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 20 May 2011, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman ad interim Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Ivan Gazidis (England), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on the claim presented by the club FC S, as Claimant against the club Z, as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the player W

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 20 May 2011, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman ad interim Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Ivan Gazidis (England), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on the claim presented by the club FC S, as Claimant against the club Z, as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the player W I. Facts of the case 1. The player W (hereinafter: the player) was born on 25 May 1984. 2. According to the “Player Passport” produced by the B Football Federation (“B Football Federation”; hereinafter: BFF) in April 2009, the player was registered with the country B club, FC S (hereinafter: the Claimant), first as an amateur from 4 February 1998 to 10 August 2000, and then as a professional from 11 August 2000 to 15 June 2006. 3. On the next day, i.e. on 16 June 2006, the player was loaned as a professional to another country B club, Club F, until 5 December 2006, before being registered again with the Claimant from 6 December 2006 to 22 August 2007. 4. Still by means of said player passport, the B Football Federation also informed FIFA that the country B sporting season follows the calendar year. Therefore, it starts in January and ends in December of each year. 5. On 6 August 2007, the company “X” (hereinafter: the company), domiciled in country B), and the country A club, Z (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded a contract, by means of which the latter of country A club bought the “international transfer rights” for the player from the company on the basis of a definitive transfer. 6. According to clause 2 of said contract, the Respondent agreed to pay to the company a “transfer fee” amounting to EUR 200,000. This “transfer fee” had to be paid in one lump sum and became due on 20 August 2007. 7. By means of a handwritten letter in P language, dated 22 August 2007 and addressed to the Executive President of the Claimant, the player allegedly notified his unilateral termination - by his own free will - of the employment contract concluded with the Claimant on 14 September 2004, due to the possibility of a transfer to another club with better opportunities to develop his career, and also with the “release of payment of any compensation or fine in relation to such termination”. 8. According to a written confirmation of the country A Football League, submitted by the A Football Federation (hereinafter: AFF), the player was registered with the Respondent on 31 August 2007. 9. Still pursuant to the country A Football League’s confirmation, at that time, the Respondent was a category II club (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 within UEFA), i.e. a club with an academy status within their organisation. 10. On 31 August 2009, the Claimant lodged a formal claim against the Respondent for the non-compliance with the payment of training compensation, due in connection with the transfer of the player during the season of his 23rd birthday - at the end of his employment contract with the latter of country B club - without any transfer compensation being paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. 11. Pursuant to the Claimant, the FIFA Circular Letter n° 1185, dated 22 April 2009, provides that clubs belonging to the first division in country A shall be classified under the “Category II” among those clubs affiliated to the “Union des associations européennes de football” - UEFA. For such reason, each year during which the Claimant has provided the player with training and education shall be remunerated by the fixed amount of EUR 60,000. 12. Furthermore, according to the Claimant, in compliance with the provisions of Annexe 4 to the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), the amount due as training compensation is composed as follows: Season of 14th birthday (1998): EUR 9,068.501; Season of 15th birthday (1999): EUR 10,000; Season of 16th birthday (2000): EUR 60,000; Season of 17th birthday (2001): EUR 60,000; Season of 18th birthday (2002): EUR 60,000; Season of 19th birthday (2003): EUR 60,000; Season of 20th birthday (2004): EUR 60,000; Season of 21st birthday (2005): EUR 60,000; Total: EUR 379,068.50 13. Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Claimant requests from the Respondent the payment of the amount of EUR 379,068.50 plus 5% interest per annum as from 30 September 2007. 14. In its reply, the Respondent asserted that the claim of the Claimant was not founded. 15. In particular, the Respondent alleged that in the present case the transfer, respectively the registration of the player, took place after the end of the country A season in which he turned 23 years old. The Respondent is therefore, in its view, not obliged to pay any training compensation for the player. 16. The Respondent furthermore asserted that the fact that the country B football season follows the calendar year is not relevant in this case; only the season of the new association can be of relevance according to the Regulations. 17. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the Claimant is concealing that the player’s contract was terminated unilaterally and without just cause by the Claimant and that the “transfer rights” concerning the player were given off by them to the company. The Respondent then acquired the “transfer rights” from the company. 18. Subsidiary, only for the case that FIFA would be of the opinion that despite the exhibited arguments, it should pay training compensation to the Claimant for the player, the Respondent denied the correctness of the calculation of the training compensation by the Claimant, since the player had finished his training already long before his 21st birthday. 19. As it results from the documentation forwarded by the Claimant, the player had signed his first professional contract already at the age of 16 years. It has therefore to be assumed that the player had finished his footballing education at the latest at the end of 2003. 20. Based on the above explanations, the Respondent is requesting the rejection of the claim of the Claimant for training compensation. 21. In its replica, the Claimant adhered to its previous position and conclusions, underlining the fact that the season to be taken into consideration for the calculation of the training compensation is the one of the B Football Federation. The Claimant also emphasised that the termination of the employment contract was not “carried out or caused by them”, but was caused by the own free will of the player (cf. point no. I.7. above). Finally, with regard to the training period of the player, the Claimant alleged that the player was loaned in June 2006 to Club F, a small club competing in the first division of the country B National League, in order for the player to gain experience. Thus, according to the Claimant, in particular in view of the loan of the player in order to speed up his progress, the player cannot be considered as having terminated his career prior to his 23rd birthday. 22. In its rejoinder, the Respondent adhered to its previous statements. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed whether it was competent to deal with the dispute at stake. In this respect, it took note that the present claim was submitted to FIFA on 31 August 2009. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (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 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on the present litigation with an international dimension concerning the training compensation claimed by the country B club, FC S, for the training and education of the player W. 3. Furthermore, 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 2010, 2009 and 2008), and taking into consideration that the player was registered with his new club on 31 August 2007, the 2005 edition of the regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. 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 that the player, born on 25 May 1984, was registered with the Claimant first as an amateur from 4 February 1998 to 10 August 2000, then as a professional from 11 August 2000 to 15 June 2006 - before being loaned on the next day, i.e. on 16 June 2006, as a professional to the country B club, Club F, until 5 December 2006 - and was finally registered again with the Claimant from 6 December 2006 to 22 August 2007. 5. The Chamber duly noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant, based on these registration data, claims the payment of the amount of EUR 379,068.50 plus 5% interest per annum as from 30 September 2007. 6. On the other hand, the Chamber took due note that the Respondent asserted that the claim should be rejected in full, arguing first and foremost that in the present case the transfer, respectively the registration of the player, took place after the end of the country A season, in which the player turned 23 years old. Furthermore, the Respondent alleged that the player’s contract was terminated unilaterally and without just cause by the Claimant. Moreover, only in case that FIFA would be of the opinion that the Respondent should pay training compensation to the Claimant for the player, the Respondent denied the correctness of the calculation of the training compensation by the Claimant, since the player had allegedly finished his training already long before his 21st birthday. 7. Consequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to analyse the three arguments raised by the Respondent objecting to the payment of the training compensation, as follows: 8. As regards the Respondent’s first allegation, according to which the transfer, respectively the registration of the player, took place after the end of the season in country A in which the player turned 23 years old, the Chamber held that this argument is not valid since, in accordance with its constant jurisprudence, it is the duration of the season of the training club which is of relevance for the calculation of training compensation. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that the amount payable is calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of training that the player spent with the training club(s) (cf. art. 3 par. 1 sentence 2 of Annex 4 to the Regulations), in accordance with the season of the association to which the training club is affiliated. 9. In this regard, the Chamber duly noted, on the one hand, that the football season in country B followed (and still follows) the calendar year, i.e. it lasted (and still lasts) from January until December of each year. 10. On the other hand, the Chamber acknowledged that the A Football Federation confirmed that the player in question was registered with the Respondent as a professional on 31 August 2007. 11. Continuing, the Chamber stated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 of Annex 4 in combination with art. 2 of Annex 4 to 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. 12. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that based on the documentation at disposal, it can be established that the professional player in question, born on 25 May 1984, was transferred to the Respondent on 31 August 2007, i.e. before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday, taking into account the relevant - i.e. the country B - sporting season. 13. In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent’s first argument has to be rejected and that the Claimant, provided the other conditions would be fulfilled, would be entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent. 14. As to the Respondent’s allegation, according to which training compensation is not due since the player allegedly terminated his training and education before he turned 21, the Dispute Resolution Chamber pointed out that the period of training to be taken into account shall only be reduced if it is evident [emphasis added] that the player has terminated his training period before the age of 21 (cf. art. 1 par. 1 of Annex 4 to the Regulations). 15. In this context, the Chamber referred to the general legal principle of the burden of proof, which is a basic principle in every legal system and according to which a party deriving a right from an asserted fact has the obligation to prove this pertinent relevant fact (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). Accordingly, the Chamber stated that the Respondent carries the burden of proof with respect to the alleged premature termination of the player’s training. 16. Taking into account the aforementioned and referring to the above-mentioned principle of the burden of proof, the members of the Chamber decided that it is not evident that the player W had terminated his training before reaching the age of 21. Indeed, the Respondent had not submitted any evidence suitable to prove this allegation. Consequently, the Chamber rejected the Respondent’s allegation also to that regard. 17. In continuation, the Chamber turned its attention to the Respondent’s last argument, according to which the Claimant unilaterally terminated the employment contract with the player. 18. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that by means of a handwritten letter in P language, dated 22 August 2007 and addressed to the Executive President of the Claimant, the player had notified his unilateral termination - by his own free will - of the employment contract concluded on 14 September 2004, due to the possibility of a transfer to another football club with better opportunities to develop his career, and also with the “release of payment of any compensation or fine in relation to such termination”. 19. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that it had rather been the player who terminated the relevant employment contract, and that therefore the Respondent’s last argument had also to be rejected. 20. Equally, on a side note, with regard to the contract concluded between the company and the Respondent, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that since 1 September 2001, the day of the entry into force of the completely reviewed version of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2001), the concept of the so-called “federative rights” to players does not exist anymore. It was replaced by the principle of maintenance of contractual stability between the contracting parties (cf. Chapter VIII, art. 21 et seqq. of the Regulations, edition 2001, and Chapter IV, art. 17 et seqq. of the Regulations). 21. Furthermore, the Chamber was also eager to emphasise that the relevant transfer agreement was signed between the company and the Respondent and thus is not binding for the Claimant, who is not a contractual party to such agreement. Therefore, the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that said agreement had no legal effect on the Claimant and would not hinder the latter from its entitlement to training compensation. 22. As a result, and considering all of the above, the Chamber concluded to reject all the arguments of the Respondent, and that training compensation is due to the Claimant. Therefore, the Dispute Resolution Chamber went on calculate the training compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant. 23. In this respect, the Chamber reiterated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 of Annex 4 in combination with art. 2 of Annex 4 to 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 the player’s 23rd birthday. 24. Furthermore, the Chamber also recalled that the B Football Federation had confirmed that the player had been registered with the Claimant first as an amateur player from 4 February 1998 (season of his 14th birthday) to 10 August 2000, then as a professional player from 11 August 2000 to 15 June 2006 (season of his 22nd birthday) - before being loaned on the next day, i.e. on 16 June 2006, as a professional to the country B club, Club F, until 5 December 2006 - and finally again with the Claimant from 6 December 2006 (season of his 22nd birthday) to 22 August 2007 (season of his 23rd birthday), at the moment he was transferred internationally. 25. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber referred to its well-established jurisprudence, which has been confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS; cf. CAS award CAS 2004/X/XXX), according to which a club that has trained a player as an amateur for a certain period of time and thereafter concludes an employment contract with the player shall be compensated for the entire time that it trained the player. 26. Moreover, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with art. 3 par. 1 of Annex 4 to the Regulations, the new club with which the professional player is registered is responsible to pay training compensation. 27. Subsequently, and considering again art. 3 par. 1 of 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 consider in the matter at stake corresponds to the months of February 1998 until December 2005, period during which the player was effectively trained and educated by the Claimant until the end of the season of the player’s 21st birthday. 28. Turning its attention to the calculation of the training compensation, the Chamber referred to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of Annex 4 to 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. 29. In this respect, the Chamber duly noted that according to all the remitted documentation, it can be established that the player had been transferred on 31 August 2007 to the Respondent, which according to the information received belonged to the category II in the season 2007/08 (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year within UEFA). 30. 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. 31. As a result, the Chamber, taking into consideration all the above as well as art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, concluded that the Claimant is entitled to receive the amount of EUR 379,068.50 plus 5% interest per annum as of 1 October 2007 until the effective date of payment, from the Respondent for the training and education of the player concerned. 32. The Dispute Resolution Chamber therefore decided that the claim of the Claimant is accepted. 33. 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. 34. In this respect, the Chamber reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is accepted. Therefore, the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 35. 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. 36. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings amounts to EUR 379,068.50 related to the claim of the Claimant. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 37. 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 10,000. 38. In this respect, the Chamber took into account that the Claimant had paid the advance of costs in the amount of CHF 5,000 in accordance with art. 17 of the Procedural Rules. 39. In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the amount of CHF 10,000 has to be paid by the Respondent to cover the costs of the present proceedings. Thereof the amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid by the Respondent to FIFA and the amount of CHF 5,000 to the Claimant. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, FC S, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Z, has to pay to the Claimant, FC S, the amount of EUR 379,068.50 plus 5% interest per annum as of 1 October 2007 until the date of the effective payment, within 30 days as of notification of the present decision. 3. If the aforementioned sum plus interest 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. 4. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 10,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Z, within 30 days of notification of the present decision as follows: 4.1. The amount of CHF 5,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 4.2. The amount of CHF 5,000 to the Claimant, FC S. 5. The Claimant, FC S, is directed to inform the Respondent, Z, 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