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 28 March 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member on the claim presented by the club, Club M, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club L, from country C as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player J

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 28 March 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member on the claim presented by the club, Club M, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club L, from country C as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player J I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the country S Football Association, the player J (hereinafter: the player), born in April 1992, was registered as a professional with the following country S clubs: - Club Z as from 1 September 2007 until 26 July 2011; - Club R (on loan) as from 27 July 2011 until 31 January 2012; - Club Z as from 1 February 2012 until 8 February 2012; - Club M (on loan) as from 9 February 2012 until 30 June 2012 and as from 16 July 2012 until 31 January 2013. 2. The football seasons in country S during the period of time the player was registered with Club M (hereinafter: the Claimant), ran as follows: - the season 2011/2012: as from 23 July until 27 May; - the season 2012/2013: as from 21 July until 1 June 2013. 3. The country S Football Association confirmed that the Claimant belonged to the category IV (indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year) during the period of time the player was registered with it. 4. The Football Association of country C confirmed that the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club L (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 13 February 2013. 5. According to the information contained in 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, i.e. the 2012/2013 season. 6. On 17 June 2013, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player, on 1 February 2013, was transferred as a professional from Club Z to the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 30,000 plus 5% interest as of 4 March 2013. 7. The Claimant referred to a DRC decision (3121474, 1 March 2012) stating that in cases of a transfer on loan, it is not only the former club stricto sensu which is entitled to training compensation, but also the “former club” that registered the player on a loan basis. 8. On 20 December 2013, the Respondent replied to the Claimant’s claim and argued that, according to art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, it is only the former club of the player, i.e. Club Z, which is entitled to training compensation. Furthermore, the Respondent referred to art. 6 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and stated that the player had completed his training before he joined the Claimant, since the player was playing in country S’s under 19 national team, he had signed at least 3 professional contracts before he joined the Claimant, the player was a regular player in the Claimant’s starting line up and the Claimant agreed to take over the obligation to pay the player’s “considerable remuneration” during his period on loan with the club. Finally, in the event that the Claimant is indeed entitled to training compensation, the Respondent argued that the correct amount shall be EUR 20,000, based on the average training costs of the parties. 9. According to the information contained in TMS, the Respondent, on 1 February 2013, entered a transfer instruction into the TMS by means of which it “engaged the player against payment” from Club Z, for the amount of EUR 83,117. 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 17 June 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 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 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, 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 that the player was registered with the Respondent on 13 February 2013, the 2012 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. The members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. However, the DRC 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 DRC took note that the Claimant maintained that it is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 30,000, indicating that the player was transferred as a professional from Club Z to the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 6. However, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rebutted the claim of the Claimant, arguing that, according to art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, it is only the former club of the player, i.e. Club Z, which is entitled to training compensation. 7. Equally, the DRC took due note of the Respondent’s statement that the player had completed his training before he joined the Claimant, thereby referring to art. 6 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 8. After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, the Chamber referred to the rules applicable to training compensation and stated that, as established 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. 9. Furthermore, according to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations, professionals may be loaned to another club on the basis of a written agreement between the professional and the clubs concerned. Moreover, the last sentence of said provision stipulates that any such loan is subject to the same rules as apply to the transfer of players, including the provisions on training compensation and the solidarity mechanism. 10. Following the above, the Chamber stressed that one of the aims of the last sentence of art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations is to ensure that training clubs which register a player on a loan basis also benefit from the solidarity mechanism and training compensation, provided that the relevant prerequisites in the pertinent provisions of the Regulations are fulfilled. This approach is also in line with the Chamber’s well-established jurisprudence that all clubs which have in actual fact contributed to the training and education of a player as from the age of 12 are, in principle, entitled to training compensation for the timeframe that the player was effectively trained by them. 11. In other words, the Chamber emphasised that the nature of the player’s registration with a club claiming training compensation, i.e. on a definite or on a temporary basis, is in fact irrelevant with respect to the question as to whether such club would be entitled to receive training compensation for the period of time that the player was effectively trained by that club. 12. In this respect and for the sake of good order, the Chamber deemed it essential to emphasise that, as to the liability to pay training compensation, the analogy established in art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations could not be extended to the case in which players were loaned to other clubs and thus are not being definitively transferred to a new club. In other words, the transfer of a player from the club of origin to the club that accepts the player on loan as well as the return of the player from the club that accepted him on loan to the club of origin do 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 provision (art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations) 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 depriving the loan of its essential flexibility and function of providing young players the opportunity to gain practical experience in another club in order to develop in a positive way, personally and, eventually, also for the benefit of the player’s new club. 13. Following the above, the Chamber pointed out that the obligation to pay training compensation thus arises in case a player is definitively transferred from one club to another club belonging to a different association, but not when he is temporarily transferred to another club while still being contractually bound to his club of origin (yet, with the effects of the relevant contract being temporarily suspended), such as a loan. Hence, the relevant entitlement can only be claimed towards a new club that acquires the services of a player on a definitive and permanent basis subject to the fulfilment of the prerequisites established in art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 14. As to the argument of the Respondent that the Claimant is not the former club in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Chamber wished to recall that art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 stipulates that “In the case of subsequent transfers of the professional, training compensation will only be owed to his former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club”. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant was not the player’s former club stricto sensu, however, the Chamber pointed out that, within the framework of loans, the period of time that the player was registered with Club Z and the period of time that the player was registered with the Claimant on loan, should be considered as one entire timeframe. Any other interpretation would lead to the situation in which clubs accepting a player on loan would never be entitled to receive training compensation, even if they contribute to the training and education of players. 15. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber deemed that the Respondent’s interpretation of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations would clearly contravene the intention of the legislator of the Regulations according to which all training clubs shall, in principle, be rewarded for their efforts invested in training young players, including those clubs that have accepted a player on a temporary basis. 16. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber concurred that it had to reject the Respondent’s argument in this regard. 17. In continuation, the DRC 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 country S to the country C, i.e. from one association to another association inside the territory of the EU, said article is applicable. 18. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber referred to art. 6 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which stipulates that, inside the EU/EEA, the final season of training may occur before the season of the player’s 21st birthday if it is established that the player completed his training before that time. In this respect, the DRC emphasised that cases involving a possible early completion of a player’s training period have to be analysed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration all the specific circumstances and all the evidence produced. Thus, several factors and indications have to be considered in order to establish whether a particular player’s training has indeed been completed before the age of 21, as the Respondent stated. For the sake of completeness, the members of the Chamber stressed that both the DRC and the CAS have adopted a strict approach in establishing the early completion of the player’s training before the age of 21, so as to not jeopardize the right of training clubs to, in principle, receive training compensation. 19. In this regard, the Chamber noted, once more, all the specific circumstances of the present matter as well as all the evidence produced by the parties. According to the Respondent, the player completed his training period before he joined the Claimant, since the player was playing in country S’s under 19 national team, he had signed at least 3 professional contracts before he joined the Claimant, the player was a regular player in the Claimant’s starting line up and the Claimant agreed to take over the obligation to pay the player’s “considerable remuneration” during his period on loan with the club. 20. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that the player had indeed played some matches with country S’s under 19 national team. However, the members of the Chamber outlined that this may be an indication of the player’s talent, skills and level of training, but that such fact is in itself not conclusive to establish the player had completed his training before his 21st birthday. 21. Moreover, the members of the Chamber emphasised that, according to the player passport issued by the country S Football Association, the player was transferred on loan from Club Z to Club R, a club playing in the second division of country S, and, after returning to Club Z for 8 days, the player was again transferred on loan to the Claimant, which was also playing in the second division of country S at the time the player was registered with it. Furthermore, according to the loan agreement concluded between the Claimant and Club Z, the player was transferred on loan free of charge. The DRC held that the fact that Club Z decided to transfer the player again on loan to a club in a lower division, as well as that such loan transfer was free of charge, are clear indications that the player’s training was not yet completed at that time. 22. Furthermore, the DRC took note that, according to the loan agreement concluded between the Claimant and Club Z, the Claimant agreed with Club Z to take over the obligation to pay the player’s salary during his period on loan with the club. However, the DRC stressed that the Respondent had not submitted any evidence in support of its allegation that the player was to receive a “considerable remuneration”. 23. In light of the above and taking into account all the above-mentioned elements and circumstances, as well as the strict approach adopted by the DRC and the CAS in similar cases, the Chamber concurred that it could not be established that it was evident that the player had indeed completed his training period before his loan transfer to the Claimant. Consistently with all the above, the Chamber concluded that training compensation is, in principle, due. 24. In continuation, the DRC pointed out that the 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. In this respect, the DRC recalled that, according to the information contained in TMS, the Respondent, on 1 February 2013, entered a transfer instruction into the TMS by means of which it “engaged the player against payment” from Club Z. 25. Finally, the DRC noted that the ITC of the player, uploaded in TMS and issued by the country S Football Association, also stipulated that the player was “formerly a member of Club Z.” 26. In this regard, the Chamber concurred that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations is not applicable to the Claimant, since the player was on loan with the Claimant and thereafter returned to Club Z. 27. On account of the above considerations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant. 28. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber referred to art. 5 par. 1 and par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulate that as a general rule, to calculate the training compensation, it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself. 29. Having established the above, the DRC referred to art. 6 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which contains special provisions in case a player moves from a lower to a higher category club or from a higher to a lower category club within the territory of the EU/EEA. 30. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 28 April 1992 and was registered with the Claimant as from 9 February 2012 until 30 June 2012 and as from 16 July 2012 until 31 January 2013. 31. Equally, the DRC recalled that the Football Association country C confirmed that the player was registered with the Respondent on 13 February 2013. 32. Furthermore, and considering art. 3 par. 1 sent. 2 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, the Chamber concluded that the effective period of time to be considered in the matter at stake corresponds to 5 months of the 2011/2012 season and 7 months of the 2012/2013 season. 33. In view of all of the above, the DRC decided to partially accept the claim of the Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 20,000 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent. 34. Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided 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 of the 31st day of the registration of the player with the Respondent on a definitive basis, i.e. as of 16 March 2013, until the date of effective payment. 35. 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. 36. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 30,000 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 5,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 37. As a result, and taking into account the particularities of the present matter, the complexity of the case as well as the degree of success, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 4,000, of which currency of country H 1,000 shall be borne by the Claimant and currency of country H 3,000 by the Respondent. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club M, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club L, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 20,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 16 March 2013 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 costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 4,000 are to be paid within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1. The amount of currency of country H 3,000 has to be paid by the Respondent. 5.2. The amount of currency of country H 1,000 has to be paid by the Claimant. 5.3. The above-mentioned amounts have to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 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