 23. All clubs/academies that train players between the ages of 12 and 21
are entitled to this payment.
Further, it is the responsibility of the club registering the player to make payment to the training
club/academy within 30 days of registration.
b) Solidarity Mechanism
Article 21 of the RSTP (read with its Annex 5) entitles training clubs to receive a proportion (5%) of the
transfer fee/compensation, payable by the player’s new club when a player is transferred, provided the player
is registered with such training club between ages 12–23.
Solidarity mechanism is due for any transfer throughout the lifetime of the player, unlike training
compensation.
Is an academy not affiliated to a club a “training club” under the RSTP?
Strictly speaking, a private academy, not affiliated to a club, does not qualify as a “training club” under the
RSTP. The 2023 Commentary to the FIFA RSTP (pg. 382) has clarified that a training club does not have the
standing to sue for training compensation unless it is duly affiliated to a member association and
participating regularly in competitions at the time of its claim. For a club to be entitled to training
compensation, it must have met these same requirements during the period it spent training the player
concerned.
By the same token, this means that private academies and similar entities that are not affiliated to a member
association cannot claim training compensation.
While an academy that does not run a club (i.e., a purely training academy with no competition club) could
struggle to qualify as a “training club” for solidarity payments, this can be remedied if there is a national
(or supra-national) regime recognizing it as a club, or unless the national association’s rules treat it
analogously to a club.
In this regard, the on-ground reality suggests that for private academies to claim training rewards, it is
necessary that:
- the private academy is affiliated to the member association (in our case, AIFF);
- it is registered on the AIFF CRS platform which appears to recognise and provide accreditation to private
academies (see AIFF RSTP 2025); and
- the player’s EPP clearly identifies the said private academy as the entity that trained the player sometime
between the ages of 12–21.
Moreover, such academies shall comply with their reporting obligations and not violate the criteria for
protection of minors contained in Article 19bis RSTP. This could be the starting point for private academies to
have a claim for training rewards. This does not, however, extend to pay-to-play academies, as they are
considered to be reaping rewards by collecting upfront payments prior to players training with them.
This is the first in series of posts on relevant issues affecting IKF stakeholders.
For further advice on the issues addressed hereinabove, please reach out to the IKF Legal Team.
