F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2011-2012) – indennità di formazione – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2011-2012) – training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 1 February 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member David Mayebi (Cameroun), member Philippe Diallo (France), member Essa M. Saleh Al-Housani (United Arab Emirates), member on the claim presented by the club X, as Claimant against the club Y, as Respondent regarding a dispute related to training compensation in connection with the player I

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2011-2012) - indennità di formazione – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2011-2012) - training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 1 February 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member David Mayebi (Cameroun), member Philippe Diallo (France), member Essa M. Saleh Al-Housani (United Arab Emirates), member on the claim presented by the club X, as Claimant against the club Y, as Respondent regarding a dispute related to training compensation in connection with the player I I. Facts of the case 1. The country C player, I (hereinafter: the player) was born on 14 July 1987. The Football Federation C (“Federación de Fútbol C”; hereinafter: FFC) confirmed the following registration dates of the player: • from 9 March 1995 until 30 November 2002, the player was registered with the country C club, X (hereinafter: the Claimant), as an amateur; • from 13 April 2003 until 18 December 2005, the player was registered with the country C club, Z (hereinafter: Z), as an amateur; • during the season 2006, the player was not registered within the Football Federation C; • on 16 April 2007,the player was transferred to the country B club, Club Y (hereinafter: the Respondent); • from 18 July 2007 until 1 February 2009, the player was not registered within the Football Federation C; and finally, • from 27 February 2009 until the season 2010, the player was registered again with Club Z, this time as a professional. 2. Upon FIFA’s request to clarify what the player was doing during the period comprehended between 18 December 2005 and 15 April 2007, the Claimant alleged that the player was registered within the Football Federation C as an amateur. In this respect, it referred to art. 4 of the country C Regulations and explained that the amateur status would imply that the player was not under contract with any club. Therefore, the player allegedly signed his first professional contract with the Respondent. 3. As documentary evidence, the Claimant provided FIFA with a confirmation of the Football Federation C, according to which the player was not contractually bound to any of its affiliated clubs between 19 December 2005 and 15 April 2007. Additionally, the Football Federation C also confirmed that it did not receive any request for an international transfer of the player during the mentioned period of time. In this respect, the Claimant added that if the player would have been transferred internationally, this information should, in accordance with art. 9 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the FIFA Regulations), be in the registers of FIFA. 4. The sporting seasons in country C between the years 1998 and 2003 started on 15 March and ended on 30 November. 5. On 2 February 2009, the player and Club Z concluded an employment contract valid retroactively as from 1 February 2009 until 31 January 2011. According to the fourth clause of this contract, the player was entitled to receive a monthly salary of 500,000 as well as an amount of 100,000 per month as “bonificación deportiva” and an amount of 100,000 per month as “auxilio extralegal de vivienda y habitación”. 6. According to a written statement from the Football Federation B (“Football Federation B”; hereinafter: FFB), the player was registered with its affiliate, i.e. the Respondent, as a professional player, as from 9 May 2007 until 19 June 2007. Furthermore, the Football Federation B also confirmed that the player was not registered with any other of its affiliated clubs. The player and the Respondent signed an employment contract valid from 18 April 2007 until 18 July 2007. However, according to the Football Federation B, the contract was already rescinded on 19 June 2007. 7. Furthermore, the Football Federation B confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the category I (indicative amount of USD 50,000 per year within the Confederation) during the period when the player was registered with said club. 8. On 17 September 2007, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training compensation from the Respondent due to the player’s first registration as a professional. In particular, the Claimant requested the sum of USD 20,916 plus 5% interest per year as from the due date. 9. In its reply, the Respondent stated that it registered the player in order to make a favour to his brother, who was playing for the Respondent, and to give a chance to a player which could not play during almost two years. According to the Respondent, the player’s brother reassured them that the player was staying with the Respondent only for evaluation and test. After said evaluation period, the player was allegedly not approved, and therefore, dismissed by the Respondent. Therefore, the latter club highlighted that it could not use the formation of the player, which is a precondition for the payment of training compensation. 10. Furthermore, the Respondent explained that it concluded an employment contract with the player, in order to facilitate his stay in country B, and, in case that it wanted to keep the player, it would not have had to start a new visa proceeding. Therefore, the Respondent concluded an employment contract for the minimum time period in accordance with country B law, i.e. for three months. The Respondent added that if it had intended to use the player professionally, it would have concluded an agreement for a longer period. 11. Moreover, according to the Respondent, it is a common thing for country B clubs to sign short employment contracts for an evaluation period. The player has allegedly never reached the main team but trained with the “B team”. In this regard, the Respondent provided FIFA with a confirmation of its department of amateur football, which states that the player was training with the “B team” as from 18 April 2007 until 19 June 2007 as a testing period, upon a request of his brother, and that he was dismissed on 19 June 2007. Furthermore, the statement also confirmed that the player participated in two matches of the team. 12. Finally, the Respondent referred to art. 5 par. 4 of Annex 4 to the FIFA Regulations, according to which the payable compensation can be adjusted in order to be compatible with the concrete situation. 13. In its replication, the Claimant rejected the arguments of the Respondent, and stated that even the latter club confirmed that a valid employment contract was signed between the player and itself. The player was registered with and played for the Respondent - a category I club. According to the Claimant, the Respondent’s motivation to sign an employment contract with the player is not relevant. Additionally, in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations, the validity of a contract may not be made subject to the grant of a work permit. 14. In its rejoinder, the Respondent repeated its position, and pointed out that the player had spent two years without being registered with any club before he came to the Respondent, and that, according to its knowledge, he was not registered for a new club afterwards either. Moreover, the Respondent referred to the spirit and purpose of training compensation, i.e. the compensation of the former club by the club profiting from this training. Since the Respondent allegedly could not benefit from the player’s training, it should not be obliged to pay any training compensation. 15. In several additional unsolicited statements, the parties maintained their previous position and added in particular, the following: a. the Claimant: Both the Respondent and the Football Federation B confirmed that the player had concluded an employment contract with the Respondent, and that he was registered there as a professional. The alleged obligation of the Respondent to sign an employment contract with the player due to country B law would not excuse it from complying with the FIFA Regulations. According to the Claimant, the Respondent would not have to pay training compensation only in case the player had signed an employment contract prior to his registration with the Respondent. Following that, the Claimant referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the “Regulations” and concluded that the Respondent should carry the burden of proof for such allegation. Moreover, the Claimant provided FIFA with a copy of the termination agreement, dated 19 June 2007, concluded between the player and the Respondent. According to the second clause of this agreement, the player was entitled to receive a total amount of 1,423.37. Finally, the Claimant stated that it would be illogical to withhold its right due to circumstances, which happened after its training of the player. The Claimant further rejected the Respondent’s argument to reduce the training compensation, since the first registration of the player as a professional is its only occasion to receive training compensation. In this respect, the Claimant also pointed out that the relevant training compensation is already low, since no other training club had lodged a claim, and the Claimant had trained the player at the very beginning of his sporting career. b. The Respondent: Referring to the termination agreement provided by the Claimant (cf. point I./15a. above), the Respondent stated that the low value, which had been paid to the player, would prove that the relationship between the latter and the Respondent was only a formal one, in order to enable the player to enter country B, and to make some test. Furthermore, the Respondent pointed out that the low salary of the player compared with the amount requested by the Claimant, i.e. USD 20,916 would be disproportionate. In this context, the Respondent referred to several decisions of the DRC, in which the latter considered the application of art. 5 par. 4 of Annex 4 to the Regulations, in order to reduce a disproportionate compensation. In particular, the Respondent provided FIFA with a copy of a training compensation decision, in which the current Respondent was actually the claiming party. In this decision, the DRC took art. 5 par. 4 of Annex 4 to the Regulations into account, but finally refused its application, since the Respondent had not submitted sufficient documentary evidence, in order to prove that the training compensation would be disproportionate. However, the Respondent pointed out that, in the present matter, it could prove that the compensation claimed by the Claimant would be disproportionate (in view of the amount received by the player, the value of the payment related to the termination of the contract, as well as the very short time of relationship between the player and the Respondent). II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, it referred to art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 17 September 2007. As a consequence, the Chamber concluded that the 2005 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter in hand. 2. With regard to the competence of the Chamber, art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its jurisdiction in the light of the arts. 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010, 2009 and 2008). In accordance with art. 1 par. 1 of the aforementioned Regulations, which describes the scope of the relevant Regulations, in connection with articles 24 par. 1 and 22 d) of said Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on the present litigation with an international dimension concerning the training compensation claimed by a country C club, i.e. the Claimant for the training and education of the player in connection with the first registration of said player as a professional for a country B club, i.e. the Respondent. 3. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered for the Respondent on 9 May 2007, the Chamber 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, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010, 2009 and 2008), and also considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 17 September 2007, the previous edition (i.e. the 2005 edition) of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at stake 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, and started by acknowledging the facts of the case, as well as all of the documentation contained in the file. 5. First and foremost, the Chamber stated that, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations in combination with art. 1 par. 1, as well as 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 player is transferred between two clubs of two different associations, before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 6. In continuation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber acknowledged that the player, born on 14 July 1987, was, according to the Football Federation C, registered with the Claimant club from 9 March 1995 until 30 November 2002, and with another country C club, i.e. Z, from 13 April 2003 until 18 December 2005, always as an amateur, before being transferred to the Respondent on 9 May 2007. 7. Furthermore, the Chamber duly noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant is requesting training compensation from the Respondent in a total amount of USD 20,916 plus 5% interest, based on the first registration of the player as a professional for the Respondent, and, on the other hand, that the Respondent contested the Claimant’s entitlement to receive any training compensation, arguing that it could not “professionally use” the player. As alternative motion, the Respondent requested a reduction of the training compensation amount in accordance with art. 5 par. 4 of Annex 4 to the Regulations. 8. In this respect, the Chamber first of all deemed it appropriate to clarify if the player had become a professional upon being registered for the Respondent. Taking into account the statements of the Respondent, the termination agreement concluded between the player and the Respondent, as well as the confirmation of the Football Federation B, the members of the DRC unanimously concluded that the player was registered as a professional for the Respondent, and that, therefore, in accordance with art. 2. i) of Annex 4 to the Regulations, the payment of training compensation is generally due. 9. Furthermore, the DRC turned its attention to the fact that neither the Football Federation C, nor the Football Federation B’s confirmations regarding the registration dates of the player include any information about the period between 18 December 2005 and 16 April 2007. 10. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party deriving a right from an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. Following this general legal principle, the members of the DRC concluded that the Claimant, which bases its right to receive training compensation on the player’s first registration as a professional, carries the burden to prove that the player was indeed registered for the first time as a professional when he signed up for the Respondent club. 11. In continuation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber turned its attention to the several documents provided by the Claimant in this regard. In particular, the DRC firstly noted that the Football Federation C confirmed that the player was not registered with any of its affiliated club(s) during the period lasting from 19 December 2005 until 15 April 2007. Subsequently, the latter Federation also stated that the player had not signed any professional contract in country C, as well as that it did not receive any request for an international transfer (“ITC request”) of the player during the mentioned period of time. 12. Furthermore, the Chamber also referred to art. 9 of the Regulations, according to which players registered with one association may only be registered with a new association once the latter has received an International Transfer Certificate (hereinafter: ITC) from the former association. 13. Following the previous considerations, the members of the DRC came to the firm conclusion that the Claimant could prove the amateur status of the player until his registration for the Respondent. 14. Consequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent. 15. Turning its attention to the calculation of the training compensation due, the Chamber first of all recalled that the player had been registered for the Claimant from 9 March 1995 until 30 November 2002, and that it requested the amount of USD 20,916 plus 5% interest as from the due date of said payment. Equally, the members of the DRC also referred once again to art. 1 par. 1 of Annex 4 to the Regulations, according to which a player’s training and education takes place between the ages of 12 and 23. 16. Subsequently, the DRC 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. 17. In this respect, the Chamber took due note that, according to the information at disposal by the time the player was registered as a professional with the Respondent, the latter belonged to category 1 within Football Federation C, i.e. the amount of USD 50,000 per year. However, art. 5 par. 3 of Annex 4 to the Regulations provides that the training costs for players for the seasons between their 12th and 15th birthdays shall be based on the training and education costs of category 4 clubs, i.e. the amount of USD 2,000 per year. 18. Moreover, the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 2 of Annex 4 to the Regulations, according to which the deadline for payment of training compensation is 30 days following the registration of the professional with the new association, and emphasized that, based on the information provided, the player concerned was registered for the Respondent on 9 May 2007. 19. At this stage, the members of the Chamber considered the Respondent’s argument stating that the amount of training compensation should be reduced under art. 5 par. 4 of Annex 4 to the Regulations. Said provision gives the DRC the discretion to adjust the amount of training compensation if it is clearly disproportionate to the case under review. 20. In this respect, the DRC referred once again to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, and accurately studied the arguments and documentation provided - or respectively not provided - by the Respondent in this regard. In particular, the Chamber observed that the Respondent did not even submit a copy of the employment contract concluded with the player, which would, so the members of the Chamber, be the easiest way to prove the low value of the player’s training and education, as alleged by the Respondent. 21. Consequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber came to the conclusion that the Respondent could not provide enough convincing documentary evidence that the amount of training compensation in the matter at stake is clearly disproportionate, and therefore, rejected this argument set forth by the Respondent. 22. In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the latter club is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in a total amount of USD 7,500 plus 5% interest per annum as from 9 June 2007. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club X, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club Y, has to pay to the Claimant, Club X, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 7,500, as well as 5 % interest per annum on said amount as from 9 June 2007 until the date of effective payment. 3. 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 its consideration and a formal decision. 4. The Claimant, Club X, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club Y, 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. 5. Any further requests filed by the Claimant, Club X, are rejected. Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 67 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