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 25 April 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Ivan Gazidis (England), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member on the claim presented by the club, Club P, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club X, from country G as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player K

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 25 April 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Ivan Gazidis (England), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member on the claim presented by the club, Club P, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club X, from country G as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player K I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the country B Football Union, the player K (hereinafter: the player), born in March 1991, was registered as an amateur with the following country B clubs: - Club V as from 1 July 2002 until 30 June 2007; - Club P as from 1 July 2007 until 30 June 2008; - Club R as from 1 July 2008 until 30 June 2010; - Club S as from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2011; 2. According to the player passport issued by the country G Football Federation, the player was registered as an amateur with Club A, from country G, as from 13 September 2011 until 11 July 2012. 3. According to a confirmation from the country B Football Union, the player was neither registered with any country B club as from 1 July 2011 until 13 September 2011, nor that an ITC was issued to a foreign association. 4. The football seasons in country B during the period of time the player was registered with Club P (hereinafter: the Claimant) started on 1 July and ended on 30 June of the following year. 3. According to the player passport issued by the country B Football Union, 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 country G Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club X (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 11 July 2012 as a professional. 5. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Respondent belonged to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) during the season when the player was registered with it, i.e. the 2012/2013 season. 6. On 17 January 2013, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player, in July 2012, had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 35,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 11 August 2012. 7. On 8 April 2013, the Respondent replied to the Claimant’s claim and stated that the player has never “received real training” from the Claimant and, therefore, left the club after six months. In this respect, the Respondent submitted a statement of the player. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the Claimant had not shown any interest in keeping the services of the player by not offering him a contract in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. 8. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to provide its comments to the reply of the Respondent, the Claimant did not reply or make any further statements during the course of the investigation. 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 January 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 (editions 2010 and 2012), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 11 July 2012, 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 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 35,000, indicating that the player had signed his first professional contract with 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 the Claimant had not provided the player with “real training” and, consequently, the player left the Claimant after six months. 7. Equally, the DRC took due note of the Respondent’s statement that the Claimant had not shown any interest in keeping the services of the player by not offering him a contract in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 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 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. Therefore, the Chamber concurred that indeed, in principle, training compensation is due whenever a player is registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 9. Following the above, the Chamber referred to its well-established jurisprudence and stressed that all clubs which have in actual fact contributed to the training and education of a player as from the season of his 12th birthday are, in principle, entitled to training compensation, only for the timeframe that the player was effectively trained by them. 10. In this respect, the members of the Chamber recalled that the Respondent submitted a statement from the player, in which the latter declared that he had left the Claimant after six months. In this regard, the Chamber underlined that the Claimant did not dispute this particular allegation of the Respondent. 11. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber held that the Claimant did not contest the Respondent’s submission regarding the actual period during which the player was trained by the Claimant. Therefore, the members of the Chamber concluded that the player had been effectively trained by the Claimant during a period of six months and, as a result, the Claimant is, in principle, entitled to receive training compensation for said period only. 12. Having established the aforementioned, 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 B to country G, i.e. from one association to another association inside the territory of the EU, said article is applicable. Hence, the DRC concluded that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies in the case at hand as lex specialis. 13. However, in this regard and with reference to the Respondent’s argument that the Claimant did not offer the player a contract, 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 another club 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). 14. On account of the above considerations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the player was born in March 1991 and was effectively trained by the Claimant as from 1 July 2007 for a period of six months. 18. 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 6 months of the 2007/2008 season. 19. In continuation, the DRC recalled that the Respondent belonged to the category II within UEFA, which corresponds to the amount of EUR 60,000 per year, and the Claimant belonged to category IV within UEFA, which corresponds to EUR 10,000 per year. 20. 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 17,500 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent, corresponding to 6 months of the season of the player’s 17th birthday. 21. 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 11 August 2012, until the date of effective payment. 22. 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 C 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. 23. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 35,000 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 C 5,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 24. 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 C 5,000, of which currency of country C 2,500 shall be borne by the Claimant and currency of country C 2,500 by the Respondent. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club P, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club X, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 17,500 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 11 August 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 claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country C 5,000 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 C 2,500 has to be paid by the Respondent. 5.2. The amount of currency of country C 2,500 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