F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) – indennità di formazione – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) – training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 July 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on the claim presented by the club, Club S, from country T, as Claimant against the club, Club N, from country M, as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the player F

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) - indennità di formazione – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) - training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 July 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on the claim presented by the club, Club S, from country T, as Claimant against the club, Club N, from country M, as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the player F I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player’s passport issued by the National FA of country T (NFAT), the player, Player F (hereinafter: the player), born in 1990, was registered with Club S from country T (hereinafter: Club S or the Claimant), as from 28 March 2008 until 26 March 2009, as an amateur. 2. The sporting season in country T follows the calendar year, running from 1 January until 31 December. 3. The National FA of country M (NFAM) informed that the captioned player was registered with club N from Country M (hereinafter: club N or the Respondent), on 30 March 2009, as a professional. According to the NFAM, the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) request to the NFAT, dated 11 March 2009, by mistake mentioned that the player would be registered with club N as an amateur. Upon FIFA’s request, the NFAT also provided a copy of the ITC issued in favour of Club N, dated 27 March 2009. 4. Furthermore, according to the NFAM, Club N belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year), when the player was registered with it. 5. On 23 March 2011, Club S, from country T contacted FIFA, requesting the payment of training compensation for one complete year in the amount of EUR 30,000, plus interests of 5% p.a. as from 27 April 2009. 6. In its response, Club N states that a professional contract between it and the captioned player was already signed on xx month 2008. 7. In this respect, Club N provided a copy of said contract, which establishes in its art. 13 that the player shall be entitled to: - (currency of country M) 8,500 as monthly salary; the salary shall be raised to currency of country M 10,000, once the player has played 10 matches of the first team; to currency of country M 12,000 once the player has played 30 matches of the first team; and to currency of country M 15,000 once the player has played 50 matches of the first team; - Currency of country M 500 of bonus per point; the bonus shall be raised to currency of country M 800 per point, once the player has played 10 matches; to currency of country M 1,500 once the player has played 30 matches; and to currency of country M 2,500 once the player has played 50 matches; - a flat/room at the club’s discretion; - currency of country M 6,000 as internet expenses. 8. According to Club N, since the employment contract was signed on 6 November 2008 and registered with the NFAM on 9 December 2008, the right of the club of country T to demand the payment of training compensation would already be prescribed and the claim should be rejected. 9. In case the claim is accepted by FIFA, the club from country M demands to pay a lower amount of training compensation. According to the club from country M, the player’s registration dates submitted by the NFAT are incorrect, since the player has been training with Club N as from July 2008, i.e. even before the signature of the contract. 10. In this respect, Club N presents a declaration of the player, dated 15 June 2011, according to which he states having “practiced in the club S, of country T, in a period from December 2007 until April 2008. I have not before or since practised with the club. From July 2008 and the following 3 months I made a practice test training in Club N, of country M. Following my 18th year old birthday on November 6 2008, I signed a contract with Club N valid from 1 January 2009 until 31 December 2011”. 11. Hence, Club N considers that the amount due to Club S as training compensation, if any, corresponds to the period from 27 March 2008 until 30 April 2008, amounting to EUR 2,834. 12. Furthermore, the club provided a declaration of the NFAM, dated 10 June 2011, stating that “the player’s contract between Player F and the Club N A/S was signed by the parties 21 October and 6 November 2008, respectively and approved by the FA of country M 9 December 2009. Due to a misunderstanding the club from country M did not inform the FA of country M to request the player’s ITC until after the registration period had ended 1 February 2009”. 13. Finally, Club N states that it is a small club, which has in the past years generated vast losses based on a small turnover, and requests that this should be taken into consideration, in case the payment of training compensation is deemed due. 14. In its replica, Club S stated that the player’s passport and the relevant ITC issued by the NFAT in favour of the NFAM, is in accordance with the facts mentioned in the claim. 15. Club S further mentioned that the aforementioned documents, issued by FIFA’s member Association, are binding in order to assert the evolution of a player’s career at all levels, contrary to a player’s personal declaration which is always far from being independent. 16. Finally, Club S states that the player’s registration with Club N on 9 December 2008 was concluded in absolute breach of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, since the player’s relevant ITC was never issued at the time. Moreover, even if such alleged previous registration would be taken into consideration, the calculation of any amounts due as training compensation, as well as the applicability of the two year’s prescription period, must be in strict accordance with the date of the player’s valid registration with his new club, i.e. 27 March 2009, as per the player’s passport. 17. In its final position, the club of country M states that the date of the issuance of the ITC, in this particular case, shall not be taken into account to determine the prescription of the right of Club S, since according to the Regulations, the event triggering the obligation to pay training compensation is the actual registration with the new association. 18. Consequently, a decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the DRC) stating the contrary would be “unnecessarily formalistic and completely contrary to the intentions of the provisions on Training Compensation”, since Club N would be obliged to pay training compensation for a period in which the player was in fact being trained by the club of country M. In addition, the date of the player’s arrival to Club N was not contested by Club S. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed which procedural rules are applicable to the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 23 March 2011. Consequently, the 2008 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 at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the 2008 Procedural Rules). 2. In continuation, the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Regulations), the DRC was competent to adjudicate on a dispute relating to the payment of training compensation between a club from country T and a club of country M, in connection with the transfer of the professional player, Player F. 3. At this point, the Chamber stated that prior to deliberating on the substance of the matter, the DRC must verify whether the competent FIFA body would be able to deal with the present affair or not for formal reasons. In particular, the Chamber took note of the formal objection of the Respondent, according to which the Claimant’s claim would be prescribed, taking into account the fact that an employment contract between the Respondent and the player had already been signed on 6 November 2008 and approved by the football association of country M on December 2009, and considering that the claim of the Claimant was only submitted to FIFA on 23 March 2011, i.e. more than 2 years after the signature and the approval of the contract. 4. In this context, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations (edition 2008), in connection with the Procedural Rules, which stipulate that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more than two years have elapsed since the facts leading to the dispute arose and that the application of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in each individual case. 5. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber took note of the information provided by the NFAM, according to which, even though the player and the Respondent concluded an employment contract on 6 November 2008, approved by said association on 9 December 2009, the Respondent did not urge the NFAM to request the player’s ITC before the end of the registration period, i.e. before 1 February 2009. The ITC request from the NFAM to the NFAT was, therefore, only made on 11 March 2009 and the relevant ITC was only issued by the NFAT on 27 March 2009. 6. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the event giving rise to the present dispute is the player’s registration with the new association, i.e. with the NFAM, on 30 March 2009. The fact that the Respondent failed to urge the NFAM to request the player’s ITC in due course does not concern the Claimant and, therefore, shall not be taken into consideration in order to stipulate the time limit within which the right to training compensation must be claimed. 7. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber unanimously concluded that considering the date of the player’s registration with the NFAM, i.e. 30 March 2009, and the date on which the Claimant lodged its claim, i.e. 23 March 2011, the latter was lodged within two years since the event giving rise to the dispute and, consequently, the Chamber rejected the Respondent’s objection regarding the prescription of the claim. 8. Having established that the claim of the Claimant is admissible, the Chamber went on to analyse which regulations were applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2, and art. 29 of the 2008 edition of the Regulations, and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 30 March 2009, the 2008 edition of said Regulations was applicable to the matter at 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 and, in this respect, it started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts and the documentation contained in the file. 10. In particular, the Chamber noted that the Claimant had lodged a claim against the Respondent, requesting from the latter the payment of training compensation for one complete year, i.e. as from 28 March 2008 until 26 March 2009, in the amount of EUR 30,000, plus interests of 5% p.a. as from 27 April 2009. 11. In this respect, the Chamber deemed it important to emphasize that, as a general rule, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations in connection with its Annex 4, training compensation is payable up to the age of 23, 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 his 23rd birthday. 12. Subsequently, the Chamber noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant based its request and the calculation of the allegedly due amount of training compensation on the information contained in the player’s passport issued by the NFAT, according to which the player was registered with the Claimant as an amateur as from 28 March 2008 until 26 March 2009. 13. On the other hand, the DRC noted that the Respondent rejects the claim, since it deems it to be prescribed. However, in case the claim of the Claimant is accepted, the Respondent demands to pay a lower amount of training compensation, considering the signature of the employment contract between Club N and the player on 6 November 2008, as well as a declaration of the player, dated 15 June 2011, according to which he practised with the Claimant exclusively between December 2007 until April 2008, having trained with the Respondent since July 2008. Therefore, the Respondent deems that the amount of training compensation due to the Claimant amounts to EUR 2,834 and corresponds to the period between 28 March 2008 and 30 April 2008. 14. In continuation, the Chamber took into account the contents of the Claimant’s replica and noted that the latter claims that its request is based on the player’s passport and on the ITC issued by the NFAT for the captioned player, which are the relevant documents in order to establish a player’s career; a personal declaration of the player shall, thus, be considered as possibly biased. Also based on such documents, the Claimant’s claim was lodged within the two-year time limit and, therefore, cannot be rejected as prescribed. 15. Furthermore, the DRC took note of the Respondent’s final position and the fact that it insists on the fact that, taking into account the particularities of this specific case, the amount of training compensation possibly due to the Claimant should be calculated based on the dates indicated on the player’s declaration and in the contract signed between Club N and the player; in the present case, a decision based on the player’s passport would be, according to the Respondent, “unnecessarily formalistic and completely contrary to the intentions of the provisions on Training Compensation”, since it would not reflect the period during which the player was actually trained by the Claimant. 16. Finally, the Chamber took note of the declaration of the NFAM, dated 10 June 2011, according to which “the player’s contract between Player F and the Club N A/S was signed by the parties 21 October and 6 November 2008, respectively and approved by the FA of country M 9 December 2009. Due to a misunderstanding the club of country M did not inform the FA of country M to request the player’s ITC until after the registration period had ended 1 February 2009”. 17. In view of the above, the Chamber observed that the main question of dispute to be analysed in the present matter is the player’s registration for the period between 1 May 2008 and 26 March 2009, i.e. whether the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation for the aforementioned period. In this respect, the Chamber considered the question of the involvement of the Claimant in the training and education of the player as an essential prerequisite to establish its entitlement to training compensation. 18. At this point and for the sake of good order, the Chamber also reminded the parties of the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right from an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. 19. Bearing in mind all the aforementioned, the Chamber proceeded to analyze all the documentation provided to FIFA by the parties, in particular, the player passport issued by the NFAT, the declaration of the NFAM dated 10 June 2011 and the player’s declaration dated 15 June 2011, and consequently, to establish whether the Claimant has the right to claim the payment of training compensation from the Respondent for the period comprised between 28 March 2008 and 26 March 2009. In case the DRC deems that the Claimant is indeed entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent, the Chamber will then proceed with the calculation of the amount due. 20. In this regard, the DRC observed that, while the player passport issued by the NFAT, upon which the Claimant bases its request, indicates the registration of the player with the Claimant as from 28 March 2008 until 26 March 2009, the declaration of the NFAM of 10 June 2011 confirms that a professional contract was signed between the Respondent and the player on 6 November 2009, and that the Respondent, by mistake, failed to urge the NFAM to request the player’s ITC to the NFAT before the end of the transfer period; thus, the ITC request for the player was only made on 11 March 2009 and the relevant ITC was only issued by the NFAT on 27 March 2009. 21. In addition, the Chamber took note of the content of the player’s declaration of 15 June 2011, which indicates that he played with the Claimant as from December 2007 until April 2008, and with the Respondent as of July 2007. 22. In view of the diverging information contained in the aforementioned documentation, the Chamber deemed that, in order to be able to establish the Claimant’s entitlement to training compensation, it would have to identify which is the fundamental documentation to establish a player’s career, which can in good faith be relied upon by the parties. In case the information contained in such documentation is disputed by any of the parties, the Chamber shall analyze whether consistent evidence of the contrary has been presented by the party that contests its validity, in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules. 23. In this regard, the members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber stated that the player’s passport issued by an Association is the decisive document for the establishment of the history of the player’s registration with clubs and, as such, shall be taken into account should the interested party not be able to provide well-founded evidence to the contrary. In the present case, the Respondent, Club N, bears the burden of proof in demonstrating that the information contained in the player’s passport provided by the Claimant is incorrect. 24. Bearing in mind the aforementioned, the DRC started to analyze the content of the documentation provided by the parties. 25. Firstly, the DRC referred to the player’s declaration of 15 June 2011 and, in this regard, it pointed out that the information contained in a personal statement, being of mainly subjective nature, might be affected by diverse contextual factors and, as such, it is considered to be of limited reliability. In addition, the DRC noted that the content of such declaration is not supported by any other official documentation on file. Consequently, the members of the DRC considered that it cannot be taken into account as evidence. 26. Having said that, the DRC referred to the player’s passport issued by the NFAT and the declaration of the NFAM. Taking into consideration the official nature of the information provided by both associations, which shall be considered as accurate and reliable, and the fact that the Respondent was able to provide FIFA with consistent evidence of the existence of an employment contract concluded with the player on 6 November 2008, the Chamber could acquire the certainty that the player had not been playing with the Claimant as of 6 November 2008. 27. On account of the above considerations, the DRC decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annex 4 of the Regulations, for the training of the player occurred between 28 March 2008 and 5 November 2008. 28. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber referred to art. 5 par. 1 and par. 2 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates, inter alia, that, as a general rule, to calculate the training compensation due to a player’s former club, 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 continuation, the DRC took into account that the Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) as well as the registration of the player, born in 1990, with the Claimant as from 28 March 2008 until 5 November 2008, i.e. for 7 months during the season of his 18th birthday, bearing in mind that the sporting season in country T follows the calendar year. Equally, the DRC emphasized that according to art. 3 par. 2 of Annex 4 of the Regulation, the deadline for the payment of training compensation is 30 days following the registration of the professional with the new association. 30. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the members of the DRC decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and determined that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 17,500, plus interest of 5% p.a. on the said amount as from 30 April 2009 until the effective payment. 31. The Chamber concluded its deliberations as to the substance of the case by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant. 32. Furthermore, the DRC referred to art 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which in proceedings before the DRC relating to disputes regarding training compensation costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied and that such costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings. 33. In this respect, the DRC reiterated that the claim of the Claimant was partially accepted. Therefore, both the Claimant as well as the Respondent must bear a part of the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 34. According to Annex A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 35. In this regard, the members of the Chamber reverted to the claim of the Claimant and remarked that the amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings amounts to EUR 30,000. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000 (cf. table in Annex A). 36. Considering that the case at hand contained complex factual and legal issues, the Chamber determined that the final amount of costs of the current proceedings should amount to CHF 5,000, of which CHF 2,000 shall be borne by the Claimant and CHF 3,000, by the Respondent. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club S, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club N, has to pay to the Claimant, Club S, the amount of EUR 17,500, plus 5% interest per year on the said amount as from 30 April 2009 until the 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 aforementioned deadline the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Club S, are rejected. 5. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 5,000 is to be paid within 30 days of notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1 CHF 3,000 by the Respondent, Club N, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no:xxxxxx: UBS Zurich Account number xxxxx Clearing number xxxx IBAN: xxxx SWIFT: xxxxx 5.2 CHF 2,000 by the Claimant, Club S, to FIFA’s aforementioned bank account with reference to case xxxxxx. 6. The Claimant, Club S, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club N, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made in accordance with the above point 2. and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. ** 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 Enclosed: CAS directives