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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 11 March 2011, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge on the claim presented by the club O, as Claimant against the club F, as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the player N

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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 11 March 2011, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge on the claim presented by the club O, as Claimant against the club F, as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the player N I. Facts of the case 1. The Football Federation P (FFP) confirmed that the player, N (hereinafter: the player), born on 20 May 1988, was registered with its affiliated club, O (hereinafter: the Claimant) as from 21 August 2006 until 22 August 2007 as an amateur. 2. Since the season 2000/2001, the sporting season in country P runs from 1 July until 30 June of the following year. 3. The Football Federation P also confirmed that the Claimant belongs to category IV and is a purely amateur club that participates only in amateur competitions (indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year within UEFA) during the season when the player was registered with said club. 4. The Football Federation R (FFR) confirmed that the player was registered with the club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 25 August 2007 as a professional and that the Respondent belonged to category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA) during that season. 5. On 27 May 2008, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training compensation from the Respondent since the player allegedly signed his first professional contract with the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant requested the amount of EUR 20,000 plus 5% interest per annum as from the date the payment should have been made. 6. On 24 September 2010, FIFA asked the Claimant to provide its comments pertaining to art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players, in particular, whether the Claimant offered the player a new contract at least 60 days before the expiry of the player’s former contract with it. 7. In this respect, the Claimant pointed out that it did not offer a contract to the player, because the club participates in an amateur league. Also due to its lack of financial resources, it was prevented, against its will, to offer the player a professional contract. Finally, the Claimant argued that art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the above-mentioned Regulations cannot be applied in this case, since it was impossible to offer the player a contract of “…at least of an equivalent value to the current contract”, since the player was registered as an amateur. 8. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not submit any response to FIFA with regard to the claim of the Claimant. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he first referred to art. 21 par. 1 and 2 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008). In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 27 May 2008, thus before the aforementioned Rules entered into force. Consequently, the 2005 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 18 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge 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 DRC shall adjudicate on disputes relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations, in casu between a country P club and a country R club. 3. In particular, and in accordance with art. 24 par. 2. ii) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC judge confirmed that he may adjudicate in the present dispute relating to the calculation of training compensation. 4. Furthermore the judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the judge referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged on 27 May 2008 and that the player was registered with the Respondent on 25 August 2007. In view of the aforementioned, the DRC judge concluded that the 2005 edition of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 5. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. He started by acknowledging the facts of the case, as well as the documentation contained in the file. 6. In this respect, the judge recalled that the player, born on 20 May 1988, was registered as an amateur with the Claimant from 21 August 2006 until 22 August 2007. 7. In continuation, the DRC judge duly noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant is requesting training compensation for the training and education of the player between 21 August 2006 and 22 August 2007, i.e. the seasons comprehended between the player’s 19th and 20th birthday, in the amount of EUR 20,000 plus 5% interest per annum since the date the payment should have been made. On the other hand, the DRC judge took into account that the Respondent never took position in the dispute, despite having been asked to do so by FIFA. Thus, the Respondent renounced to its right to defence and accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 8. In continuation, the judge stated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 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 a player is registered for the first time as a professional, or when a professional is transferred between clubs of two different associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 9. In view of the above, the DRC judge concluded that based on the documentation at disposal it can be established that the player in question, born on 20 May 1988, was registered as a professional with the Respondent in August 2007, i.e. before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday, and thus, in general entitling the Claimant to receive training compensation from the Respondent. 10. Moreover, the DRC judge referred to art. 6 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, which contains special provisions regarding players moving from one association to another inside the territory of the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA). According to par. 3 sent. 1 of the mentioned provision, training compensation is only payable if the former club offers the player a contract or if it can justify that it is entitled to training compensation. 11. In view of the above, the DRC judge stated that, first and foremost, he had to verify whether art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 of Annex 4 of the Regulations applies in the present case as lex specialis, and if so, to determine if the Claimant had complied with said provision in order to be entitled to training compensation and, in the affirmative, finally, to calculate the amount of training compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant, if any would be due. 12. As far as the applicability of art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations is concerned, the DRC judge first of all stated that, as the player moved from country P to country R, i.e. inside the territory of the EU, art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations is applicable. This fact does not appear to be contested by any of the parties. Therefore, the DRC judge concluded that the aforementioned provision applies in the case at hand as lex specialis. 13. In this sense, the DRC judge emphasised once again that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, if the former club does not offer the player a contract, no training compensation is payable unless the former club can justify that it is entitled to such compensation. 14. To that regard, the DRC judge acknowledged that it is uncontested that no professional contract was offered to the player by the Claimant prior to his transfer to the Respondent. 15. In this context, the DRC judge turned its attention to the Claimant’s argument, according to which the above-mentioned provision does not apply in casu, since the Claimant participated in an amateur league and due to its lack of financial resources, it was prevented to offer the player a contract. Furthermore, the DRC judge noted that, according to the Claimant, the player was registered as an amateur and therefore, it was not in a position to offer him a contract of “at least of an equivalent value to the current contract” as requested by art. 6 par. 2 of Annex 4 of the Regulations. 16. Considering the position of the Claimant, the DRC judge referred to the decision CAS XXXX/X/XXXX club H/club E taken by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 7 February 2007, by means of which it confirmed the existing jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) as far as the applicability of art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations is concerned. In particular, the CAS corroborated that the first sentence of art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations does cover both amateur and professional players (cf. point 8.8 of the aforementioned decision). In fact, according to the Chamber’s jurisprudence and as confirmed by the CAS in the relevant decision, the second and third sentence of the provision in question, however, do only apply “to situations when a professional contract is already in existence, setting out certain requirements which the training club must meet in order to retain a right to compensation if a player moves to another club” (cf. point 8.9 of the aforementioned CAS decision). 17. Subsequently, the DRC judge specified that according to the jurisprudence of the DRC, art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, i.e. the obligation to offer a professional contract to the player, does not apply to purely amateur clubs, which are per se not in a position to do so, but does definitively apply to clubs, which have amateur and professional players. 18. In this respect, the DRC judge recalled that the Football Federation P confirmed that the Claimant belongs to category IV and is a purely amateur club. 19. Consequently, and taking into account all the above-mentioned elements, the DRC judge concluded that since the Claimant was a purely amateur club, the exception to the exception stipulated in the last part of the first sentence of art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand. As a result, the Claimant did not have to meet the prerequisites of the above- mentioned art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, i.e. to offer a contract to the player, in order to be entitled to training compensation. 20. On account of the foregoing, the DRC judge decided that the Claimant was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent. 21. As a result and considering the aforementioned points II. 6. and 8, as well as 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 DRC judge concluded that the effective period of time to be considered in the matter at stake corresponds to the period comprehended between 21 August 2006 and 22 August 2007. 22. Turning his attention to the calculation of training compensation, the DRC judge referred to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of 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. 23. In this respect, the DRC judge took due note that according to the information provided by the Football Federation R, the Respondent belonged to category III during the season 2006/2007 (indicative amount within UEFA of EUR 30,000 per year). 24. Equally, the DRC judge referred again to art. 6 of Annex 4 of the Regulations which also contains special provisions concerning the calculation of training compensation. In particular, the DRC judge recalled that the Football Federation P confirmed that the Claimant belongs to category IV (indicative amount within UEFA of EUR 10,000 per year) and stated that, in accordance with art. 6 par. 1 a) of Annex 4 of the Regulations, the calculation of training compensation shall be based on the average of the training costs of the two clubs. 25. Moreover, and with regard to the Claimant’s request to receive 5% interest, the DRC judge emphasized that according to art. 3 par. 2 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, the deadline for payment of training compensation is 30 days following the registration of the professional with the new association. 26. Consequently and taking into account all the above-mentioned elements, the DRC judge decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 20,000, plus 5% interest per annum on the said amount as from 25 September 2007 until the effective date of payment. 27. In this respect, the DRC judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is accepted. III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, O, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, F, has to pay to the Claimant, O, the amount of EUR 20’000 plus interest of 5% p.a. on the said amount as from 25 September 2007 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the above-mentioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a formal decision. 4. The Claimant, O, is directed to inform the Respondent, F, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber judge 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 DRC judge Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives