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 theDispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 7 February 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member John Bramhall (England), member Santiago Nebot (Spain), member on the claim presented by the club, Club N, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club K, from country H as Respondent regarding training compensation related to the transfer of the player G

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 theDispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 7 February 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member John Bramhall (England), member Santiago Nebot (Spain), member on the claim presented by the club, Club N, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club K, from country H as Respondent regarding training compensation related to the transfer of the player G I. Facts of the case 1. The country B Football Association confirmed that Player G (hereinafter: the player), born in January 1986, was registered with its affiliated club, Club N (hereinafter: the Claimant), as follows: - As from 25 August 2005 until 24 April 2006 as an amateur; - On 25 April 2006 as a professional; - As from 1 August 2006 until 31 July 2007 as a professional; - As from 1 January 2008 until 2 January 2008 as a professional. 2. Equally, the country B Football Association confirmed that the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club C, from 25 April 2006 until 30 July 2006 as a professional on loan, and with its affiliated club, Club M, from 1 August 2007 until 31 December 2007 as a professional on loan. As from 3 January 2008 until 13 August 2009, the country B Football Association confirmed that there was "no record found". 3. The football season in country B follows the calendar year. 4. On 28 August 2009, the player was registered with Club K, from country H (hereinafter: the Respondent), as a professional player. 5. The country H Football Federation confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the category II during the season when the player was registered with it. 6. On 11 August 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent requesting its proportion of training compensation. In particular, the Claimant requested EUR 84,328.77 plus 5% interest p.a. since 14 September 2009. 7. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent stated that the season in country H "is played in system 'autumn-spring'", which, according to the Respondent, would mean that the player was registered with it after the end of the season of the player's 23rd birthday in country H. Therefore, the Respondent deemed that no training compensation is due to the Claimant. 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 11 August 2011. 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. Furthermore, the members of 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, the Chamber confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 in connection with art. 29 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012) and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 28 August 2009, 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. 4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, the members of the DRC started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documents on file. 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. Subsequently, in view of the circumstances of the present case, the DRC stated that the following questions had to be answered: 1) Is the Claimant entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent for the training and education of the player? 2) In the affirmative, what is the amount payable as training compensation? 6. In relation to the first question, 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. In case the latter occurs, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that training compensation will only be owed to the player’s former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club. 7. In this respect and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber at this point wished to refer to its well-established jurisprudence in relation to the loan of players and indicated that the loan of the player from the Claimant to the Club C and Club M did not constitute a “subsequent transfer” in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. The Chamber was eager to point out that it could not have been the intention of the legislator of the relevant regulatory provisions to trigger the consequences of art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the occasion of a transfer on a loan basis and, thus, potentially deprive the loan of its essential flexibility and, in connection with the training and education of players, its purpose of providing young players with the opportunity to gain practical experience in official matches for another club in order to develop in a positive way. Hence, for the purposes of the provisions of the Regulations governing training compensation, the loan of a young player from his club of origin to other clubs does not interrupt the ongoing training period of the player and the obligation to pay training compensation arises only in case a player is transferred on a definitive basis, with the effect that, at that moment, the club which transferred the player on a loan basis to another club is entitled to training compensation for the entire period of time during which it effectively trained the player, however, excluding the period of time of the loan. 8. In continuation, the DRC recalled that the Claimant based its claim for training compensation on the transfer of the professional player between clubs of two different associations before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday, while the Respondent argued that the player was transferred after the end of the season of his 23rd birthday and that, therefore, no training compensation is due. In particular, the Respondent held that the player was registered with it on 28 August 2009 and since the season in country H "is played in system 'autumn-spring'", the player was registered with it in the season of his 24th birthday. 9. In this regard, the DRC recalled that the player was born on 20 January 1986 and that, therefore, the player’s 23rd birthday fell on 20 January 2009. Equally, the DRC recalled that the season in country B follows the calendar year, therefore, it starts on 1 January and ends on 31 December. 10. Furthermore, the DRC recalled that the player was registered with the Respondent on 28 August 2009 and that the season in country H is an ”autumn-spring” season. As a consequence, the DRC concluded that the player was registered with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday, since on 28 August 2009, the season of the player’s 23rd birthday was still running. As a result, at the time the player was registered with the Respondent, the season of the player’s 23rd birthday had not yet ended. 11. On account of all the above considerations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and art. 2 par. 1 lit. ii) of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 12. Turning its attention to the calculation of the amount of training compensation, the DRC referred to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulate 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. In this respect, the Chamber took into account that according to the documentation on file, the Respondent belonged to the club category II, which corresponds to the amount of EUR 60,000 per season within UEFA. 13. Moreover, the DRC referred to art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the amount payable is calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of training that the player spent with each club. In this regard, the Chamber concluded that the effective period of time to be considered in the matter at stake corresponds to the period comprehended between 25 August 2005 and 24 April 2006 as well as the period comprehended between 1 August 2006 and 31 July 2007, i.e. 4 months of the season of the player’s 19th birthday, 9 months of the season of the player's 20th birthday and 7 months of the season of the player's 21st birthday. 14. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant requested the amount of EUR 84,328.77 plus 5% interest since 14 September 2009. 15. As a result, taking into consideration the amount claimed by the Claimant, the DRC determined that the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 84,328.77. 16. With regard to the interest claimed by the Claimant, the Chamber recalled that, according to art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is payable within 30 days following the registration of the professional with his new association. Therefore, the Chamber decided to grant interest at a rate of 5% as from 28 September 2009. 17. 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 and the solidarity mechanism, 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. 18. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 84,328.77 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 10,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules). 19. As a result, and taking into account the particularities of the case, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 7,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club N, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club K, has to pay to the Claimant, Club N, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, the amount of EUR 84,328.77 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 28 September 2009 until the date of effective payment. 3. If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA's Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Club N, are rejected. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 7,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club K, within 30 days of notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1 The amount of currency of country H 4,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no.: 5.2 The amount of currency of country H 3,000 directly to the Claimant, Club N 6. The Claimant, Club N, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club K, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance 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 article 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 CH-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 Encl. CAS directives