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 7 June 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member on the claim presented by the club, Club C, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club V, from country X as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with 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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 7 June 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member on the claim presented by the club, Club C, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club V, from country X as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player F I. Facts of the case 1. The Player F from country B (hereinafter: the player), was born on 2 April 1990. 2. According to a written confirmation from the Football Federation from country B dated 25 November 2010, the player, was registered with its affiliated club, Club C (hereinafter: the Claimant) as from 30 March 2006 until 31 December 2006, as an amateur. 3. The football season in country B, during the period of time the player was registered with the Claimant, follows the calendar year and thus run from January to December of the relevant year. 4. According to the Football Federation from country X the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club V (hereinafter: the Respondent), first as an amateur, on 30 November 2007, and subsequently as a non-amateur, on 8 January 2009. 5. The Football Federation from country X confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the category II of UEFA (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) at the time the player was registered with it. 6. On 15 December 2010, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA requesting payment of training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 60,000 plus interest as of 9 February 2009. In particular, the Claimant asserted that the player was registered as a professional for the first time with the Respondent. 7. The Respondent rejected the claim for training compensation and argued that it had made a specific request for the Football Federation from country B to clarify whether the player “had been previously registered with other Club/Clubs” and asked for the player’s passport. Further, the Respondent stressed that in response to its request, the Football Federation from country B sent a fax to the Football Federation from country X, dated 22 November 2007, stating that no record concerning the player had been found in its files. 8. The Claimant explained that amateur players in country B “may not be registered at all with Football Federation from country B, although being registered at their local State Association” and claimed that “this is the case of the player herein concerned”. Further, the Claimant confirmed that when it “requested the passport of the player, their original State Association had to be named and consequently, the request was promptly granted and the document issued”. Finally, the Claimant stated that the Football Federation from country B could confirm this information. 9. The Football Federation from country B provided FIFA with a letter, dated 11 July 2011, stating “we hereby want to explain you that Football Federation from country B informed the Football Federation from country X that the player was not in its records, because the State Federation which had his registration as an amateur player had not sent its list of registered amateur players to Football Federation from country B yet”. Furthermore, the Football Federation from country B held inter alia that the Football Federation from country X’s request (cf. point I/8) should have made reference to the clubs that the player had been registered with. Finally, the Football Federation from country B referred to art. 2 par. 2 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and to the fact that the player shall assist the new club to establish his career. 10. Although having invited to submit its final comments, the Respondent did not provide any further comments. 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 15 December 2010. As a consequence, the Chamber concluded that 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 in hand. 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 2 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 decide on the present litigation with an international dimension concerning the training compensation claimed by the club from country B for the training and education of the Player F in connection with the first registration of said player as a professional for the club from country X. 3. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that contrary to the information contained in FIFA’s letter dated 31 May 2013 by means of which the parties were informed of the composition of the Chamber, the member Mario Gallavotti and the member Philippe Piat refrained from participating in the deliberations in the case at hand, due to the fact that the member Mario Gallavotti has the same nationality as the Respondent and that, in order to comply with the prerequisite of equal representation of club and player representatives, also the member Philippe Piat refrained from participating and thus the Dispute Resolution Chamber adjudicated the case in presence of three members in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations. 4. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered for the Respondent as a non-amateur on 8 January 2009, 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 2012, 2010, and 2009), the previous edition (2008) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter in hand as to the substance. 5. 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 the documentation contained in the file. 6. 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 Annexe 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 is transferred between two clubs of two different associations, before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 7. In continuation, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the player, born on 2 April 1990, was, according to the Football Federation from country B, registered for the Claimant from 30 March 2006 until 31 December 2006. 8. Furthermore, the DRC acknowledged that, on the one hand, the Claimant requested the amount of EUR 60,000 as training compensation from the Respondent plus interest as from 9 February 2009 based on the first registration of the player as a professional and, on the other hand, that the Respondent contested the Claimant’s entitlement to receive any training compensation, arguing that the Football Federation from country B had confirmed that the player was not registered in country B before the Respondent concluded the employment contract with the player. 9. In continuation, the DRC also reminded of art. 5 par. 1 of the Regulations, which stipulates that professional, as well as amateur players, must be registered with an association to play for a club. In particular, the Chamber noted that said article clearly points out that it is the responsibility of an association to register the player. In the same line, the Chamber underlined that according to art. 7 of the Regulations, an association has to provide its affiliated club registering a player with a player passport indicating the complete player’s football career as from the season of his 12th birthday. 10. Furthermore, the Chamber took into account that the Respondent had asked the Claimant’s association, i.e. the Football Federation from country B, via its own association, i.e. the Football Federation from country X, for the player passport. 11. Taking into account the above, the DRC deemed important to underline that the Respondent absolutely complied with art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations by asking the responsible entities, i.e. the Football Federation from country B and the Football Federation from country X, in order to know the player’s career history. 12. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the Chamber emphasised that the Respondent had made a specific request for the Football Federation from country B to clarify whether the player “had been previously registered with other Club/Clubs” and asked for the player’s passport and the Football Federation from country B had sent a letter to the Football Federation from country X, dated 22 November 2007, which stated that no record concerning the player had been found in its files. 13. Equally, the members of the Chamber took note of the Claimant explanation regarding the alleged registration methods in country B in view of the structure of the Football Federation from country B (cf. point I/9 above). Further, the DRC took into consideration the letter of 11 July 2011 from the Football Federation from country B. 14. In view of the aforementioned, the DRC noted that the question if the Respondent could rely on the Football Federation from country B’s confirmation is fundamental to decide on the Claimant’s right to receive training compensation, especially with a view to the Respondent’s decision to register the player as a professional, since he was not registered before in country B. 15. To that regard, the Chamber pointed out again that the Respondent proceeded as foreseen in the Regulations by turning to its association in order to find out the player’s history. 16. In continuation, the Chamber noted that art. 2 par. 2 of Annexe 5 to the Regulations stipulates for the solidarity mechanism in fact that the player shall assist the new club in distributing the solidarity contribution to the player’s former clubs. 17. On this basis, the DRC referred to its previous decisions in which it had underlined that a club registering a player cannot base its information regarding the player’s career history on the player’s statement only, but has to turn to the respective association. 18. Taking into account the foregoing, the Chamber unanimously concluded that it had no alternative but to follow its previous decisions stating that the associations are the pertinent contact in order to receive correct information about the career of a player. Therefore, it decided that the Respondent could rely on the Football Federation from country B’s confirmation. 19. In view of the aforementioned and also with regard to the legal certainty, the DRC concluded that it was not acceptable for a club, which takes a player under contract based on the confirmation of the previous association and trusting that it would not have to pay training compensation, to be subsequently obliged to pay training compensation. 20. In continuation, the Chamber referred to the written confirmation issued by the Football Federation from country B, which is the basis of the Claimant’s claim and noted that said confirmation was issued on 25 November 2010, i.e. more than one year after the registration of the player for the Respondent. 21. Taking into account all of the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasised that based on the documentation provided by the Football Federation from country B at the time when the player was registered at the Football Federation from country X, the Respondent had no reason to pay training compensation. Consequently, the Chamber unanimously decided that the Respondent could not be obliged to do so later, based on changed documents issued by the same association. 22. Additionally, the DRC considered that the Respondent had acted in accordance with the principle of good faith as well as that, as a general rule, new clubs need to be able to rely on information received from the national associations of the potential training clubs. As a consequence, the Chamber ruled that good faith shall be protected and thus, the claim of the Claimant needs to be rejected. 23. Therefore, the DRC decided to reject the Claimant’s claim. 24. 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 and the solidarity mechanism, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 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. 25. In this regard, the DRC reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is rejected. Therefore, the Claimant has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 26. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 60,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules). 27. As a result, and taking into account the complexity of the case, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 6,000. 28. In this respect, the DRC took into account that the Claimant had paid the advance of costs in the amount of CHF 2,000 in accordance with art. 17 of the Procedural Rules. 29. In view of all the above, and bearing in mind that the claim of the Claimant is rejected, the Chamber concluded that the additional amount of CHF 4,000 has to be paid by the Claimant to cover the costs of the present proceedings. Thereof, the amount of CHF 4,000 has to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club C, is rejected. 2. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 6,000 is to be paid by the Claimant. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of CHF 2,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant shall pay CHF 4,000, within 30 days of notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A ***** 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