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) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 August 2012, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club B, from country C as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player D

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) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 August 2012, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club B, from country C as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player D I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Association of country B the player D (hereinafter: the player), was registered with the Club A, from country B (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 17 August 2005 until 23 March 2007 as an amateur. Furthermore, the player passport indicated that: - from 24 March 2007 until 10 February 2008 there was “no record found”; - from 11 February 2008 until 31 December 2009 the player was registered as an amateur with the Club C, from country B - from 1 January 2010 until 17 February 2010 there was “no record found”; - on 18 February 2010, the player was transferred to country D. 2. The sporting season in country B runs from 1 January until 31 December. 3. According to an official confirmation of the country D Football Federation the player was registered with its affiliated Club D, from country D (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 26 February 2010 as a professional. 4. The country D Football Federation further confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the club category II at the time the player was registered with the Respondent. 5. On 31 January 2012, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of training compensation from the Respondent on the basis that the player signed his first professional contract with the Respondent on 18 February 2010. In particular, the Claimant is claiming training compensation in the amount of EUR 77,408 plus interest as from 30 days of the player’s registration with the Respondent. 6. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent stated that the player was registered with it on 26 February 2010, but that the player “was registered by our country D Football Academy affiliate and has never played for nor was engaged by our first division team, [the Respondent]. The country D Football Academy is a training center for young people but the country D registration system does not distinguish between first division teams and young people residing and getting education at the academy, thus the player received a very small stipend for the period of his education which lasted from 2.26.2010 to 6.15.2011”. 7. Furthermore, the Respondent asserted that the Football Association of country B had confirmed to it that the player had “no registration in country B”. However, since the player himself had indicated that he had played with the Club C, the Respondent had requested a waiver from said club regarding the payment of training compensation. The Respondent therefore expressed it was “concerned” about the behaviour of the Football Association of country B, as it had not provided them with an accurate player passport. 8. Finally, the Respondent indicated that the Claimant had never offered the player a contract in accordance with the FIFA Regulations on the Status of Transfer of Players and that the player was only registered with the Claimant for 1,5 years. 9. In view of the foregoing, the Respondent requested that the claim of the Claimant be rejected. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 31 January 2012. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, edition 2008 (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 lit. ii. in combination with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010), the DRC judge is competent to deal with the matter at stake relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2009 and 2010), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 31 January 2012 as well as that the player was registered with the Respondent on 26 February 2010, the 2009 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. The DRC judge started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. 5. First of all, the DRC judge recalled that the player was born in 1990 and was registered with the Claimant as from 17 August 2005 until 23 March 2007 as an amateur. 6. In continuation, the DRC judge took note that the Claimant argued that it is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 77,408, on the basis that the player was registered for the first time as a professional with the Respondent. 7. Furthermore, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant, arguing that: - the player was only given a very small stipend and was never registered with the Respondent as a professional player of the Respondent’s first team, but with their “football academy affiliate”, - the Football Association of country B had confirmed to the Respondent that the player was not a registered player in country B, and - the player was never offered a contract before he was transferred from the Claimant to Club C, which was supported by a written statement of the player. 8. In this respect, the DRC judge first referred to the rules applicable to training compensation, and stated that, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations as well as 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. 9. In connection with the above, the DRC judge duly noted the argument raised by the Respondent that, in fact, the player was never registered with it, but with its “football academy affiliate”. In this respect, the DRC judge stressed that the national association to which the Respondent is affiliated, i.e. the country D Football Association, had unequivocally confirmed that the player was registered with the Respondent as a professional on 26 February 2010 and that, later on, the player and the Respondent had mutually agreed to terminate “their contract”. Taking into account the foregoing information as well as considering that the Respondent had not produced any evidence to the contrary, the DRC judge deemed that it could be established that the player was indeed registered as a professional with the Respondent. 10. In this context and considering the career history of the player, which indicated that at all time prior to the player’s registration with the Respondent, the player way registered as an amateur, the DRC judge determined that the player was registered for the first time as a professional with the Respondent before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 11. In continuation and turning to the Respondent’s argument that the Football Association of country B had not properly informed the Respondent about the player’s relevant registration details, the DRC judge referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which stipulates that any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. In this respect, the DRC judge observed that the Respondent had not submitted any documents which demonstrated that i) the Respondent had requested the Football Association of country B to inform it about the player’s career history, and ii) that the Football Association of country B had indeed confirmed to the Respondent that, prior to registering the player, the player had not been registered with any country B club. Therefore, the DRC judge decided that the argument raised by the Respondent in this regard should be rejected. 12. As to the final argument raised by the Respondent, i.e. the argument that the Claimant had not offered the player a contract in accordance with the Regulations, the DRC judge understood that the Respondent referred to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. In this respect, the DRC judge outlined that art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations 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 other words, the applicability of art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations is limited to a well-defined geographic scope. Since country B is neither a member of the EU, nor of the EEA, the DRC judge concluded that art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations does not apply in the present matter and, thus, that the Claimant did not have the obligation to offer a contract to the player in order to preserve its entitlement to training compensation. 13. On account of all the above considerations, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 14. Turning his attention to the calculation of the training compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant, the DRC judge referred to the FIFA circular no. 1223 dated 29 April 2010 which provides details for the calculation of training compensation as well as to art. 5 par. 1 and par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates 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. Furthermore, the DRC judge referred to art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that to ensure that training compensation for very young players is not set at unreasonably high levels, the training costs for players for the seasons between their 12th and 15th birthday shall be based on the training and education costs for category 4 clubs, i.e. on the basis of EUR 10,000 per year in the case at hand. 15. In continuation, the DRC judge took into account that the Respondent belonged to the category II within UEFA, which corresponds to the amount of EUR 60,000 per year, and that the player, born in March 1990, was registered with the Claimant as from 17 August 2005 until 23 March 2007, i.e. during 4 months of the season of the player’s 15th birthday, during the complete season of the player’s 16th birthday as well as during 3 months of the season of the player’s 17th birthday. In view of the foregoing, and considering art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations as well as the amount claimed by the Claimant, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent has to pay the amount of EUR 77,408 to the Claimant as training compensation. 16. Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent has to pay, in conformity with its longstanding practice, interest at 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of the 31st day of the registration of the player with the Respondent, i.e. as from 29 March 2010, until the date of effective payment. 17. Lastly, the DRC judge referred to 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 E 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. 18. In respect of the above, the DRC judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 77,408 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country E 10,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 19. As a result, taking into account the particularities of the present matter, the number of issues that had to be addressed as well as that the Respondent was the unsuccessful party in the present proceedings, the DRC judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country E 6,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent. III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club B, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 77,408 plus default interest of 5% p.a. on said amount as from 29 March 2010 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country E 6,000 are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 4.1. The amount of currency of country E 4,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. XX-XXXXX: 4.2. The amount of currency of country E 2,000 has to be paid to the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 4.2. above are to be made and to notify the DRC judge 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 DRC judge: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives