F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2010-2011) – indennità di formazione – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2010-2011) – training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 22 July 2010, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Jon Newman (USA), member Ivan E. Gazidis (England), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member on the claim presented by the club A, as Claimant against the club S as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the player F

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2010-2011) - indennità di formazione – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2010-2011) - training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 22 July 2010, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Jon Newman (USA), member Ivan E. Gazidis (England), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member on the claim presented by the club A, as Claimant against the club S as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the player F I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Confederation B (FCB) issued in November 2008, but rectified on 6 March 2009, the player F (hereinafter: the player), born on 24 November 1985, was registered with the club, A (hereinafter: the Claimant), as a professional player as from 11 August 2004 to 16 February 2005, then loaned to another club, S, as from 17 February to 30 June 2005, before being registered again with the Claimant as a professional player as from 1 July 2005 to 19 April 2006. 2. Equally, the Football Confederation B informed that the country B sporting season follows the calendar year. Therefore, it starts in January and ends in December of each year. 3. According to a written confirmation of the Football Federation O (FFO), the player was registered on 18 July 2007 for its affiliated club, S (hereinafter: the Respondent), as a professional player. 4. The Football Federation O also confirmed that according to the Football League O, the Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA) during the season 2007/08. In this respect, the Football League O indicated that the Respondent was a “Club with Status” in opposition to the “Clubs with Academy Status”, which were classified as category II. 5. On 17 July 2009, the Claimant filed a request before the Dispute Resolution Chamber against the Respondent, asking for the payment of EUR 79,150, plus an interest rate calculated since the date on which the payment should be made, according to the Claimant, on 17 July 2007, by the Respondent as training compensation for the player. 6. The Claimant stated in this respect that the contract between it and the player reached its final term, and that, for this reason, the player was free to sign a new contract. Since no transfer fee has been paid by the Respondent, training compensation must be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. Finally, according to the Circular Letter 959a, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent was classified as a category II club within UEFA. As a consequence, as from the season of the player’s 16th birthday to the season of the player’s 21st birthday, EUR 60,000 is payable per year. 7. On 13 November 2009, the Respondent submitted its response rejecting the claim of the Claimant since the player and the Claimant mutually terminated their contract in April 2006, and the latter did not offer the player a new employment contract. According to Annex 4 art. 6 par. 3 of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players, no training compensation is payable, if the former club does not offer the player a contract. 8. Furthermore, since the player had allegedly been already registered on 10 July 2007 at the Football League O for the Respondent and the request was only filed on 17 July 2009 by the Claimant before FIFA, the Respondent stated that in accordance with article 25 par. 5 of the Regulations, the matter is time-barred. Therefore, the claim should be rejected. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 17 July 2009. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and art. 22 d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2009), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on the present litigation with an international dimension concerning the training compensation claimed by the Claimant for the training and education of the player F. 3. In continuation, and before being able to enter into the substance of the matter, the Chamber needed to verify whether the competent FIFA body could deal with this affair or not for formal reasons. In particular, with respect to the Respondent’s objection that the claim is to be considered as time-barred. 4. To this regard, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2009), which stipulate that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall not hear any case subject to these regulations if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute. 5. Due to the aforementioned, the members of the Chamber had to define which was “the event giving rise to the dispute” and stated that according to art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, “[…] the deadline for payment of training compensation [was] 30 days following the registration of the professional with the new association.” 6. In view of all the above, the DRC came to the conclusion that the event giving rise to the present dispute took place on 17 August 2007, reason for which the Claimant’s claim for the payment of training compensation amounting to EUR 79,150, has to be considered as not barred by the statute of limitations in application of art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations, since the present claim was lodged on 19 July 2007, thus inside the time limit of two years, since the facts leading to the dispute arose and the lodging of the present claim. As a result, the Chamber rejected the Respondent’s objection. 7. Subsequently, taking into consideration that the player was registered with his new club on 18 July 2007, and considering that the present claim was lodged on 17 July 2009, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2009 and 2008), the previous version of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005; hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 8. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in the file. 9. In this respect, the Chamber took note of the fact that the player F, born on 24 November 1985, was registered with the Claimant as a professional from 11 August 2004 to 16 February 2005 and, later again, from 1 July 2005 to 19 April 2006. 10. The Chamber duly noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant is requesting training compensation for the training and education of the player concerned from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 79,150 plus 5% default interest. On the other hand, the Chamber took into account that the Respondent replied arguing that the player and the Claimant had mutually terminated their contract and that the Claimant did not offer a new contract after its termination. 11. With regard to the Respondent’s argument, the Chamber considered that, first and foremost, the obligation of a club having offered the player a contract when claiming training compensation is a requirement only needed to be met within the European Union (EU) or the European Economic Area (EEA; cf. art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 to the Regulations). Since the training club, i.e. the Claimant, is not located within the EU/EEA, the Chamber concluded that the aforementioned provision does not apply in the case at hand and therefore rejected the Respondent’s argument to that regard. 12. With the latter established, the Dispute Resolution Chamber went on to analyse whether the Claimant was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent. 13. In this respect, the Chamber stated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 of Annex 4 in combination with art. 2 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is payable, as a general rule, for training incurred between the ages of 12 and 21 when the player concerned is registered for the first time as a professional, or when a professional is transferred between two clubs of two different associations, before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 14. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that based on the documents at disposal it can be established that the professional player in question, born on 24 November 1985, was transferred to the Respondent on 17 July 2007, i.e. before the end of the season of the player’s 23 birthday and thus irrespective whether the player and the Respondent had terminated their employment contract in April 2006, the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent. 15. As a result, and considering art. 3 par. 1 of the Annex 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the amount payable is calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of training that the player spent with each club, the Chamber concluded that the effective period of time to be considered at the matter at stake corresponds to 15 months, season 2004 the months of August until December, season 2005 the months of January and February as well as the months of July until December, and finally season 2006, the months of January until April. 16. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber referred to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of the Annex 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that as a general rule, it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself and thus it is calculated based on the training costs of the new club multiplied by the number of years of training with the former club. 17. In this respect, the Chamber took due note that according to the information at disposal the Respondent belonged to the category III in the season 2007/08 (indicative amount within UEFA EUR 30,000 per year). 18. Equally, the Chamber emphasised once again that according to art. 3 par. 2 of the Annex 4 to the Regulations, the deadline for payment of training compensation is 30 days following the registration of the professional with the new association. 19. In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 42,500 plus interest of 5% per annum as from 18 August 2007 until the effective date of payment. 20. The Dispute Resolution Chamber therefore decided that the claim of the Claimant was partially accepted. 21. In continuation, the deciding authority referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which in the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Chamber relating to disputes regarding training compensation costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings. 22. In this respect, the Chamber reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. Therefore, the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 23. According to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 24. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings amounts to EUR 79,500 related to the claim of the Claimant. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 15,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 25. Considering that the case at hand allowed to be dealt with following a reasonable procedure, that the case was adjudicated by the Chamber, that the present case did not show particular factual difficulty and that it did not involve specific legal complexity, the Chamber determined the final amount of costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 4,000. 26. In this respect, the Chamber took into account that the Claimant had paid the advance of costs in the amount of CHF 3,000 in accordance with art. 17 of the Procedural Rules. 27. In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the amount of CHF 4,000 has to be paid by the Respondent to cover the costs of the present proceedings. Thereof the amount of CHF 1,000 has to be paid by the Respondent to FIFA and the amount of CHF 3,000 to the Claimant. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, S, has to pay to the Claimant, A, the amount of EUR 42,500 plus 5% interest per annum as of 18 August 2007 until the date of the effective payment, within 30 days as of notification of the present decision. 3. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, A, are rejected. 4. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee, for consideration and a formal decision. 5. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 4,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, S, within 30 days of notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1. The amount of CHF 1,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. [XX-XXXXX/xxx]: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 5.2. The amount of CHF 3,000 to the Claimant, A. 6. The Claimant, A, is directed to inform the Respondent, S, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 63 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives). The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following: Court of Arbitration for Sport Avenue de Beaumont 2 1012 Lausanne Switzerland Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org www.tas-cas.org For the Dispute Resolution Chamber: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives