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 23 January 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman (did not take part in the deliberations) Jon Newman (USA), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Todd Durbin (USA), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the club, Club F, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club B, from country E as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player M

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 23 January 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman (did not take part in the deliberations) Jon Newman (USA), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Todd Durbin (USA), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the club, Club F, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club B, from country E as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player M I. Facts of the case 1. The player, M (hereinafter: the player), was born in June 1988 and, therefore, he turned 23 in 2011. 2. According to an official confirmation of the county S Football Association, the player was registered with the country S Club F (hereinafter: the Claimant) as from 30 January 2006 until 30 June 2011 as a professional. 3. Equally, the player passport indicated that player was loaned by the Claimant to the country S Club G, as from 5 November 2007 until 2 January 2008. 4. Having enquired about the duration of its sporting seasons during the period of time the player was registered with the Claimant, the county S Football Association explained that it did not have a definition of “sporting season” in its regulations. The county S Football Association indicated that, therefore, the definition of “season” as prescribed in the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) had been applied, which results in the following dates: - 2005/2006: as from 30 July 2005 until 7 May 2006; - 2006/2007: as from 29 July 2006 until 20 May 2007; - 2007/2008: as from 4 August 2007 until 22 May 2008; - 2008/2009: as from 9 August 2008 until 24 May 2009; - 2009/2010: as from 15 August 2009 until 9 May 2010; - 2010/2011: as from 7 August 2010 until 22 May 2011. 5. At the same time, however, the county S Football Association referred to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS) which stipulates that the “logged” dates are: - for the season 2010/2011: from 1 August 2010 until 31 May 2011; - for the season 2011/2012: from 1 June 2011 until 31 May 2012. 6. Furthermore, the county S Football Association stated that the “end date for Season 2010/2011, within FIFA TMS (…), was 31/05/2011; and the date of the last national league match was on 22/05/2011 (…). FIFA TMS also confirms that season 2011/2012 commenced on 1st June 2011 (…)” 7. According to an official confirmation of the county S Football Association, the Claimant belonged to the category II during the time the player was registered with it. 8. According to an official confirmation of The Football Association of country E the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club B (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 6 July 2011. 9. According to the information contained in the TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category II at the time of the player’s registration. 10. On 15 March 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA claiming the payment of training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 330,000. 11. The Claimant indicated that the player was below the age of 23 when both the country S Football Association’s season officially finished on 30 May 2011 as well as the country E season on 28 May 2011. The player’s employment contract with the Claimant terminated on 30 June 2011, i.e. during the 2011/2012 season, and, hence, the player was below the age of 23 when still under contract with the Claimant at the start of the 2011/2012 season in the country S Football League, which started on 1 June 2011. 12. The Claimant further indicated that it had offered the player a new contract with improved terms in October 2010 in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Claimant submitted the employment contract of the player which ran from 9 July 2009 until 30 June 2011 in accordance with which the player was to receive a monthly salary of £1,841.66 for the 2009/2010 season and £2,058.33 for the 2010/2011 season as well as several bonuses. A “contract extension proposal” was also submitted which was dated 18 October 2010 and which would run from the date of the signature until 20 June 2013. In accordance with said offer, the player would receive a monthly salary of £2,491.66 as well as several bonuses plus an increase in salary when the player would play a certain amount of matches. 13. In its reply to the claim lodged against it, the Respondent indicated that the Claimant is not entitled to training compensation, because the player transferred to the Respondent after the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 14. In this respect, the Respondent stated that the player turned 23 on 22 June 2011 and that his contract expired 8 days later on 30 June 2011. The Respondent asserts that, as such, when the player was registered with the Respondent on 5 July 2011, i.e. at the beginning of the 2011/2012 season, he was registered during the season of his 24th birthday. 15. The Respondent indicates that, whilst it may be that the last football match of the country S football season took place on 22 May 2011, said date cannot be used as the relevant date for the purpose of establishing a liability for training compensation, for the following reasons: a) The Claimant has adopted a uniform interpretation and application of the definition of ‘season’ in the Regulations. However, the Regulations contemplate two types of season: the playing season and the sporting season. The Respondent indicates that a playing season starts with the first match of the championship and ends with the last one, while a sporting season is a period of 12 months which encompasses the playing season. In this respect, the Respondent stresses that the sporting season is relevant for the purposes of training compensation. b) FIFA Circular no. 769, dated 24 August 2001, confirms that training compensation has been so established ‘in order to render the system manageable’. Therefore, should the season of a player’s 23rd birthday be dependent on the date of the last official match, this would render the system entirely unpredictable and unmanageable. c) FIFA Circular no. 769 further confirms that “only years of effective training may be taken into account” and that training compensation is to be distributed “pro rata according to full years of proper and proven training”. The Respondent refers to FIFA Circulars no. 799 and 826 and art. 4 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations to explain that the entire system of training compensation is founded on the basis of “full years”. d) It cannot be correct that training compensation is calculated on the basis of the playing season of first teams’ matches, given that training compensation may also be payable for players as young as 12, who never played a first team match. e) FIFA case law confirms that a season must last for 12 months for the purpose of calculating training compensation. f) The player’s contract with the Claimant expired on 30 June 2011; in the Respondent’s view, this confirms that the country S season for the purposes of assessing whether training compensation is payable in fact ended on 30 June 2011. g) The country S Football League Regulations state that “all agreements of service will normally expire on 30th June”. This is consistent with the country S season ending on 30 June. The Respondent wondered why a national league requires its club to conclude employment contracts which run out of synchronisation with the season and expire a matter of days into the next season. 16. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that, contrary to the Claimant’s statement, the country E season did not end on 28 May 2011, but on 30 June 2011, and submitted a confirmation of The FA. 17. Finally, the Respondent indicated that, by means of a letter dated 16 April 2012, the country S Football Association had confirmed to FIFA that the “country S season starting dates for all of the relevant seasons are not, in fact until July and sometimes even August”. Such documents contradict the Claimant’s and the country S Football Association’s submission that the 2010/2011 country S season concluded at the end of May 2011 and the 2011/2012 season commenced on 1 June 2011. Also, the Respondent indicated that neither the Claimant nor the country S Football Association have submitted any evidence that the 2011/2012 season in fact starts on 1 June 2011. 18. In the alternative, should training compensation be awarded, the Respondent submits that the amount payable should be reduced to EUR 150,625, since: a) The Claimant has claimed EUR 60,000 for a season beyond the player’s 21st season. According to the Claimant’s own submission, the 2010/2011 season was the season of the player’s 23rd birthday; b) Only the period of time that the player was effectively trained should be taken into account. According to the Claimant’s own submission, the player only received training approximately 10 months a year; c) The player’s training period was completed by the end of the 2008/2009 season, since in the 2008/2009 season the player became an established member of the first team of the Claimant, making 20 appearances for the first team. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as: Chamber or DRC) indicated that Mr Geoff Thompson refrained from participating in the deliberations on account of his nationality. Therefore, the Chamber adjudicated in the presence of four members, two club representatives and two player representatives. 2. Secondly, the Dispute Resolution 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 15 March 2012. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and 2 of the 2008 and 2012 editions the Procedural Rules). 3. 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. 4. Furthermore, 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 and 2012), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 6 July 2011, the 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at 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. The members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case, the documentation on file as well as the information contained in TMS. 6. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that the player, born in June 1988, was registered with the Claimant as a professional for the period between 30 January 2006 until 30 June 2011 and that, between 5 November 2007 and 2 January 2008, the player was registered on a loan basis with Club G. 7. In continuation, the Chamber took note that the Claimant claimed that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 330,000. 8. Equally, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant, arguing that the player was transferred to the Respondent after the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 9. In this context, the Chamber highlighted that the main issue that needed to be analysed in the present matter is whether or not the season of the player’s 23rd birthday had already ended at the time the player was registered with the Respondent. 10. In this respect, the Chamber 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 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 or when a professional is transferred between clubs of two different associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. In case the latter occurs, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that training compensation will only be owed to the player’s former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club. 11. Furthermore, the Chamber took note of the various data provided, in particular, in relation to the start and end dates of the 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 seasons. The Chamber observed that, according to the information contained in TMS, the 2010/2011 season ran as from 1 August 2010 until 31 May 2011 and the 2011/2012 season ran as from 1 June 2011 until 31 May 2012. 12. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 1 par. 5 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations which, inter alia, stipulates that the use of TMS is a mandatory step for all international transfers of professional male players within the scope of eleven-a-side football. Equally, art. 3 par. 3.2. sub 1. of Annexe 3 of the Regulations stipulates, inter alia, that associations are responsible for maintaining their season and registration details. 13. The Chamber outlined that the use of TMS is mandatory since 1 October 2010 and that, in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, FIFA may use any documentation or evidence generated by or contained in TMS or obtained by FIFA TMS GmbH on the basis of their investigation powers in order to properly assess the issue at stake. 14. Against this background and once more emphasising that the use of TMS is mandatory since 1 October 2010, the Chamber stated that the information contained in TMS is leading and that it shall therefore take into account the objective criteria entered into TMS by the various stakeholders using TMS. The Chamber observed that the country S Football Association had indeed entered the start and end dates of its seasons in TMS and outlined that such data was also available for the Respondent at the moment it signed and registered the player. In view of the foregoing and taking into account that the player was born in June 1988, the Chamber decided that the season of the player’s 23rd birthday started on 1 June 2011 and ended on 31 May 2012 and that, thus, the 2011/2012 season was the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. As a result, at the time the player was registered with the Respondent, the season of the player’s 23rd birthday had not yet ended and, consequently, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is, in principle, liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant. 15. The aforementioned having been established, the Chamber then 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 one association to another association inside the territory of the EU, said article is applicable. Hence, the Chamber concluded that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies in the case at hand as lex specialis. 16. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that it had to verify whether the Claimant had complied with the prerequisites of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations in order to be entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent. The members of the Chamber recalled that the player was already contractually bound and registered as a professional with the Claimant prior to his move to the Respondent. 17. In this context, the Chamber emphasised that, in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, if the former club does not offer the player a contract, no training compensation is payable unless the former club can justify that it is entitled to such compensation. The former club must offer the player a contract in writing via registered post at least 60 days before the expiry of his current contract. Such an offer shall furthermore be at least of an equivalent value of the player’s current contract. (cf. art. 6 par. 3 sent. 2 and 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations) 18. In light of the above, the Chamber examined the documents presented by the Claimant and considered that the Claimant had offered the player a contract of a higher value than his previous contract with the Claimant and that such offer had been made at least 60 days prior to the expiry of his contract. For the sake of good order, the Chamber pointed out that this fact was not disputed by the Respondent in any way. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber established that the Claimant had complied with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 19. On account of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 20. Having established the above and turning its attention to the calculation of the amount of training compensation payable to the Claimant, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent argued that the player’s training was already completed by the end of the 2008/2009 season and that, as a result, the amount payable as training compensation should be reduced. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber went on to examine whether or not the player’s training period had already been completed before the season of the player’s 21st birthday. 21. In this context, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 6 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that, inside the EU/EEA, the final season of training may occur before the season of the player’s 21st birthday if it is established that the player completed his training before that time. 22. The Chamber emphasised that cases involving a possible early completion of a player’s training period have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, whereby all the specific circumstances and all the evidence presented have to be taken into consideration. Hence, several factors and indications have to be considered in order to assess and establish whether a particular player’s training has indeed been completed before the season of his 21st birthday. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber pointed out that, so far, both the Dispute Resolution Chamber as well as the CAS have adopted a strict approach in establishing that a player’s training had indeed been completed before the season of a player’s 21st birthday, so as to not jeopardize the right of training clubs to, in principle, receive training compensation. 23. In this respect, the Chamber took, once more, note of all the specific circumstances of the present matter as well as of all the evidence produced by the Respondent. After a thorough examination of the documentation and argumentation provided by the Respondent, the Chamber deemed that the mere fact that the player was a regular member of the Claimant’s first team did not lead to the conclusion that his training was already completed at that time. 24. In view of the above, the Chamber decided that it could not be established that the training period of the player had been completed before the season of his 21st birthday, as alleged by the Respondent. 25. Subsequently, the Chamber 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 stipulate 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 Chamber referred to art. 6 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which contains special provisions in case a player moves from a lower to a higher category club or from a higher to a lower category club within the territory of the EU/EEA. However, since in the matter at hand both clubs belong to the same category, this provision is irrelevant in this context. 26. In continuation, the Chamber observed that according to the documentation on file, both the Claimant and the Respondent belonged to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) and that the player was registered with the Claimant as from 30 January 2006 until 30 June 2011 as well as that the player was loaned to Club G as from as from 5 November 2007 until 2 January 2008. Therefore, taking into account the period during which the player was registered with Club G, the player was effectively registered with - and trained by - the Claimant for a period of 50 months between the seasons 2005/2006 and 2009/2010. 27. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber at this point wished to refer to its well-established jurisprudence in relation to the loan of players and indicated that the loan of the player from the Claimant to Club G did not constitute a “subsequent transfer” in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. The Chamber was eager to point out that it could not have been the intention of the legislator of the relevant regulatory provisions to trigger the consequences of art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the occasion of a transfer on a loan basis and, thus, potentially deprive the loan of its essential flexibility and, in connection with the training and education of players, its purpose of providing young players with the opportunity to gain practical experience in official matches for another club in order to develop in a positive way. Hence, for the purposes of the provisions of the Regulations governing training compensation, the loan of a young player from his club of origin to other clubs does not interrupt the ongoing training period of the player and the obligation to pay training compensation arises only in case a player is transferred on a definitive basis, with the effect that, at that moment, the club which transferred the player on a loan basis to another club is entitled to training compensation for the entire period of time during which it effectively trained the player, however, excluding the period of time of the loan. 28. Consequently, and in light of all of the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 250,000. 29. Lastly, the Chamber referred to 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 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, 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. 30. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 330,000 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 25,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules). 31. 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, while the Claimant’s claim is only partially accepted, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 15,000, 2/3 of which shall be borne by the Respondent and 1/3 by the Claimant. ** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club F, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club B, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 250,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum is not paid within the stated time limit, interest of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the stipulated time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The final amount of costs of the proceedings, amounting to currency of country H 15,000, are to be paid within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1. Currency of country H 10,000 by the Respondent to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. XX-XXXXX: 5.2. Currency of country H 5,000 by the Claimant to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of currency of country H 5,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant does not have to pay an additional amount as costs of the proceedings. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 2. is to be made 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