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 Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member on the claim presented by the club, Club D, from country C as Claimant against the club, Club K, from country G as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player B

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 Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member on the claim presented by the club, Club D, from country C as Claimant against the club, Club K, from country G as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player B I. Facts of the case 1. The country C Football Federation issued the following player passports concerning the country F / country C player, Player B (hereinafter: the player): Player passport received on 8 September 2010: Date of birth February 1993 Sporting seasons: Club: 2005 – 2006 Club D 2006 – 2007 Club D 2007 – 2008 Club D 2008 - 2009 Club D Player passport received on 11 October 2010: Date of birth February 1993 Sporting seasons: Club: 2005 – 2006 Club D 2006 – 2007 Club D 2007 – 2008 Club D 2008 - 2009 Club D Player passport dated 9 March 2011: Date of birth February 1993 Dates of the beginning and the end of the season: Club: 05/03 – 11/11/2006 (2005 – 2006) Club D 18/02 – 24/10/2007 (2006 – 2007) Club D 04/02 – 03/08/2007 (2007 – 2008) Club D 02/02 – 26/08/2008 (2008 – 2009) Club D Player passport dated 1 August 2011: Date of birth 10 February 1993 Dates of the beginning and the end of the season: Club: Registration period: Status: 2005 – 2006 28/01/2006 – 11/11/2006 Club D From 24/04/2006 until 26/07/2009 amateur 2006 – 2007 17/02/2007 – 24/10/2007 Club D 2007 – 2008 Club D 09/12/2007 – 03/08/2008 2008 - 2009 29/10/2008 – 26/07/2009 Club D Player passport dated 4 August 2011: Date of birth February 1993 Dates of the beginning and the end of the season: Club: Registration period: Status: 2004 – 2005 13/03/2005 – 10/12/2005 Club D From 20/03/2005 until 26/07/2009 amateur 2005 – 2006 28/01/2006 – 11/11/2006 Club D 2006 – 2007 17/02/2007 – 24/10/2007 Club D 2007 – 2008 09/12/2007 – 03/08/2008 Club D 2008 - 2009 29/10/2008 – 26/07/2009 Club D 2. According to a written confirmation issued by the country G Football Federation, the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club K (hereinafter: the Respondent), as an amateur, on 31 August 2009 and as a professional with the same club on 5 January 2010. The country G Football Federation specified that the player had been registered with the Respondent, “after having signed a declaration that he had never been registered with any club.” 3. The country G Football Federation confirmed that the Respondent belonged to category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) during the season when the player was registered with it. 4. On 8 September 2010, the Club D, form country C (hereinafter: the Claimant), lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting training compensation from the Respondent, claiming that the player had been registered with the Respondent as a professional at the age of 16. In its claim, which was signed by its president, Mr T, the Claimant explained that the player had been trained by the “Mr T SPORTS ACADEMY (Club D)”, an institution which was founded by Mr T, the father of the player. 5. On 30 December 2010, the Claimant, this time via its legal representative, reverted to FIFA specifying its claim and requesting the amount of EUR 240,000. 6. In its answer to the claim, the Respondent stated that according to the player, his agent and its own research, the player, prior to having been registered with the Respondent, had never been registered with any club, but had only played football in his school. The Respondent had apparently been contacted by the agent of the player in July 2009, who had confirmed that the player was living in France and was free of any obligations. Therefore, and following a trial of the player, the Respondent signed an employment contract with the player and the latter was registered as a “scholar/trainee”. In January 2010, the Respondent allegedly renewed the contract and the player was registered as a “regular” player. The Respondent explained that the country G Football Federation had not asked for any International Transfer Certificate (ITC) for the player, since according to all the information available as well as the player’s statement, he had never been registered with any other federation before. It was only later on that the Respondent was contacted by the Claimant and the Mr T Sports Academy claiming that they had lost track of the player until they discovered that the player was registered in country G. 7. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the Claimant has no standing to sue since the player was trained by the Mr T Sports Academy but not by the Claimant. According to the Respondent, the Mr T Sports Academy and the Claimant are two different entities. Moreover, the Respondent held that the Mr T Sports Academy is not a club affiliated to the country C Football Federation and, therefore, not entitled to receive training compensation. 8. However, should the Mr T Sports Academy and the Claimant be one and the same club, the Respondent pointed out that the player signed his first professional contract with the Respondent on 31 July 2009. In particular, the Respondent added that the naming “scholar/trainee” used by the country G Football Federation derives from the system in country G and resulted from the age of the player at that time. Nevertheless, the player had as from the beginning the status of a professional which can established from the player’s monthly salary, i.e. EUR 1,500, which was more than double of the basic salary in country G. In this respect, the Respondent provided a copy of the employment contract dated 31 July 2009. Consequently, in the Respondent’s view, the 2008 edition of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players is applicable and, thus, the Claimant is only entitled to the amount of EUR 30,000 or EUR 40,000, depending on the registration dates to be taken into consideration. In this respect, the Respondent pointed out that based on the player’s passport issued by the country C Football Federation, it is not possible to establish the exact period when the player was registered with the Claimant. 9. Having been requested by the FIFA administration to provide the exact registration details of the player, the country C Football Federation provided the player passports dated 1 and 4 August 2011. 10. On 9 August 2011, the Claimant contested the arguments of the Respondent and pointed out that the research done by the Respondent was not done properly. Furthermore, it referred to the circular nr. 1190 dated 20 May 2009, which states that the training costs for players for the season between their 12th and 15th birthdays shall no longer be based on training and education costs of category 4 clubs, but on the category of the new club if the event giving rise to the right to training compensation occurs before the end of the season of the player’s 18th birthday. According to the Claimant, this amendment would fit to the case at hand. Equally, the Claimant held that the agreement signed in July 2009 was never submitted to the country G Football Federation. 11. Furthermore, the Claimant provided a certificate issued by the country C Football Federation, according to which the Mr T Sports Academy is the owner of the Claimant, which is a club affiliated to the country C Football Federation. 12. Finally, the Claimant amended its claim requesting the amount of EUR 270,000 plus 5% interest as from 6 March 2010. 13. In its final position, the Respondent reiterated its previous statements, adding that the certificate issued by the country C Football Federation would actually confirm that the Mr T Sports Academy and the Claimant are two different entities. 14. Moreover, the Respondent insisted that it was the first club with which the player was registered. In this respect, the Respondent pointed out that, to date, if one “googled” the player’s name, there were no indications of the player’s career history prior to being registered with the Respondent. Also, the Respondent held that the argument of the Claimant that it had lost track of the player’s whereabouts is hard to believe, since Mr T is the father of the player. 15. In summary, the Respondent stated that it was not in a position to know if the player had actually played for the Claimant and whether the entire story was planned in order to mislead it. However, it underlined having acted in good faith and it was therefore justified to believe that the player’s first registration was in country G. 16. Furthermore, the Respondent once again referred to the various player passports issued by the country C Football Federation and pointed out that it was difficult to establish the exact period of time the player was registered with the Claimant. The Respondent cannot understand that the country C Football Federation issued 3-4 different passports for the same player and requests not to accept the player’s passports dated 1 and 4 August 2011, alleging that those two passports were obviously issued in order to help the Claimant to claim a higher amount of training compensation. 17. Finally, the Respondent requested that the Claimant paid all the administrative and procedural costs as well as the legal expenses incurred by the Respondent. 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 8 September 2010. 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 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. Then, the Chamber continued to analyse which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter, this being an issue on which the Claimant and the Respondent have divergent positions. 4. In this regard, the Chamber took due note that, on the one hand, the Claimant argued that the player was registered with the Respondent as a professional on 5 January 2010 only and that therefore the 2009 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable to the case at hand, which came into force on 1 October 2009. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the Respondent argued that the 2008 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable, since the player had signed a professional contract with the Respondent already on 31 July 2009. 5. In this context, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players which stipulates that “A professional is a player which 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”. The Chamber further stressed that a player’s remuneration as set out in art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players constitutes the decisive factor in the determination of the status of the player and that the legal nature or the designation of the agreement is of no relevance in this regard. 6. After having carefully examined the contract submitted by the Respondent, the Chamber came to the unanimous conclusion that indeed the player had already signed a professional contract with the Respondent on 31 July 2009, since the player was earning EUR 1,500 per month as from the aforementioned date. As a consequence, the Chamber concluded that it was evident that the player, as from 31 July 2009, was paid more for his footballing activity than the expenses he incurred and that, therefore, he was to be considered a professional. In view of the foregoing, and taking into account that the player is to be considered as having signed a professional contract already on 31 July 2009, the DRC determined that the 2008 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. 7. 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 acknowledged the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation on file in relation to the substance of the matter. 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. 8. First of all, the Chamber recalled that the player, born on 10 February 1993, was, according to the last player passport provided by the country C Football Federation upon request of FIFA, registered with the Claimant as from 20 March 2005 until 26 July 2009. 9. In continuation, the Chamber took note that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 270,000, plus 5% interest as from 6 March 2010, since the player had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 10. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant based on the following two arguments: i) The player was trained by the Mr T Thomas Sports Academy and not by the Claimant; ii) According to its own research and the information received from the player and the player’s agent, the player had never been registered with any other club prior to his registration with the Respondent. 11. Moreover, the Chamber observed that the Respondent, in the alternative, held that if training compensation was due to the Claimant, only the amount of EUR 30,000 or EUR 40,000 would be due, in accordance with the 2008 edition of the Regulations. 12. In this respect, the DRC 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 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 the player’s 23rd birthday. 