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 9 May 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country A as Claimant against the club, Club P, from country M as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with 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 the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 9 May 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country A as Claimant against the club, Club P, from country M as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player G I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Association of country A, the player G (hereinafter: the player), born on 3 May 1991, was registered with its affiliated Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), as an amateur player as from 9 March 2005 until 18 March 2009. 2. Equally, according to a confirmation and the player passport issued by the Football Association of country A, the player was registered as an amateur with the Club S from country A, as of 18 March 2009, during the 2009 season. 3. The sporting season in country A runs as follows: a) for amateurs (under 20 years of age) from January to December of the relevant year; and b) for amateurs (more than 20 years of age) and professionals from 1 July until 30 June of the following year. 4. According to a written confirmation of the Football Federation of country M, the player was registered as a professional with its affiliated Club P sub 20 (hereinafter: “P Sub 20”), on 14 January 2010. Moreover, it informed that the Respondent Club P Sub 20 belonged to category IV (indicative amount of USD 2,000 per year) and Club P (hereinafter: the Respondent) belonged to category II (indicative amount of USD 40,000 per year) at the time of the registration of the player. 5. According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of country M, it can be noted the following: Club Category Status Season P Sub 20 Professional 2009-2010 6. On 24 February 2011, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of training compensation for an amount of USD 124,000 plus interests in connection with the first professional registration of the player with the Respondent. 7. The Respondent submitted its response, rejecting the Claimant’s claim and stated that, according to the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, no training compensation is due since the player was registered with Club P Sub 20, which allegedly belonged to category IV. 8. Upon FIFA’s request for clarification, the Football Federation of country M informed that Club P Sub 20 belongs to the Respondent, which is affiliated to the Football Federation of country M and plays in the first professional division. Moreover, it stated that Club P Sub 20 does not participate in the first professional division, only in the sub 20 tournaments; therefore, the Football Federation of country M categorizes it as category IV. 9. Furthermore, the Respondent, with its unsolicited correspondence dated 12 September 2011, provided a copy of the employment contract concluded between the Respondent and the player and asserted that the player was hired by Club P Sub 20 and received the monthly salary in the of amount of 1,644. Therefore, it deems that the player was clearly an amateur, since such amount does not cover basic life expenses. 10. The Claimant rejected the Respondent’s arguments. In particular, the Claimant asserted that the Respondent admitted that it had signed a professional employment contract with the player and, in this respect, the Claimant stated that the salary agreed upon in said employment contract exceeded the minimum salary set forth in the country M legislation. As a result, the Claimant concluded that the Respondent did not present any evidence that the relevant monthly salary paid to the player does not cover basic life expenses. Therefore, the Claimant deems that the player indeed signed an employment contract with the Respondent as professional and the amount of training compensation is due to the Claimant. 11. Moreover, the Claimant stated that the Respondent pretended, in order to avoid paying training compensation, that the latter and Club P Sub 20 are two different entities when in reality they are the same. 12. The Claimant lastly assessed that in the Transfer Matching System (TMS) it is written that the player was hired by the Respondent and not by Club P Sub 20. Moreover, it is well known that the players whose transfer is made and registered at TMS are professional players. 13. The Respondent reiterated its position and requested the rejection of the Claimant’s claim. In particular, it stated that FIFA divided the players participating in organised football into two categories (i.e. amateurs and professionals) and that the referred definition is based upon two main criteria: the written contract and the remuneration of the player, which have to be cumulatively fulfilled in order to classify a player. Therefore, in Club P’s opinion, the player might not be considered professional since the remuneration he received from Club P Sub 20 (i.e.1,644 per month) was less than the expenses effectively incurred and actually, it is also the minimum salary established by the country M Government. 14. Finally, the Respondent stated that the Football Federation of country M classified Club P Sub 20 as a category club IV. Therefore, 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 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 24 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 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 decide on the present litigation concerning training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012, 2010 and 2009), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 14 January 2010, the 2009 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: 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. In this respect, the members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Chamber emphasized that in the following consideration 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 Chamber recalled that the player was born on 3 May 1991 and was registered with the Claimant as from 9 March 2005 until 18 March 2009. Equally, the Chamber took note that the player was registered as an amateur with Club M as from 18 March 2009, during the season 2009. 6. In continuation, the Chamber observed that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of USD 124,000, as the player was transferred to a club belonging to a different association before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 7. Equally, the Chamber took note that the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim for the payment of training compensation, stating that the player was registered with Club P Sub 20 team, which according to the Football Federation of country M belonged to category IV, as well as that when registering the player he did not acquire the professional status. 