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 27 February 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Todd Durbin (USA), member Mohamed Al Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on the claim presented by the club, Club J, from country I as Claimant against the club, Club P, from country G as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player N

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 27 February 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Todd Durbin (USA), member Mohamed Al Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on the claim presented by the club, Club J, from country I as Claimant against the club, Club P, from country G as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player N I. Facts of the case 1. The country I Football Association (hereinafter: country I Football Association) confirmed that the player, Player N (hereinafter: the player), born in January 1991, was registered as an amateur with its affiliated club, Club J (hereinafter: the Claimant), from 17 September 2000 until 17 December 2007. According to the player passport and a written confirmation issued by the country S Football Federation, the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club R (hereinafter: Club R) as an amateur from 18 December 2007 until 9 September 2010. 2. As confirmed by the country I Football Federation, the football season in country I during the time the player was registered with the Claimant ran as follows: - 2002/03 5 October 2002 until 3 May 2003 - 2003/04 18 October 2003 until 15 May 2004 - 2004/05 2 October 2004 until 28 May 2005 - 2005/06 24 September 2005 until 27 May 2006 - 2006/07 30 September 2006 until 26 May 2007 - 2007/08 18 August 2007 until 24 May 2008 3. According to a written confirmation of the country G Football Federation (hereinafter: country G Football Federation), the player was registered with its affiliated Club P (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 10 September 2010 as a professional. 4. The country G Football Federation confirmed that the Respondent belonged to category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year within UEFA) during the season when the player was registered with the club. 5. On 14 February 2011, the Claimant contacted FIFA requesting training compensation in relation to the transfer of the player from Madrid to the Respondent, for an amount of EUR 130,000 without claiming any interest. 6. In its reply, the Respondent stated that contrary to art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) the Claimant did not submit a contract offer to the player, which is why it lost its right to claim training compensation for the player. 7. Furthermore, the Respondent indicated that, according to a statement of the parents of the player, the player had to pay a yearly fee in order to have the right to train with the Claimant. In this context, the Respondent held that the Claimant cannot claim additional training compensation, as it would otherwise be compensated twice. 8. Moreover, the Respondent objected to the Claimant’s calculation which it deemed excessive and disproportionate, as the calculation of training compensation should be based on the costs that would have been effectively incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself. In this context, the Respondent indicated that the actual training costs incurred by it would have been EUR 36,166, taking into account the seasons from 2002/03 until 2006/07 and EUR 46,252 taking into account the seasons from 2002/03 until 2007/08 and, in this regard, provided documents such as tables, calculations and the numbers of trained players. 9. In addition, the Respondent stated that, should the training compensation be calculated based on Annexe 4 of the Regulations and not on the actual training costs as incurred by it, only an amount of EUR 51,534 would be due, as the player’s training period started when the player turned 12 and ended on 25 September 2007, when the player joined the country I Under-17 national team to take part in the European Championship in country J. In this regard, the Respondent provided copies of match-sheets of said tournament dated 27 September 2007, 29 September 2007 and 2 October 2007, from which it can be seen that the player of reference actually played for country I’s Under-17 national team in the relevant matches. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that as of then, the player was not trained by the Claimant and never returned to the club. According to the Respondent, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has decided in similar cases that the training period of the respective players had ended under such circumstances. Therefore, the Respondent stressed that the player was only trained by the Claimant for four years and eight months. 10. In its replica, the Claimant stated that country I was not a member of the EU/EEA which is why art. 6 of Annexe 4 is not applicable in the case at hand. In this context, it is irrelevant whether the Claimant offered a contract to the player or not. In support of its argument, the Claimant made reference to decisions of the DRC and CAS in which clubs from UEFA member associations were considered not being members of the EC/EEU and therefore not being subject to art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations (e.g. CAS 2009/A/1810, CAS 2006/A/1177, CAS 2004/A/560, CAS 2005/A/838). 11. In addition to that, the Claimant held that the amount paid by the player to the its academy was only a symbolic amount of EUR 600 per year since all expenses regarding clothes and other basic equipment was provided in full by the club. Therefore, and in view of the fact that such amount is considerably lower than the indicative amounts as set in the Regulations, it could not be regarded as payment for the training. 12. Moreover, the Claimant argued that the Regulations do not support the Respondent’s approach of calculation based on the actual costs as incurred by the club, as this approach would endanger the whole system of training compensation. Should a club decide not to invest any money in the training of young players, other clubs actually investing in the training of young players would be punished, which is exactly the contrary of what the Regulations intend to achieve. Furthermore, the Claimant pointed to the inconsistency of the numbers provided by the Respondent. 13. Regarding the period during which the player was trained by the Claimant, the latter objected to the Respondent’s interpretation of the CAS jurisprudence (eg: CAS 2003/O/527 and CAS 2004/A/594), as those were cases where relatively young players left their clubs to play for their senior national team during a certain period of time, whereas CAS allegedly never decided cases in which young players left to play for their respective national youth teams. The fact that a young player participated in games for the youth national teams shall not mean that their training period ended therewith. 14. In this context, the Claimant indicated that the whole season of the player’s 12th birthday has to be taken into account when calculating the payable training compensation, as the player was not trained as of his 12th birthday but during the whole season of his 12th birthday, in accordance with art. 5 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. Therefore, the amount of EUR 130,000 should be considered the correct amount. 15. In its duplica, the Respondent held that art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations should be applicable in this case, as the country I Football Association is part of UEFA which is why “the spirit of the special provisions of article 6 includes also the case of the IFA and its members”. 16. Finally and regarding the calculation of the amount of training compensation payable, the Respondent claimed that, according to the CAS jurisprudence, “a club claiming that the training compensation calculated on the basis of the indicative amount is disproportionate bears the burden of proof. This club has to present concrete evidence in the form of documents such as invoices, costs of training center, budgets etc. Only economic aspects are relevant in this aspect (CAS/2009/A/1810 & 1811, CAS/2004/560 and more)”, which has allegedly been sufficiently proven by the Respondent. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. In a first instance, 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 14 February 2011. 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 2008 and 2012 edition 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 2010 and 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 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 (edition 2012), and considering analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance that the player was registered with the Respondent on 10 September 2010, 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 Chamber 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. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that the player, born on 22 January 1991, was registered with the Claimant as from 17 September 2000 until 17 December 2007, as per the player passport issued by the country I Football Association. 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 130,000, indicating that the player signed his first contract as a professional with the Respondent. 7. Equally, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant, arguing that the Claimant lost its right to claim training compensation since it did not offer a contract to the player as stipulated in art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. In this context, the Chamber took note of the Respondent’s argumentation that said provision should be applicable in the present case since the country I Football Association is a member of UEFA which is why “the spirit of the special provisions of article 6 includes also the case of the country I Football Association and its members.” 8. In this regard, the Chamber also took note that the Claimant referred to the jurisprudence of the CAS, in particular to the awards CAS 2009/A/1810, CAS 2006/A/1177, CAS 2004/A/560, CAS 2005/A/838, in which it is stipulated that clubs from UEFA member associations are not considered to be members of the EC/EEU and therefore not subject to art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 9. In this respect, the Chamber remarked that the membership of an association to the UEFA is fundamentally irrelevant with regard to the applicability of art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. Said provision is limited to a well-defined geographic scope. Since country I is neither a member of the European Union (EU), nor of the European Economic Area (EEA), the Chamber found it evident that art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations does not apply in the present case as lex specialis. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 in conjunction with art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 10. Subsequently, the Chamber 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 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 or when a professional is transferred between clubs of two different associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 11. In light of the above, the Chamber emphasized that, in strict application of the rules pertaining to training compensation, the new club of the player is responsible for the payment of training compensation to the previous clubs of the player that have in fact trained him. In this regard, the Chamber observed from the documentation remitted by the Respondent that the player apparently took part in the UEFA Under-17 European Championship tournament in country J. In particular, the Chamber noted that the player apparently left the Claimant’s training facilities in order to join country I’s U-17 national team on 25 September 2007, that the tournament ended on 3 October 2007 and that the player never returned to the Claimant before being transferred to Club R. In this regard, the members of the DRC highlighted that such course of events was never contested by the Claimant and thus remains uncontested. 