13. In connection with the above, the members of the Chamber duly noted the argument raised by the Respondent which held that, in fact, the player was never registered with the Claimant, but rather with the Mr T Sports Academy, which, according to the Respondent, is a different entity from the Claimant. In this respect, the DRC stressed that the national association to which the Claimant is affiliated, i.e. the country C Football Federation, had, from the very beginning, unequivocally confirmed in all the different player passports that the player was registered with the Claimant and thus not with the Mr T Sports Academy. Taking into account the foregoing information as well as considering that the Respondent had not produced any evidence to the contrary, the Chamber deemed that it could be established that the player was registered with - and trained by - the Claimant, and that the latter would therefore, in principle, be entitled to claim training compensation. 14. In this context and considering the career history of the player, which indicated that prior to his registration with the Respondent, the player had at all times been registered as an amateur with the Claimant, the DRC determined that the player was registered for the first time as a professional with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 15. The Chamber then turned to the Respondent’s argumentation that according to all the information available the player had never been registered with any other club prior to his registration with the Respondent and that the player, as well as the player’s agent, had confirmed the foregoing information to the Respondent. In this context, the Chamber first emphasised that the Claimant is not responsible – nor can it be held accountable - for the statements of the player and the player’s agent. In other words, the information provided by the player and his agent to the Respondent cannot work to the detriment of the rights of the Claimant. 16. Furthermore, and referring to the principle of the burden of proof as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber had not been provided with any documentary evidence that the Respondent had indeed done research and was therefore in good faith when signing the player. In particular, the Chamber stressed that it had not been provided with a request addressed to the country F Football Federation and the country C Football Federation enquiring about the career history of the player, which, under the given circumstances, may have been reasonably expected from the Respondent. Indeed, the Chamber deemed that such enquiry was reasonably expected, considering the fact that a young player with the country F and country C nationality was offered to the Respondent by an agent, the latter alleging that the player had never been registered within organized football. Therefore, the Chamber decided to reject this argument of the Respondent due to the lack of due diligence on the side of the Respondent. 17. Therefore, and since it was undisputed that the player was registered for the first time as a professional with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday, the DRC decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and art. 2 par. 1 lit. i. in conjunction with art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 18. Turning its attention to the calculation of the training compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant, the Chamber referred to art. 5 par. 1 and par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates 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. 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 birthday shall be based on the training and education costs for category 4 clubs, i.e. on the basis of EUR 10,000 per year in the case at hand. 19. In continuation, the Chamber took into account that the Respondent belonged to the category II within UEFA, which corresponds to the amount of EUR 60,000 per year, and that the player, born on 10 February 1993, was registered with the Claimant as from 20 March 2005 until 26 July 2009, i.e. during 9 months of the season of the player’s 12th birthday, during the complete seasons of the player’s 13th, 14th and 15th birthday as well as during 7 months of the season of the player’s 16th birthday. In view of the foregoing, and considering art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent has to pay the amount of EUR 72,500 to the Claimant as training compensation. 20. Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim, the Chamber established that the Respondent has to pay, in conformity with its longstanding practice, interest at 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as from 6 March 2010 until the date of effective payment. 21. 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 the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Chamber relating to disputes regarding training compensation and the solidarity mechanism costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings. 22. According to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 23. In respect of the above, the DRC held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 270,000 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). 24. 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 Claimant’s claim was only partially accepted, the DRC determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 16,000, which shall be split equally between the Claimant and the Respondent. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club D, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club K, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 72,500 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 6 March 2010 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 amount of costs of the proceedings, amounting to currency of country H 16,000, 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 8,000 by the Respondent to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. XXXXXX: 5.2. Currency of country H 8,000 by the Claimant to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of currency of country C 5,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant has to pay the amount of currency of country C 3,000 to FIFA to the aforementioned bank account with reference to case no. XXXXXX. 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: ______________________ Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives