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, S, as Claimant against the club, B, as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the player L

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, S, as Claimant against the club, B, as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the player L I. Facts of the case 1. The Football Association of X (FAX) confirmed that the player, L (hereinafter: the player), born on 21 May 1985, was registered with its affiliated club S (hereinafter: the Claimant) as from 2 April 2003 until 4 August 2005 and as from 16 November 2005 until 9 February 2006 as a professional. As from 5 August 2005 until 15 November 2005 the player was on loan with club Y as a professional. The player was then registered as an amateur with the club I (hereinafter: I) as from 10 February 2006 until 19 February 2006. 2. The football season in the country X lasts as from 15 November until 14 November of the following year. 3. On 20 February 2006, the player was registered with the club, B (hereinafter: the Respondent), as a professional. 4. The Football Federation D (FFD) confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the category I during the period of time when the player was registered with it. 5. The Football Association X confirmed that the Claimant belonged to the category III during the period of time when the player was registered with it. 6. On 12 September 2007, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training compensation from the Respondent in connection with the transfer of the player from club I to the Respondent. 7. The transfer agreement for the transfer of the player from the Claimant to club I was concluded on 20 January 2006. The Football Association X stated that the player “did not play for club I all the time the Football Association D sent a request for clearance already on February 2nd 2006”. 8. In its reply, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim and stated that the player played his last game with the Claimant on 20 October 2005 and thus assumed that the employment contract between the player and the Claimant expired on that day. 9. In addition, the Respondent held that the Claimant did not offer the player a new contract in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and that, therefore, it is not entitled to receive training compensation. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the Claimant knew that it would not receive training compensation and transferred the player to the club I, which was a fictitious transfer. 10. To that, the Claimant stated that the employment contract between “the Claimant and the player was signed on 20 August 2004 for the period as from 1 June 2004 until 15 November 2008 and that the player had personal reasons to request the Claimant to allow him to go as an amateur to club I”. 11. In its reply, the Respondent stated that the player was registered for club I on 10 February 2006 although the transfer of the player to the Respondent was on 31 January 2006. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that according to the statement of the Football Association X the Football Federation D requested the player’s International Transfer Certificate (ITC) already on 2 February 2006. Therefore, the Respondent considered it as unexplainable that the player was registered for club I as an amateur, since the player never played for club I. 12. Moreover, the Respondent stated that the training and education of the player cannot be of a high value since the player left his former club as a professional and was registered as an amateur for club I. In this respect, the Respondent stressed that it appeared as if the player was registered pro forma as an amateur and only for a few days with club I, in order to circumvent the principle of subsequent transfer as stated in art. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. 13. Upon specific request of FIFA, with regard to the question as to whether it offered the player a contract in writing via registered mail at least 60 days before the expiry of the aforementioned player’s contract, the Claimant stated that the player terminated his employment contract with the Claimant for personal reasons. The Claimant emphasised that it had no intention to terminate the contract. Equally, it stated that “It is a governance principle in club S to allow any player to terminate his contract before the contract termination date to allow the player to develop and take opportunities in other soccer clubs if he prefers so.” 14. Furthermore, the Claimant provided a statement of the player dated 8 March 2011 in which the latter confirms that he requested to be released from the contract in November 2005 for personal reasons because he wanted to leave country X to settle in a smaller town or in the countryside. 15. In its final position, the Respondent argued that by the Claimant’s acceptance of the termination of the player’s contract it expressed that it was not interested in keeping the services of the player and therefore the Claimant did not comply with the obligations established in art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players. 16. Furthermore, it pointed out that the Claimant provided an alleged statement of the player, dated 8 March 2011, i.e. five years after the termination of the contract and over three years after it lodged a claim in front of FIFA to avoid the obligation established in art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players. In continuation, the Respondent stressed that the argument that the player left the Claimant because he wanted to live in a smaller town, i.e. club I, seems implausible since club I is less than 50 km away from the city O in the country X, which is not a valid reason for the termination of the contract with the Claimant. Since the player never played for club I and gave up his intention to live on the countryside when he moved to the city M in the country D, the argument of the Claimant cannot be considered. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 12 September 2007. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2005, hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, edition 2008, in combination with art. 18 par. 2 and par. 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 (editions 2008 and 2009) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on the present litigation relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with the Respondent on 20 February 2006 and that the present claim was lodged on 12 September 2007, 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 2005 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (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 the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. 5. First of all, the Chamber started by acknowledging that, the player, born on 21 May 1985, was registered for the Claimant as from 2 April 2003 until 4 August 2005 and as from 16 November 2005 until 9 February 2006 as a professional as well as that the football season in the country X lasts as from 15 November until 14 November of the following year. 6. Moreover, the Chamber took note that the Claimant, on the one hand, asserted that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent since the player had signed a professional contract with the Respondent. Equally, the Chamber recalled that the Respondent, on the other hand, rejected in full the Claimant’s claim for the payment of training compensation, because the Claimant did not offer the player a new contract in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations. 7. In continuation, and referring to the rules applicable to training compensation, 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. 8. Moreover, the Chamber referred, in particular, 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). More specifically, the Chamber turned its attention in particular to the third paragraph of the said provision, which stipulates, inter alia, that 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. 9. In this respect, the Chamber stated that, first and foremost, it 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 the said provision in order to be entitled to training compensation. 10. As far as the applicability of art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations is concerned, the Chamber first of all stated that, as the player moved from the country X to country D in February 2006, i.e. between two EEA countries, the said article of the Regulations is applicable. 11. Furthermore, the Chamber pointed out that the first sentence of the provisions of art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations clearly stipulates that no training compensation must be paid to the player’s former club if the said club did not offer the player a contract unless it can justify its entitlement to such compensation. In this respect, the members of the Chamber emphasised that it is the spirit and purpose of the said provision to penalise clubs which are obviously not interested in the player’s services. 12. On account of the aforesaid, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed whether or not the Claimant had complied with the prerequisites of art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations in order to be entitled to training compensation. 13. In this respect, the members of the Chamber duly noted that the Claimant had concluded an employment contract with the player, valid until 15 November 2008. Equally, the Chamber noted that the Claimant alleged having a “governance principle”, which allows any player to terminate the contract in order to allow him to develop and take opportunities in other clubs and that it had no intention to terminate the contract. 14. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant did not offer a new contract to the player. Having established the aforesaid, the Chamber went on to analyse weather the Claimant could in any case justify its entitlement to training compensation. 15. By doing so, the Chamber first of all recalled the general principle of burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules), according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. In this respect, the Chamber took into account the Claimant’s allegation that it had no intention to terminate the contract, and noted that the latter did not provide sufficient documentation proving the contrary in order to support its entitlement to training compensation. 16. Furthermore, the Chamber considered that the Claimant’s argument that the employment contract was terminated because the player wished to be released could not be considered as a justification in the sense of art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 of Annex 4 of the Regulations. 17. Moreover, the members of the Chamber took note of the Claimant’s statement that the player had personal reasons to request his release from the Claimant, i.e. that he wanted to leave city O in country X and settle in a smaller town or in the countryside. 18. In this context, the Chamber pointed out that, eventually, the player moved to the country D, only after few weeks from his release, and therefore, the argument of the Claimant in this respect could not be taken into account. 19. In continuation, the Chamber noted that on 20 January 2006, the Claimant signed a transfer agreement with the club I, for the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the club I, and had, therefore, terminated the employment contract with the player. 20. Consequently, the members of the Chamber determined that, as the Claimant agreed to terminate the employment contract with the player, it did not show any interest in the services of the player and, therefore, keeping him in its team. In view of the above, the Chamber came to the conclusion that the Claimant failed to comply with the prerequisites of art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, i.e. it failed to justify its entitlement to training compensation. 21. On account of all the foregoing considerations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is not entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent for the training and education of the player. 22. Finally, and taking into account the above, the members of the Chamber did not deem it necessary to enter into the substance of the other arguments brought up by the parties to the present dispute during the investigation, since the prerequisites in order for the Claimant to be entitled to training compensation were not complied with. 23. In view of all the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber rejected the Claimant’s claim for training compensation. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber The claim of the Claimant, S, is rejected. 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