12. In this regard, the Chamber again referred to art. 20 in conjunction with art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations and, bearing in mind the well-established jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, emphasized that training compensation should benefit all clubs that have in fact contributed to the training of a young player, i.e. only the precise timeframe that the player was effectively trained by a club must be taken into consideration. Consequently, the Chamber held the view that the player’s training with the Claimant effectively ended on 25 September 2007 when the player left the Claimant in order to participate in the UEFA Under 17 European Championship tournament in country S. 13. In view of all the above, taking into consideration all the surrounding circumstances of this specific matter as well as the documentation presented during the present proceedings, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent for the period as from the season of the player’s 12th birthday until 25 September 2007. 14. In continuation, the Chamber concluded that, given that the player was born on 22 January 1991 and therefore turned twelve on 22 January 2003, as well as bearing in mind that the sporting season in country I ran as from 5 October 2002 until 3 May 2003 during the season 2002/2003, said season had to be taken into account as the seasons of the player’s 12th birthday. 15. Turning his 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 IV clubs, i.e. on the basis of EUR 10,000 per year regarding the season of the player’s 12th until his 15th birthday in the matter at hand (seasons 2003/2004 until 2005/2006). 16. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 20 in conjunction with art. 5 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations and concluded that during the seasons 2006/2007 and 2007/2008, in order to calculate the training compensation due to the Claimant, it was necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself. In this context, the Chamber recalled that the Respondent belonged to the category II within UEFA. Therefore, the indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per season had to be taken into account for the calculation of training compensation during the seasons 2006/2007 and 2007/2008, this on a pro rata temporis basis as stipulated in art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 17. Consequently, and in light of all of the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 110,000. 18. Furthermore, the Chamber reverted to the Respondent’s argumentation according to which the indicative amounts for training compensation were disproportionate and should be adjusted by the DRC in accordance with art. 5 par. 4 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that said provision does not stipulate the obligation of the Chamber to reduce amounts which are, allegedly, disproportionate but only the possibility to do so on a case-by-case basis. Equally, the Chamber underlined that this possibility exists only in cases of clear lack of proportionality and that, in any case, the party invoking such disproportionality has to carry the respective burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). 19. Equally, the Chamber deemed fit to underline that the burden for a party to prove the lack of proportionality of the relevant amounts and/or the respective categorisation had to be set at a high level, in order to provide and safeguard legal certainty for all the clubs involved in the world of football. The Chamber considered that it is of high interest for all the stakeholders in the world of football to be able to rely on indicative amounts and the relevant categorisations in order to calculate the relevant shares of training compensation in a specific case. Therefore, the Chamber was of the opinion that only if there are strong indications pointing towards a clear lack of proportionality, the Chamber could possibly review and/or reduce the payable amounts of training compensation. 20. Bearing in mind all the aforementioned, and after a careful examination of the extensive documentation provided by the Respondent, the Chamber came to the conclusion that the Respondent failed to submit sufficient proof in order to corroborate the clear disproportionality either of the indicative amounts or of the categorisation according to the country G Football Federation, as it would have been necessary according to art. 5 par. 4 of the Regulations in order for the Chamber to be in a position to use its discretion to reduce the amount due. 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 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 Annexe 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 Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 130,000 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 20,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 23. As a result, considering that the case involved various particular factual difficulties and involved a certain specific legal complexity, the Chamber determined the final amount of costs of the current proceeding in the amount of currency of country H 10,000. 24. In view of all the above, as well as considering the degree of success, the Chamber concluded that the amount of currency of country H 8,000 has to be paid by the Respondent and the amount of currency of country H 2,000 has to be paid by the Claimant. Considering that the Claimant already paid the amount of currency of country H 4,000 as advance of costs, the latter does not have to pay any additional amount. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club J, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club P, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as of the date of notification of the present decision, the amount of EUR 110,000. 3. If the aforementioned amount is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, an interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiry of the fixed time limit and 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 H 10,000 are to be paid, within 30 days of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1. The amount of currency of country H 2,000 by the Claimant to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of currency of country H 4,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant does not have to pay any additional amount. 5.2. The amount of currency of country H 2,000 by the Respondent to the Claimant. 5.3. The amount of currency of country H 6,000 by the Respondent 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 remittances under points 2. and 5.2 are 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: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives