F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) – indennità di formazione – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) – training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 August 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the club, Club H, from country F as Claimant against the club, Club M, from country P as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player S

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) - indennità di formazione – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) - training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 August 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the club, Club H, from country F as Claimant against the club, Club M, from country P as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player S I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the FA of country F, the player S (hereinafter: the player), born in September 1994, was registered as an amateur with the following country F clubs: - Club H as from 10 September 2004 until 19 August 2008; - Club J as from 20 August 2008 until 6 March 2011; - Club J as from 7 March 2011 until 27 February 2012. 2. The football seasons in country F during the period of time the player was registered with Club H (hereinafter: the Claimant) started on 1 January and ended on 31 December. 3. 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. 4. The country P Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club M (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 28 February 2012 as a “non-amateur” (stagiaire). 5. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Respondent belonged to the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year) during the season when the player was registered with it, i.e. the 2011/2012 season. 6. On 12 July 2012, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent in “January 2012”. The Claimant stated that the player had signed a “contrat de stagiaire” under which he earns more than the expenses he effectively incurs. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 180,000 plus 5% interest as of the 31st day following the player’s registration with the Respondent. 7. On 4 March 2013, the Respondent stated in its reply that the player had already signed a contract with his previous club Club J on 7 March 2011 under which he earned more than the expenses effectively incurred. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that, in case the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation, the calculation should be based on 2 or 2,5 seasons only, instead of the 3 seasons claimed by the Claimant, resulting in an amount of EUR 120,000 or EUR 150,000, depending on the season dates to be taken into consideration. 8. Moreover, according to the Respondent, a contrat de stagiaire in country P is a contract for a player who has not yet finished his training and who can therefore not be considered a professional. Finally, the Respondent stated that it had agreed upon the payment of training compensation amounting to EUR 20,000, as well as several conditional payments in case the player would sign a professional contract, with Club J. In this regard, the Respondent argued that the amount claimed by the Claimant is disproportionate. 9. As to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Claimant stated that this provision only applies to the player’s former club, i.e. Club J, but not to his previous clubs. 10. According to the information contained in the TMS, the Respondent engaged the player from Club J “out of contract, free of payment”. As reason for the “former contract termination” it stated that “the player was not under contract with his former club”. 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 12 July 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 28 February 2012, 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 180,000, indicating that the player had signed a “contrat de stagiaire” with the Respondent, before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday, under which he earns more than the expenses he effectively incurs. 6. Likewise, the DRC noted that the Respondent argued that the player had already signed a contract with his previous club, Club J, under which he earned more than the expenses effectively incurred. Furthermore, the DRC noted that the Respondent held that, in case the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation, the amount claimed is disproportionate and, moreover, miscalculated. 7. In continuation, the DRC noted that, according to the Respondent, a “contrat de stagiaire” is a contract for a player who has not yet finished his training and who can therefore not be considered a professional player. 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 training compensation was payable in view of the status of the player with his former club, Club J, as well as with the Respondent. 9. With regard to the status of the player with his former club, Club J, the DRC referred to the player passport provided by the FA of country F, according to which the player was registered with the aforementioned club as an amateur. 10. Furthermore, the DRC referred to the information contained in the TMS, according to which the Respondent engaged the player from Club J “out of contract, free of payment”. As reason for the “former contract termination” it stated that “the player was not under contract with his former club”. 11. In view of the above, and in the absence of any other documentary evidence provided by the Respondent, the DRC concluded that the player was registered as an amateur with his former club, Club J. 12. Having established the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the status of the player with the Respondent. In this respect, the DRC recalled that the player had signed a “contrat de stagiaire” with the Respondent. 13. In this context, the DRC referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Regulations as well as to the longstanding and well-established jurisprudence of the Chamber with regard to said provision, according to which players with a “contrat de stagiaire” are considered to be professional players. 14. Moreover, the DRC recalled that the country P Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered as a “non-amateur” with the Respondent. Given that, according to art. 2 par. 1 of the Regulations, players participating in organised football are either amateurs or professionals, the DRC held that a “non-amateur” is to be considered a professional player. 15. In view of the foregoing, the DRC concluded that the player was registered as a professional with the Respondent. 16. In this context and considering that the player was registered as an amateur with his former club, Club J, and as a professional with the Respondent, the Chamber first referred to the rules applicable to training compensation and 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 his 23rd birthday. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the player was registered with the Respondent for the first time as a professional before the end of his 23rd birthday and that, therefore, in principle training compensation was due. 17. 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 country F to country P, i.e. from one association to another 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. 18. However, in this regard, the DRC pointed out that, in casu, a possible 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, i.e. Club J, and not with the Claimant. As stated in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, said provision is without prejudice to the right of training compensation of the player’s previous club(s). 19. In view of all the above, the DRC concluded that the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent. 20. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber referred 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, 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 the exception contained in the first sentence of 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 birthdays (i.e. four seasons) shall be based on the training and education costs of category 4 clubs. Equally, the Chamber referred to the second sentence of art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which states that the aforementioned exception shall not be applicable where the event giving rise to the right to training compensation occurs before the end of the season of the player’s 18th birthday. 21. In this context, the Chamber wished to refer to FIFA Circular no. 1190 dated 20 May 2009 by means of which the members of FIFA were, inter alia, informed about the amended art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4, which came into force on 1 October 2009. Said FIFA Circular indicated that art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 “now stipulates that where the event giving rise to the right to training compensation occurs before the end of the season of the player's 18th birthday, the training costs for players for the seasons between their 12th and 15th birthdays (i.e. four seasons) shall no longer be based on the training and education costs of category 4 clubs, but on the category of the new club.” 22. Against this background, in particular since the aforementioned amendment of the pertinent article of Annexe 4 of the Regulations only came into force on 1 October 2009, the Chamber found that it cannot apply said amendment to the years of training and education of the player prior to the coming into force of the amended art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4, i.e. prior to 1 October 2009. In other words, the Chamber concurred that the said provision could not be applied retro-actively and, consequently, decided that the second sentence of art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations does not apply to the seasons 2004 to 2008 during which the player was registered with the Claimant. 23. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the player was born in September 1994 and was registered with the Claimant as from 10 September 2004 until 19 August 2008. 24. Equally, the DRC recalled that the country P Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered with the Respondent on 28 February 2012. 25. Furthermore, the DRC recalled that the football seasons in country F during the period of time the player was registered with the Claimant started on 1 January and ended on 31 December. 26. Therefore, the DRC considered that the Claimant is, thus, entitled to receive training compensation for the period as from 1 January 2006 until 19 August 2008, i.e. for the full seasons of 2006 and 2007 (seasons of the player’s 12th and 13th birthday), and 8 months of the 2008 season (season of the player’s 14th birthday). 27. In view of all of the above, the DRC decided to partially accept the claim of the Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 26,666, plus default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. on said amount as of 30 March 2012 until the date of effective payment, to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent. 28. 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 C 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 Annex A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 29. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 180,000 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 C 25,000 (cf. table in Annex A). 30. As a result, considering that the case at hand allowed to be dealt with following a reasonable procedure as well as considering the degree of success, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country C 15,000, of which the amount of currency of country C 9,000 shall be borne by the Claimant and the amount of currency of country C 6,000 by the Respondent. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club H, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club M, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 26,666 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 30 March 2012 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. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country C 15,000 are to be paid within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1. The amount of currency of country C 6,000 by the Respondent to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no.: 5.2. The amount of currency of country C 9,000 by the Claimant to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of currency of country C 4,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the additional amount of currency of country C 5,000 has to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA to the above-mentioned bank account. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under point 2. above 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives