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 March 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Michele Colucci (Italy), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Ivan Gazidis (England), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member on the claim presented by the Country C Football Federation, from country C as Claimant against the club Club I, from country B as Respondent regarding a dispute relating to training compensation in connection with the transfer of the player W

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 March 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Michele Colucci (Italy), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Ivan Gazidis (England), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member on the claim presented by the Country C Football Federation, from country C as Claimant against the club Club I, from country B as Respondent regarding a dispute relating to training compensation in connection with the transfer of the player W. I. Facts of the case 1. Player W, from country C (hereinafter: the player), was born in July 1985. 2. According to the player passport produced by the country C Football Federation ( hereinafter: the Claimant) on 12 October 2010, the player was first registered with its affiliate, Club S, from country C from 14 March 2003 until 21 December 2003 as an amateur, then with another of its affiliates, Club D, from country C, from 5 February 2004 until 27 June 2004 as well as from 27 July 2004 until 19 December 2004 as an amateur, and from 11 February 2005 until 26 June 2005 as well as from 8 July 2005 until 18 December 2005 as a professional. 3. The country C football season 1996 - 1997 ran “from 8 September 1996 until 21 December 1997”, but as of the season 1998, it ran and runs from 1 January until 31 December, i.e. it followed and follows the calendar year. 4. On 5 September 2005, Club D, the country B club, Club I (hereinafter: the Respondent), and the player concluded an agreement in country C language titled “private instrument for the definitive assignment of rights arising from labor and sports bond with professional football player and other agreements” (hereinafter: the transfer agreement), by means of which the “assignment and transfer hereby agreed w[ould] take place without charges to the ASSIGNEE”, i.e. the Respondent (cf. SECTION TWO of the agreement). 5. The country B Football Confederation informed FIFA that the player was registered on 16 September 2005 as a professional for the Respondent and that said club is a category I club (indicative amount: USD 50,000 within the country C Football Federation). 6. On 14 September 2007, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent, requesting it to pay the total amount of USD 136,000 as training compensation for the training of the player, as follows: a) for five and a half seasons from July 1997 until December 2002, corresponding to the period in which the career of the player could not be established, taking as a basis the training costs of category 4 clubs: 5.5 x USD 2,000 = USD 11,000; b) for one season of training with Club S during the year 2003: USD 50,000; and finally, c) for one and a half season of training with Club D (from February 2004 until 14 September 2005): 1.5 x USD 50,000 = USD 75,000. 7. The Claimant alleged that, since in the present affair there are only records of the player as from the age of 18, the amount for these so-called “missing years” shall also be paid to the association of the country where the professional was trained, for which it counts with a deadline of two years as of the registration. 8. In particular, the Claimant contended that its affiliated clubs, Club D and Club S, did not claim their proportion of training compensation within 18 months following the player’s registration for the Respondent, and that in accordance with Annex 4 article 3 paragraph 3 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), training compensation shall be paid to the association of the country where the professional was trained, i.e. in the present matter, to the country C Football Federation. 9. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent preliminarily stated that the player was allegedly “hired” on 5 September 2005 and that therefore the claim shall not be heard due to prescription since more than two years had elapsed from the fact that originated such “charging”. 10. Furthermore, the Respondent is also of the opinion that the potential entitlement of a national association to training compensation occurs only upon the signature of the first employment contract of the player. In addition, according to the Respondent, the possibility of claiming this right before FIFA would exist only if the player was trained by a club belonging to a national association different than the one to which the training clubs, in which the player was trained as amateur, belonged to. 11. However, pursuant to the Respondent, in the present affair, not only was the player’s first registration as a professional not made while he was linked to the Respondent, but the player’s training occurred within the scope of the claiming Federation, to which the amateur clubs and the one with whom the player signed his first professional contract are affiliated. 12. Moreover, the Respondent stated that in the matter at stake, it is the Claimant itself that identifies the clubs and proves the existence of a link between them and the player. Therefore, the complaint filed by the Claimant does not have any juridical basis, in the light of the Regulations. 13. Finally, the Respondent asserted that besides the fact that the Claimant’s complaint was not legitimate, its request is out of proportion because it intends to encompass the period that goes beyond the time during which this professional was bound to the last club (Club D) before moving to the Respondent, increasing significantly - and wrongly, according to Respondent - the taxable compensation calculation. 14. In its replica, the Claimant rejected the argument of the Respondent, according to which the latter club was not obliged to pay the requested training compensation since Club D, from country C, ceded the player to the Respondent free of charge. 15. In this respect, pursuant to the Claimant, the Respondent had acted in bad faith, having hidden the real value of the player’s transfer, alleging that said transfer was free of charge. As a matter of fact, Club D and the Respondent allegedly simulated the selling of the “sportive rights” of the player using a private company (in casu, the B company) which bought from Club D a proportion of 50% of those rights in the amount of USD 800,000. 16. Finally, the Claimant was of the opinion that he has a right to claim training compensation based on the transfer of the player for the period comprehended between the years 1997 to 2002 and 2003 included. 17. Upon FIFA’s specific request for a clarification of what the player was doing during the period comprehended between July 1997 and December 2002, the Claimant manifested that it was not up to it to prove that the player was trained beyond the fact that he was registered with its affiliated clubs, Club S and Club D. Therefore, according to the Claimant, article 3 paragraph 3 of annex 4 to the Regulations does not establish any obligation to any further evidence. The Claimant noted that the player was born and lived in country C, but that there is no register of the institutions which trained him between the ages of 12 and 17, since these entities do not belong to the structure of organised football. 18. In its rejoinder, the Respondent rejected the alleged existence of a simulated business involving them. The Respondent is allegedly not even a party to the mentioned agreement (i.e. the agreement submitted by the Claimant in Portuguese language only). As for the rest, the Respondent reiterated its previous defence. Finally, the Respondent, once again, ratified its understanding that the present affair would be time-barred. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 14 September 2007. Consequently, the previous edition (i.e. the edition 2005) 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 in hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the 2008 edition 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 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. (d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010), the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) is competent to decide on the present litigation with an international dimension concerning the training compensation claimed by the Country C Football Federation for the training and education of the player W. 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 2010), which stipulates 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 16 October 2005, when the deadline for the payment - if indeed due - would have elapsed, reason for which the Claimant’s complaint for the payment of training compensation amounting to USD 136,000 has to be considered as not barred by the statute of limitations in application of art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations, in view of the fact that the present claim was lodged on 14 September 2007, thus within the time limit of two years since the facts leading to the dispute arose. 7. As a result, the Chamber rejected the Respondent’s objection. 8. Subsequently, taking into consideration that the player was registered with his new club on 16 September 2005, and considering that the present claim was lodged on 14 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 2010, 2009 and 2008), the previous version of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (i.e. the edition 2005; hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter in hand as to the substance. 9. 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. 10. In continuation, the members of the Chamber recalled that the Claimant requests the amount of USD 136,000 as training compensation from the Respondent. 11. Equally, the Chamber took note that the Claimant had, inter alia, requested training compensation, on the one hand, based on the fact that the player had not been registered for any of its affiliated clubs (the so-called “missing years”) for the period comprehended between July 1997 (season of the player’s 12th birthday) and December 2002 (season of the player’s 17th birthday), and, on the other hand, due to the fact that its affiliated clubs, Club D and Club S, had not claimed their proportion of the training compensation within 18 months of the player’s registration as a professional for the Respondent. 12. In continuation, the Chamber stated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 in conjunction 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 the player’s 23rd birthday. 13. However, the Chamber underlined that in the present matter, it was the Coundtry C Football Federation, i.e. a (national) Association, and not a club, which claimed the payment of the relevant training compensation. Therefore, it had in particular to analyse whether the conditions set forth in art. 3 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations were fulfilled. 14. Notwithstanding the above and before analysing said conditions, the Chamber also took note that the Respondent contested the complaint of the Claimant, emphasising, inter alia, that the potential entitlement of a national association occurs only upon the signature of the first employment contract of the player. 15. Equally, the Chamber considered that the country C Football Federation had confirmed that the player had been registered as a professional with one of its affiliated clubs, i.e. for Club D, on 11 February 2005, as a professional. 16. Thereafter, the Chamber maintained that, as a general rule, training compensation for a player’s training and education is, in principle, due when a player is registered as a professional for the first time and in case of a subsequent transfer of a professional, training compensation will only be owed to his former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club (cf. art. 3 par. 1 of the Annex 4 of the Regulations). 17. Subsequently, the Chamber considered, once again, that the Country C Football Federation had confirmed that the player in question had already been registered as a professional before being transferred to the Respondent. 18. Thus, and bearing in mind the above, the members of the Chamber underlined that in accordance with the clear wording of the Regulations in case of subsequent transfers of a Professional, Training Compensation will only be owed to his Former Club for the time he was effectively trained by that club (cf. annex 4 art. 3 par. 1 of the Regulations). 19. In other words, the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that the whole training that happened prior to the player signing his first professional contract with Club D cannot be considered anymore for the purposes of the present claim. 20. In light of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant is not entitled to receive any training compensation from the Respondent for the training offered to the player until 5 February 2004 since the transfer of the player from country C to the Respondent has to be considered as a subsequent transfer of a professional player and therefore, only the previous club of the player, i.e. Club D - respectively the country C Football Federation as its substitute - would (emphasis added) be entitled to receive training compensation. 21. Taking into account all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant’s demand for training compensation with respect to the so-called “missing years” as well as in lieu of Club S is to be rejected. 22. In continuation, the Chamber took due note of the fact that the Claimant also claims the amount of USD 75,000 for training compensation, in place of Club D, for one and a half season of training with the latter club, since Club D had apparently not claimed its proportion of training compensation within 18 months of the player’s registration as a professional for the Respondent. 23. In this respect, the Chamber recalled, however, that on 5 September 2005, Club D and the Respondent had signed an agreement concerning the transfer of the player from Club D to the Respondent. In particular, section two of this agreement stipulated that the “assignment and transfer hereby agreed w[ou]l[d] take place without charges to the ASSIGNEE”, i.e. to the Respondent. 24. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber stated that, according to its well established jurisprudence, if two parties enter into a transfer agreement which provides, inter alia, for the financial conditions of the relevant transfer, i.e. the payment of transfer compensation, training compensation is, in principle and unless otherwise provided, considered as being included in the transfer compensation. Thereby, the DRC mentioned that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) also followed this jurisprudence, e.g. in the matter CAS 2004/A/XXX Club T /Club L (par. 7.4.9). Equally, the panel emphasized that, in case the parties intend to agree on an additional amount in relation to the payment of training compensation, the transfer agreement should explicitly refer to a specific amount, distinct from transfer compensation, which would be due as training compensation. 25. Therefore, the Chamber, applying the above-mentioned jurisprudence, held that, in the present matter, in view of the fact that the Claimant did not present any contrary evidence, in particular no specific provision referring to the supplementary payment of training compensation in the relevant transfer agreement, the amount of transfer compensation has to be considered as comprising training compensation. In this regard, the Chamber was eager to underline that, in accordance with the general legal principle of the burden of proof, which is also contained in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, it would have fallen upon the Claimant to prove that training compensation was not included in the relevant transfer compensation. 26. Consequently, the Chamber established that the present matter needn’t be analysed under the light of art. 3 par. 3 of Annex 4 to the Regulations. Thus, in view of all of the above considerations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber unanimously decided that the complaint of the Claimant, i.e. the country C Football Federation, should be rejected for the training compensation claimed in place of Club D. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber The claim of the Claimant, the Country C Football Federation, 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