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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 13 December 2013, on the claim presented by the club, Club M, from country R represented by the Football Federation of country R as Claimant against the club, Club F, from country P as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player Q

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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 13 December 2013, on the claim presented by the club, Club M, from country R represented by the Football Federation of country R as Claimant against the club, Club F, from country P as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player Q I. Facts of the case 1. The Football Association of country R (FFR) confirmed that the player Q, born on 19 July 1989, was registered with its affiliated club M (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 1 July 2008 until 2 December 2010 as a professional. 2. Equally, according to the player passport issued by the FFR, the player was registered as an amateur with the club K from country R on 7 February 2011. According to the information contained in TMS, the player was de-registered with said club on 6 October 2011. According to the ITC issued by the FFR in favour of the Football Federation of country P, the player was “formerly a member of club K”. 3. The football season in country Rran as follows: - season 2008/2009: as from 1 August 2008 until 25 May 2009; - season 2009/2010: as from 4 August 2009 until 22 May 2010; and - season 2010/2011: as from 5 August 2010 until 24 May 2011. 4. On 15 January 2012, the player was registered with the club F from country P (hereinafter: the Respondent), as a professional player. 5. According to the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) during the season when the player was registered with it. 6. On 11 February 2013, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training compensation from the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant is requesting the amount of EUR 60,000. 7. On 14 August 2013, the Respondent stated that, pursuant to art. 14 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), no training compensation was due to the Claimant since, in accordance with a decision of the FFR Players’ Status Committee, the employment contract was terminated due to the “[Claimant]’s fault” on 2 December 2010. 8. On 28 August 2013, the Claimant reiterated its claim, by stating that the player spent more than two years with it before the season of his 21st birthday. 9. As to the termination of the employment contract, the Claimant provided FIFA with both the original and the translation of the relevant decision, passed by the FFR Players’ Status Committee, and assessed that the contract was terminated “for sport reasons without any consequences for [the Claimant]”. 10. In this respect, the translated explanation of the aforementioned decision reads as follows: “The request of the player is accepted (…) This Committee received a request to terminate the contract to the prejudice of [the Claimant] from East city of E along with expressed wish to waive financial debt claims resulting from the professional contract. (…) Considering the case and with intention to finally resolve status of the player (…), this Committee, as a competent body, has passed decision that professional contract (…) is being terminated based on sport reasons without any consequence to [the Claimant]”. 11. On 15 October 2013, the Respondent reiterated in full its argument. In particular, it asserted that “art. 14 par. 4 of the Regulations” foresees, amongst others, sporting reasons as a cause for the early termination of the contract. 12. In addition, the Respondent stated that it is of the opinion that the expression “without consequences” does not imply that the Claimant still has the right to claim training compensation from the Respondent. 13. Lastly, the Respondent underlined that the termination “was caused by the fault of the [Claimant] as they had player Q debt”. ***** II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber judge (hereinafter: 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 11 February 2013. Consequently, the 2012 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 2012 edition of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge 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), he 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 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players 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 2010 and 2012), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 15 January 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 judge and the applicable regulations having been established, he entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, 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 acknowledged that it is undisputed between the parties that the FFR Players’ Status Committee declared the early termination of the employment contract between the Claimant and the player on 2 December 2010. 6. In continuation, the DRC judge took note that the Claimant maintained that it is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 60,000, indicating that the player was transferred as a professional from the Claimant to the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 7. Likewise, the DRC judge took note of the Claimant’s argument that, in accordance with the decision of the FFR Players’ Status Committee dated 2 December 2010, there would not be “any consequences for the Claimant”. 8. The DRC judge went on to consider the Claimant’s submissions in this respect. By doing so, he took due note that the Claimant interpreted the wording of the above-mentioned decision in the sense that there would be no other consequence, apart from the early termination of the employment relationship between the Claimant and the player and, hence, the Claimant is of the opinion that it would still be entitled to receive training compensation since the player was registered with the Claimant for more than two years before the season of his 21st birthday. 9. Moreover, the DRC judge took note of the Respondent’s allegation in this respect. In particular, he underlined that the Respondent stated that the Regulations foresee sporting reasons as a cause for the early termination of the employment relationship. 10. Finally, the DRC noted that the Respondent, in its final submission, reiterated its aforementioned statements and added that the player’s contract with the Claimant had been terminated due to the fact that the club had debts towards the player. 11. After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, taking into consideration all the aforementioned arguments, the DRC judge observed that the parties, in particular, disputed whether training compensation was due despite the early termination of the employment contract between the Claimant and the player. 12. In light of the foregoing, the DRC judge highlighted that the following issues needed to be analysed in the present matter: a) When is, in general, training compensation due?; b) Does the early termination of the employment relationship between the Claimant and the player as decided upon by the FFR Players’ Status Committee affect the right of the Claimant to receive training compensation? 13. When addressing the first issue, the DRC judge referred to the rules applicable to training compensation and stated that, as established in art. 20 and art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 par. 1 lit. ii. 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 professional is transferred between clubs of two different associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday, either during or at the end of the player’s contract. 14. Equally, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 sent. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that if a player re-registers as a professional within 30 months of being reinstated as an amateur, his new club shall pay training compensation in accordance with art. 20 of the Regulations. 15. In this respect, the DRC judge considered that the player was registered with both the Claimant and the Respondent as a professional and that the player was being re-registered as a professional with the Respondent within 30 months of being reinstated as an amateur with club K. Hence, the DRC judge emphasised that the present situation falls under the above-mentioned provisions. 16. On account of the above, the DRC judge decided that the Claimant would, in principle, be entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent, in accordance with art. 2, art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 17. In continuation, the DRC judge analysed whether the early termination of the employment contract affected the right of the Claimant to receive training compensation. 18. In doing so, the DRC judge made reference to art. 2 par. 2 lit. i. of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which provides that training compensation is not due if the former club terminated the player’s contract without just cause. 19. In this regard, the DRC judge referred to the circumstances of the case and to the wording of the decision passed by the FFR Players’ Status Committee. In particular, the DRC judge noted that the player requested the FFR Players’ Status Committee to declare that the employment relationship between him and the Claimant was terminated. Equally, the DRC judge stressed that the player expressly waived his right to receive any “financial debt claims”. Lastly, the DRC judge underscored that the FFR Players’ Status Committee indeed declared the employment relationship between the player and the Claimant terminated “to the prejudice of [the Claimant]” and “without any consequence for [the Claimant]”. 20. With those considerations in mind, the DRC judge concluded that it could be established that the Claimant had not fulfilled its contractual obligations towards the player, reason for which the player had requested to be released from the contract, which request was subsequently granted by the FFR Players’ Status Committee. In view of the foregoing and with reference to art. 2 par. 2 lit. i. of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the DRC judge decided to reject the claim of the Claimant. 21. Lastly, the DRC judge 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 judge relating to disputes regarding training compensation, 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 Annex A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 22. In respect of the above, the DRC judge 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, he concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000 (cf. table in Annex A). 23. As a result, considering the particularities of the present matter and the fact that the present case did show some particular factual difficulties, the DRC judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 10,000, which shall be borne by the Claimant. ***** III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, club M, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 10,000 are to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA, CHF 2,000 of which have already been paid as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings. Consequently, the additional amount of CHF 8,000 is to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA within 30 days of notification of the present decision, to the following bank account with reference to case no. XXXXXXXXXX: ***** 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 Enclosed: CAS directives