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 23 January 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Todd Durbin (USA), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Jon Newman (USA), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member on the claim presented by the club, Club H, from country I as Claimant against the club, Club L, from country G as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the player S

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 23 January 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Todd Durbin (USA), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Jon Newman (USA), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member on the claim presented by the club, Club H, from country I as Claimant against the club, Club L, from country G as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the player S I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player’s passport issued by the country I Football Association, the Player S, from country I (hereinafter: the player), born in October 1986, was registered with Club H, from country I (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 11 August 2005 until 30 July 2009, as a professional. A declaration of the country I Football Association dated 23 January 2012 establishes that “the player’s contract with the club ended on 30 May 2009 and on the next season he transferred to Club L, from country G”. 2. The sporting season in country I starts on 1 August and ends on 31 July of the following year. 3. The country G Football Federation informed that the captioned player was registered with the Club L, from country G (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 3 August 2009, as a professional. 4. Furthermore, according to the country G Football Federation, the Respondent belonged to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year), when the player was registered with it. 5. On 4 July 2010, the Claimant, contacted FIFA requesting the payment of training compensation for 3,5 seasons, in the amount of EUR 210,000 from the Respondent. On 31 October 2011, the Claimant amended its original claim, requesting the payment of training compensation for 4 complete seasons in the amount of EUR 240,000. 6. In its response, the Respondent states that the claim of the Claimant should not be admitted, as it is time-barred, since the original claim of 4 July 2010 is, according to the Respondent, not admissible, due to res judicata. In addition, the amendment of 31 October 2011 and the documentation submitted subsequently to that should be considered as time-barred. 7. In case the DRC deems that the claim is admissible, the Respondent requests that the amount of training compensation to be paid to the Claimant should be reduced, since the player turned 21 years old during the season 2007/2008. Therefore, the Claimant would only be entitled to training compensation for seasons 2005/2006, 2006/2007 and 2007/2008, in the total amount of EUR 180,000. 8. However, the Respondent also claims that the actual training of the player was completed before his 21st birthday, in particular, by the end of season 2006/2007, since the player was already by then an established player of the Claimant. According to the Respondent, in Summer 2007, the player was fielded in almost all games of the Claimant, i.e. 28 games as a regular player, and scored 14 goals in that season, being considered the best scorer of the country I Championship, a fact that is also mentioned by the Claimant in its labour claim against the player and the Respondent. In view of the foregoing, the Respondent deems that the Claimant should only be entitled to training compensation for seasons 2005/2006 and 2006/2007, in the amount of EUR 120,000. 9. Finally, the Respondent states that, even though it is not disputed that the player was indeed registered with the Claimant during the seasons 2005/2006 to 2007/2008, it is not sure if the player was registered with the Claimant during the entire seasons, since his employment with the aforementioned club was based on a loan from Club T, from country I. 10. In its replica, the Claimant rejects the Respondent’s arguments, according to which the claim for training compensation is time-barred. The Claimant alleges that the claim was lodged in a timely manner and, moreover, that the issue of res judicata is only under discussion for the labour claim against the player and the Respondent, but does not affect the claim for training compensation. 11. In addition, the Claimant insists on the fact that training compensation is due for the entire four seasons during which the player was registered with it, i.e. as from season 2005/2006 to 2008/2009. 12. In its final position, the Respondent maintains its previous argumentation. 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 4 July 2010. 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 in combination with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2009; hereinafter: the Regulations), the DRC was competent to adjudicate on a dispute relating to the payment of training compensation between an country I club and a country G club, in connection with the transfer of the professional player, S. 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 the original claim of 4 July 2010 is, according to the Respondent, not admissible due to res judicata and that the amendment of 31 October 2011 should be considered as time- barred. 4. In this context, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to briefly recall that, in virtue of the principle of res judicata, a deciding body is not in a position to deal with the substance of a dispute, in the event that a deciding body has already dealt with the matter, by passing a final and binding decision. Indeed, the parties to the dispute as well as the deciding body are bound by the final and binding decision previously passed. In other words, the DRC recalled that, in line with the foregoing consideration, the parties cannot lodge a claim, the substance of which has already been decided. 5. In continuation, the Chamber underlined that the principle of res judicata can be opposed to a second decision if cumulatively and necessarily the parties to the disputes and the object of the matter in dispute are identical. 6. Furthermore, the DRC reminded the parties of the wording of art. 22 lit. d) of the FIFA Regulations, according to which, “Without prejudice to the right of any player or club to seek redress before a civil court for employment-related disputes, FIFA is competent to hear: […] d) disputes relating to training compensation (article 20) and the solidarity mechanism (article 21) between clubs belonging to different associations”. 7. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber observed that, in the case at hand, the Respondent has not provided any type of evidence indicating that a case involving the same parties and regarding the payment of training compensation for the transfer of the player S, from Club H to Club L, has ever been presented and decided, in a final and binding manner, by another judicial body. 8. In addition, in view of the clear wording of art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations, FIFA would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide upon matters related to the payment of training compensation based on an international transfer, as the one of the present case. 9. Based on the aforementioned arguments, the DRC concluded that the principle of res judicata would not be applicable to the case at hand and that the Chamber would, in principle, be competent to analyze the substance of the present claim. 10. Subsequently, the Chamber focused on the Respondents objection, according to which the amendments to the claim made by the Claimant on 31 October 2011 would not be admissible, since they were submitted more than two years after the event giving rise to the dispute. 11. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations (edition 2009), in connection with the Procedural Rules, which stipulates that the decisionmaking 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. 12. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber took note of the information provided by the country G Football Federation, according to which, the player was registered with the Respondent on 3 August 2009. In addition, the Chamber observed that the claim concerning the payment of training compensation was lodged on 4 July 2010 and that such claim was amended by the Claimant on 31 October 2011. 13. Bearing in mind the contents of art. 25 par. 5 of the FIFA Regulations, the DRC observed that, while the claim of 4 July 2010 was lodged within two years as from the fact giving rise to the present dispute, i.e. the player’s registration with the Respondent on 3 August 2009, the amendment of 31 October 2011 was indeed submitted by the Claimant more than two years after the player’s registration with the Respondent. 14. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber deemed that the amendment of 31 October 2011 is to be considered as affected by prescription and, thus, shall not be admissible. Therefore, in view of the aforementioned considerations, the Chamber is only in the position to enter the substance of the Claimant’s claim of 4 July 2010. 15. Having established that the Claimant’s claim of 4 July 2010 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 4 July 2010, the 2009 edition of said Regulations was applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 16. 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 argumentation and documentation presented by parties. 17. In particular, the Chamber noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant had lodged a claim against the Respondent, on 4 July 2010, requesting from the latter the payment of training compensation for 3,5 seasons, in the amount of EUR 210,000. 18. On the other hand, the DRC noted that the Respondent claims that, in case the claim of the Claimant is considered admissible by the Chamber, the amount of compensation payable to the Claimant should be reduced to a maximum of EUR 180,000, since the player turned 21 years old during the season 2007/2008. 19. In addition, the DRC noted that the Respondent equally claims that the player completed his training by the end of season 2006/2007, i.e. before his 21st birthday, since by then he was already an established player of Club H. Thus, the Claimant would be entitled to the maximum amount of EUR 120,000 as training compensation. 20. Furthermore, the Chamber took note of the Respondent’s allegation, according to which the player’s registration with the Claimant during the entire relevant seasons was not sure, since he was on loan from Club T. 21. Finally, the Chamber noted that the Claimant rejects the Respondent’s arguments for the reduction of the amount of training compensation due and that the Respondent maintains its previous argumentation. 22. Having established the aforementioned, 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. 23. Bearing in mind the wording of art. 20 of the Regulations as well as of its Annex 4, the Chamber observed that the player turned 21 years old on 10 October 2007, i.e. during season 2007/2008. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent’s argument in this respect had to be accepted and that no training compensation was due to the Claimant for season 2008/2009, i.e. the season of the player’s 22nd birthday. 24. In continuation, the Chamber took into account the argument of the Respondent, according to which the player would have completed his training before his 21st birthday, since during season 2006/2007 he was already an established player of the Claimant. 25. In this regard, the Chamber recalled 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. 26. In view of the foregoing, and bearing in mind the principle of burden of proof, the members of the DRC observed that the Respondent was not able to present any evidence of the completion of the player’s training before his 21st birthday and, therefore, this argument should be rejected. 27. Subsequently, the DRC considered the argument of the Respondent, according to which it was not sure whether the player had actually been registered with the Claimant during the complete relevant seasons, since his employment relation with the Claimant was based on a loan from Club T. 28. In this regard, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that, for claims regarding the payment of training compensation, on the basis of art. 20 and Annex 4 of the FIFA Regulations, the player’s passport issued by a football Association, which is affiliated to FIFA, is the relevant document in order to establish the entitlement of a party to such payment and is the basis of the calculation of its amount. In other words, the members of the Chamber were of the opinion that, in principle, a party that is responsible for the distribution of training compensation has to be able to rely on a document issued by an Association, duly affiliated to FIFA. 29. In this context, the DRC noted that the player’s passport provided by the Claimant and issued by the country I Football Association established that the captioned player was registered with the Claimant as from 11 August 2005 until 30 July 2009, as a professional. In addition, the Chamber, bearing in mind the legal principle of the burden of proof, noted that the Respondent was not able to provide any type of evidence supporting its allegation regarding the player’s supposedly discontinuous registration with the Claimant. 30. In view of the above, the members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber stated that the player’s passport issued by an Association is decisive 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. 31. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the information contained in the player’s passport issued by the country I Football Association is to be considered the relevant document for the calculation of the amount of training compensation due by the Respondent to the Claimant, in the case a hand. 32. 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 11 August 2005 until 31 July 2008, i.e. the end of seasons 2007/2008. 33. 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. 34. In continuation, the DRC took into account that the Respondent belonged to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) as well as the registration of the player, born in October 1986, with the Claimant as from 11 August 2005 until 31 July 2008, i.e. for 3 complete seasons, bearing in mind that the sporting season in country I starts on 1 August and finished on 31 July of the following 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. 35. 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 180,000. 36. The Chamber concluded its deliberations as to the substance of the case by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant. 37. 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 currency of country R 25,000 are levied and that such costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings. 38. 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. 39. 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. 40. 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 210,000. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country R 25,000 (cf. table in Annex A). 41. 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 currency of country R 15,000, of which currency of country R 5,000 shall be borne by the Claimant and currency of country R 10,000, by the Respondent. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club H, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant, Club H, is partially accepted. 3. The Respondent, Club L, has to pay to the Claimant, Club H, the amount of EUR 180,000, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 4. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the above-mentioned time limit, an interest rate of 5% p.a. will apply on the said amount as of expiry of the time limit until the date of effective payment and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Club H, are rejected. 6. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country R 15,000 is to be paid within 30 days of notification of the present decision as follows: 6.1 Currency of country R 10,000 by the Respondent, Club L, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. XX-XXXXX. 6.2 Currency of country R 5,000 by the Claimant, Club H, which have already been paid by the Claimant, Club H, as advance of costs. 7. The Claimant, Club H, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club L, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made in accordance with the above point 3. 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