8. In this respect, the Chamber 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 the player concerned is registered for the first time as a Professional, or when a Professional is transferred between two clubs of two different Associations, before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 9. As a result, the DRC firstly deemed it important to establish whether the player held the amateur status or acquired the professional status when he was registered with the Respondent. In this regard, first of all, the members of the DRC took note that the Football Federation of country M confirmed that the player was registered with its affiliated club as professional (cf. point I.4). In continuation and considering that the Respondent held that the player remained amateur when registered with it, the Chamber proceeded to examine the employment contract that the Respondent had submitted in the present proceedings. 10. In this regard, the members of the Chamber duly noted that the contract contained a provision stipulating that the player would render his services to the Respondent as a professional player and that, according to said contract, the player was entitled to receive a monthly gross allowance of 1,644 from the Respondent. 11. In this context, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that “A professional is a player who 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”. 12. Taking into consideration the criteria set out in art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations as well as the amounts payable to the player on the basis of the aforementioned contract, the members of the Chamber unanimously concluded that the player was in fact paid more for his footballing activity than the expenses he effectively incurred as well as that the player was paid the minimum salary established in country M. 13. Equally, the Chamber highlighted that the second element contained in said art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations, i.e. the existence of a written contract, is met. 14. In addition, the Chamber referred to the general legal principle of the burden of proof and highlighted that, according to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. In this context, the Respondent had failed to provide with documentary evidence demonstrating that the player remained amateur when registered with it. 15. On account of all the above, the Chamber concurred that the player was registered as a professional with the Respondent. 16. Subsequently, the DRC deemed appropriate to recall that, according art. 2 par. 2 lit. ii) of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is not due if the player is transferred to a category IV club. 17. In this respect, the Chamber duly noted that according to the Football Federation of country M the player was registered with Club P Sub 20 on 14 January 2010, which according to the information received belonged to category 4 in the season 2009/2010. 18. However, and in this context, the Chamber also considered the arguments of the country M club that the player had been registered for Club P Sub 20, which belonged to category IV since it plays in the sub 20 tournaments, and not with Club P, which belonged to category II since it participated in the first professional division. Equally, the DRC duly noted that the Football Federation of country M confirmed that Club P Sub 20 belongs to Club P. 19. In this respect, the Chamber emphasized that various provisions related to the training compensation always refer to the term “club”, and clearly establish that it is the reasonability of the new club to pay the training compensation which is calculated based on the categories into which all associations divide their clubs in accordance with the clubs’ financial investments. Equally, the Chamber recalled that the training costs are established on a confederation basis for each category of clubs (emphasis added). 20. Congruously, the Chamber reiterated that the clubs have to be allocated into four categories and not the teams of the clubs. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the relevant training compensation due to the country A club has to be calculated taking into account the category of the country M club, i.e. category II. 21. In view of all the above, in accordance with art. 5 par. 1 and par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that the Claimant is entitled to receive the amount of USD 93,666 from the Respondent for the training and education of the player and, thus, the claim is partially accepted. 22. 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 interest at 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of as of 24 February 2011 until the date of effective payment. 23. Lastly, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in conjunction 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 CHF 25’000 are levied. The relevant provision further states 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. 24. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is USD 124,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 15,000 (cf. table in Annexe A pf the Procedural Rules). 25. As a result, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been partially accepted as well as that the case at hand did not compose any complex factual or legal issues, the Chamber concluded that both the Claimant and the Respondent have to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA in the amount of CHF 10,000. ***** Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, 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 USD 93,666 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 24 February 2011 until the date of effective payment. 3. If 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 CHF 10,000 are to be paid, within 30 days as of the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1. The amount of CHF 3,000 has to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid said amount 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 CHF 7,000 has to be paid by the Respondent to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no.: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent 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 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 Training compensation for the player G (Club A, from country A / Club P, from country M) 9 Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives