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 17 January 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the club, Club V, from country P as Claimant against the club, Club G, from country L as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player D

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 17 January 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the club, Club V, from country P as Claimant against the club, Club G, from country L as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player D I. Facts of the case 1. The Football Federation of country P confirmed that the player D(hereinafter: player), born in May 1992, was registered as an amateur player with its affiliated club, Club V (hereinafter: Claimant) as from 24 January 2001 until 25 September 2005. 2. The Football Federation of country P also confirmed that the player was registered as an amateur player with its affiliated clubs as follows: - as from 26 September 2005 until 31 August 2006 and as from 29 August 2007 until 30 September 2008 with Club D; - as from 1 October 2008 until 5 November 2009 with Club B - as from 6 November 2009 until 18 January 2012 with Club A. 3. The Football Federation of country P further confirmed that the 2000/2001 sporting season in country P ran as from 1 August until 30 June of the following year. As from the season 2001/2002, the sporting season in country P ran as from 1 July until 30 June of the following year. 4. In addition, the Football Federation of country P confirmed that Club P belonged to the category IV during the seasons when the player was registered with this club. 5. On 9 January 2012, the Club G (hereinafter: Respondent) and the player signed a contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from January 2012 until May 2012. 6. According to clause I. of the contract, the contract shall not constitute an employment contract. 7. According to clause III. of the contract, Club G has to pay to the player EUR 300 per month for incurred expenses (“frais encourus”). Additionally, in order to honour the player’s efforts, the player is to receive EUR 90 if he plays in the starting eleven and EUR 45 if he is included in the squad in a League or a Cup match. Furthermore, the player receives a bonus of one monthly instalment if Club G qualifies for the UEFA Cup or wins the national Cup; and two monthly instalments if Club G wins the national championship. Finally, Club G provides to the player the equipment for the matches, with the exception of the shoes. 8. According to clause IV. of the contract, in case the player does not or cannot respect his duties for whatever reason (also illness or injury), the payments would be reduced proportionally to the number of the player’s absences in the trainings and matches, since the expense and indemnity payments do not constitute a salary, but only a payment to cover the expenses incurred by the player. 9. According to a written confirmation received from country L Football Federation, the player was registered with its affiliated Club G on 13 February 2012 as an amateur player. 10. The c ountry L Football Federation also confirmed that Club R belonged to the category III during the sporting season when the player was registered with it. 11. On 4 June 2012, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for the payment of training compensation from Club G on the basis of the player’s alleged first registration as professional with Club G. 12. The Claimant is requesting the amount of EUR 19,095.89 plus 5% interest as from 19 February 2012 as training compensation. 13. In its reply, the Respondent stated that the contract would not constitute an employment contract. Furthermore, Club G is of the opinion that the payment of training compensation in the total amount of more than EUR 50,000 (together with the claim lodged by the Club D, from country P) would not be in a reasonable relation to Club G’s yearly budget of EUR 380,000. Thus, the Respondent asked art. 5.4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players to be applied in case FIFA would decide that Club G has to pay training compensation. 14. The Respondent highlighted that the contract was only valid for five months, i.e. from January to May 2012. According to Club G, the amount due to the player in accordance with the contract was not considered to be a salary. The Respondent argued that it only reimbursed the player’s expenses that he had in connection with his football activity. Club G held that the player had to travel 50 kilometres to attend Club G’s trainings. Thus, with four trainings per week, the player had to travel 800 kilometres per month, which effects travel expenses in the amount of 0.375 EUR/km. In addition, the Respondent stated that it had paid to the player the amount of EUR 45 or EUR 90, respectively, per match for travel expenses. 15. Further, Club G stated that the player had come to country L to find a job in another profession than football, since he had not been offered a contract as a professional player in country P. 16. In its replica, the Claimant stated that the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) had been issued by the country P Football Federation to the country L Football Federation for the player as a professional. 17. In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated the arguments of its reply and added that the country P club had not offered the player a professional contract and that the Claimant just wanted to take advantage of the situation. Moreover, the Respondent stated that in June 2012, the player transferred from Club G to the Club M, which plays in one league below Club G. According to the Respondent, the player did not play one single match in the first team of Club G during the six months in which he was registered with the club. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) 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 4 June 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. 2 and 3 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 decide on the present litigation concerning training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. 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 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 13 February 2012 as well as that the present claim was lodged on 4 June 2012, the 2010 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. First of all, the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 3 May 1992 and was registered with the Claimant as from 24 January 2001 until 25 September 2005 as an amateur. 6. In continuation, the Chamber took note that the Claimant maintained that it is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 19,095.89, indicating that the player was registered for the first time as a professional with the Respondent. 7. Equally, the Chamber took note that the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim for the payment of training compensation, stating that the player was registered with it as an amateur and that the Claimant had not offered the player a professional contract. 8. In this respect, the Chamber firstly deemed it important to establish whether the player held the amateur status or the professional status at the time he was registered with the Respondent. To this end, the Chamber examined the contract that the Respondent had submitted in the present proceedings. 9. In this regard, the members of the Chamber duly noted that the contract contained a provision stipulating that the contract shall not constitute an employment contract and that, according to said contract, the player was entitled to receive from the Respondent EUR 300 per month for incurred expenses, EUR 90 if he plays in the starting eleven and EUR 45 if he is included in the squad in a League or a Cup match. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the contract indicated that the player would be entitled to receive a bonus of one monthly instalment if Club G qualifies for the UEFA Cup or wins the national Cup; and two monthly instalments if Club G wins the national championship. 10. Thus, the player was entitled to receive at least EUR 300 per month, plus the amount of EUR 90 or EUR 45, respectively, multiplied by the number of League and Cup matches, in which the player plays in the starting eleven or is included in the team, respectively. 11. In this context, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that “A professional is a player who has a written contract with a club and is paid more for his footballing activity than the expenses he effectively incurs. All other players are considered to be amateurs”. 12. Taking into consideration the criteria set out in art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations as well as the amounts payable to the player on the basis of the aforementioned contract, the members of the Chamber unanimously concluded that the player was in fact paid more for his footballing activity than the expenses he effectively incurred. In this regard, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that a player’s remuneration as per the criteria set out in art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations constitutes the decisive factor in the determination of the status of the player and that the legal nature or the designation of the contract is of no relevance in this regard. This approach has been confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in its decision CAS 2006/A/1177, whereby the Panel also emphasized that the definition contained in the mentioned provision is the only ground to establish a player’s status. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber pointed out that according to said decision, the classification of a player made by the association of his club is not decisive to determine the status of a player. 13. Equally, the Chamber highlighted that the second element contained in said art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations, i.e. the existence of a written contract, is met. 14. On account of all the above, the Chamber concurred that the player was registered as a professional with the Respondent. 15. Having established the above, the Chamber referred to the rules applicable to training compensation. In this context, the Chamber started by stating 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 professional is registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. In case the player is registered for the first time as a professional, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that the club with which the player is registered is responsible for paying training compensation within 30 days of registration to every club with which the player has previously been registered and that has contributed to his training starting from the season of his 12th birthday. 16. 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. 17. However, in this regard, the Chamber 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 and not with the Claimant. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant was not the player’s former club, since the player was registered with three other clubs after he had left the Claimant (cf. point I./2. above). 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). 18. On account of all of the above considerations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant. 19. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber reiterated that the player was born on 3 May 1992 and was registered with the Claimant as from 24 January 2001 until 25 September 2005. 20. Equally, the DRC recalled that the country L Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered with the Respondent on 13 February 2012. 21. On account of the above and in accordance with art. 20 in combination with Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the DRC considered that the Claimant is, thus, entitled to receive training compensation for the period as from 24 January 2001 until 25 September 2005. 22. In view of all of the above and taking into account the amount claimed, the DRC decided to accept the claim of the Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 19,095.89 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent. 23. Moreover, taking into account the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the DRC decided that the Respondent has to pay interest of 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 14 March 2012 until the date of effective payment. 24. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent had, on a subsidiary note, requested the Chamber to consider a possible reduction of the amount of training compensation payable to the Claimant. In particular, the Respondent is of the opinion that the payment of training compensation in the total amount of more than EUR 50,000 (together with the claim lodged by the country P club D would not be in a reasonable relation to Club G’s yearly budget of EUR 380,000. In addition, the DRC noted that the Respondent alleged that the player had remained registered with it for five months only, i.e. from January to May 2012, and that the player did not play one single match in the first team of Club G during these five months. 25. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, according to art. 5 par. 4 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber may review disputes concerning the amount of training compensation payable and shall have discretion to adjust this amount if it is clearly disproportionate to the case under review. In this regard, the members of the Chamber were, however, eager to emphasize that such possibility allowed by the Regulations would, in any case, have to be analysed on a case-by-case basis. 26. In this context, and reverting to the Respondent’s arguments (cf. point II./24. above), the Chamber pointed out that, according to art. 20 and art. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, and as pointed out by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in the case CAS 2006/A/1189 Club N v/ Club T, the player’s first registration as a professional before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday is, in itself, sufficient to trigger the right of training clubs to claim training compensation. Moreover, in the aforementioned case, in which the CAS also dealt with a request to reduce the amount of training compensation, the CAS highlighted that the Regulations do not set out any minimum length of the contractual relationship between the player and the club where he signs his first professional contract. 27. Regardless of the aforementioned consideration, the Dispute Resolution Chamber deemed that the fact that the player never played in the 1st team could not be taken into account as a strong argument in favour of reducing the amount of training compensation. 28. On account of these considerations and in the absence of convincing arguments and documentation in support of the Respondent’s request to adjust the amount, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber had no alternative but to decide that the amount of training compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant could not be adjusted. 29. 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 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 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. 30. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 19,095.89 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 5,000 (cf. table in Annex A of the Procedural Rules). 31. As a result, and taking into account that the case at hand did not compose any complex factual or legal issues as well as the degree of success, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 2,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club V, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club G, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 19,095.89 plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 14 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 request filed by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 2,000 is to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. : 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance 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