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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 June 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member Essah M. Saleh Al-Housani (United Arab Emirates), member on the claim presented by the club, Club P, from country C as Claimant against the club, Club G, from country I as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player Z

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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 June 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member Essah M. Saleh Al-Housani (United Arab Emirates), member on the claim presented by the club, Club P, from country C as Claimant against the club, Club G, from country I as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player Z I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Association of the country C the player Z (hereinafter: the player), born in January 1994, was registered as an amateur with the country C clubs: - Club H as from 18 August 2004 until 17 August 2009; - Club P as from 18 August 2009 until 2 September 2011 (on loan). 2. The CMFS explained that the player did not return to Club H because the loan period was intended to expire on 30 June 2013. Club P (hereinafter: the Claimant) stated that the loan was made pursuant to art. 8 of the country C “Regulations of Transfer for unprofessional player” and that there was no loan agreement concluded. 3. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), Club G (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 22 August 2011, entered a transfer instruction into the TMS by means of which it “engaged the player out of contract, free of payment” from the Claimant. 4. The football seasons in the country C during the period of time the player was registered with the Claimant started and ended as follows: - 2009/2010 from 25 July 2009 until 30 May 2010; - 2010/2011 from 17 July 2010 until 11 June 2011; - 2011/2012 from 30 July 2011. 5. According to the aforementioned player passport, the Claimant belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) during the period of time the player was registered with it. 6. The country I Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered with the Respondent on 2 September 2011 as a professional. 7. Equally, the country I Football Federation confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year) at the moment the player was registered with it. 8. On 7 February 2012, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player, on 2 September 2011, had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 120,000. 9. In reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent stated that the Claimant had not offered a contract to the player in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and that, therefore, it is not entitled to receive training compensation. 10. In light of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the aforementioned Regulations, the Claimant stated that “his former club H declared the activity to sign his first professional contract with him [the player]”. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or 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 7 February 2012. 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 and 2012 editions 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 combination with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. Furthermore, 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 Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010 and 2012), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 2 September 2011, the 2010 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 DRC 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 on file. 5. First of all, the DRC took note that the Claimant maintained that it is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 120,000, indicating that the player had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 6. However, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rebutted the claim of the Claimant, alleging that the Respondent had not offered a contract to the player in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 7. Equally, the DRC took due note that, according to the Claimant, the player’s previous club, Club H, stated that it would offer the player a contract in accordance with the aforementioned provision. 8. After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, taking into consideration all the aforementioned arguments, the Chamber observed that the parties, in particular, disputed whether the Claimant should have offered the player a contract in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 9. In this respect, and hereby referring to the rules applicable to training compensation, the Chamber stated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 par. 1 lit. i. of Annexe 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 before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. Therefore, the Chamber concurred that indeed, in principle, training compensation is due whenever a player is registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 10. In continuation, the DRC referred to art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which contains special provisions regarding players moving from one association to another association inside the territory of the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA). In this regard, the Chamber indicated that, since the player moved from the country C to country I, i.e. from one association to another association inside the territory of the EU, said article is applicable. Hence, the DRC concluded that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies in the case at hand as lex specialis. 11. In continuation, the DRC pointed out that the obligation to offer the player a contract in compliance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations would in principle lie with the former club of the player. Consequently, and given the particularities of the present matter, the DRC held that it had to establish which club is to be considered the player’s former club. 12. In this respect, the members of the Chamber recalled that the player was registered with Club H as an amateur as from 18 August 2004 until 17 August 2009 and, thereafter, according to the Football Association of country C, on loan with the Claimant as from 18 August 2009 until 2 September 2011, also as an amateur. 13. Equally, the DRC recalled that the Football Association of country C had explained that the player did not return to Club H because the loan period was intended to expire on 30 June 2013, as well as that the Claimant explained that there was no loan agreement concluded with Club H. 14. Likewise, the DRC recalled that, according to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Respondent, on 22 August 2011, entered a transfer instruction into the TMS by means of which it “engaged the player out of contract, free of payment” from the Claimant. 15. Finally, the DRC noted that the ITC of the player, uploaded in TMS and issued by the Football Association of country C, also stipulated that the player was “formerly a member of [the Claimant].” 16. Taking into consideration all the aforementioned circumstances, the DRC concluded that the player was transferred directly from the Claimant to the Respondent and that, as a consequence, the Claimant is to be considered the former club of the player. Indeed, the Chamber emphasised that the information contained in TMS together with the absence of a loan agreement as well as the fact that the player was at all times registered as an amateur can lead to no other conclusion than that the Claimant was the former club of the player. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant should be considered the player’s former club in the sense of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 17. Turning its attention to the question whether the Claimant had complied with the obligation to offer the player a contract, the DRC recalled that the Claimant merely stated that “[the player’s] former club H declared the activity to sign his first professional contract with him [the player]”. 18. Consequently, and in absence of any evidence to the contrary, the DRC concluded that the Claimant did not offer the player a contract. In other words, the Claimant failed to comply with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 19. In light of all the foregoing, the Chamber rejected the Claimant’s claim. 20. Lastly, the Chamber 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 currency of country H 25’000 are levied. It is further stipulated that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and that, in accordance with Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 21. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 120,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 15,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 22. As a result, and taking into account the particularities of the present matter, the complexity of the case as well as that the claim of the Claimant has been rejected, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 12,000, which shall be borne by the Claimant. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club P, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 12,000 are to be paid by the Claimant within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of currency of country H 3,000 as advance of costs at the beginning of the present proceedings, the amount of currency of country H 9,000 is to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: ***** 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives