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 31 July 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Ivan Gazidis (England), member on the claim presented by the club, Club D, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club P, from country I as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player B

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 31 July 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Ivan Gazidis (England), member on the claim presented by the club, Club D, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club P, from country I as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player B I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the country S Football Association the player B (hereinafter: the player), born in September 1991, was registered with Club D, from country S (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 6 August 2007 until 19 August 2012 as a professional. 2. The football seasons in country S during the period of time the player was registered with the Claimant started on 1 July and ended on 30 June of the following year. 3. According to a confirmation of the country S Football Association, the Claimant belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) during the seasons 2007/2008 until 2010/2011, and to the category IV (indicative amount of EUR 10,000) during the season 2011/2012. 4. The country I Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club P (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 20 August 2012. 5. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Respondent belonged to the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year) at the time the player was registered with it. 6. On 26 September 2012, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player, on 20 August 2012, was transferred as a professional from the Claimant to the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 300,000. 7. The Claimant stated that the player’s employment contract would expire on 30 June 2012 and, therefore, it had offered the player a new employment contract by mail on 13 March 2012, starting on 1 July 2012 and ending on 30 June 2014. In this respect, the Claimant enclosed a “confirmation from country S Post dated on 13 March 2012”, which, in the Claimant’s view, confirmed that the offer was sent to the player. 8. In its reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent stated that the player had already completed his training period before he was transferred to the Respondent since, according to the Respondent, the player was a regular player in the Claimant’s first team and had already played several matches for the under-19 and under-21 country S national teams. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that the Claimant has not sufficiently proven on which date the contractual offer was sent to the player and if such offer has actually been received by the player. In particular, the “postal documentation” submitted does not bear the date of registration of the mailed letter and there is no evidence that the document sent to the player is the contract offer. 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 26 September 2012. Consequently, the 2008 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 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 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 20 August 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. 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 300,000, indicating that the player was transferred as a professional from the Claimant to the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 6. In this respect, and hereby referring to the rules applicable to training compensation, the Chamber stated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 par. 1 lit. ii. 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 professional is transferred between clubs of two different associations before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. Therefore, the Chamber concurred that indeed, in principle, training compensation is due whenever a professional is transferred internationally before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 7. In continuation, the Chamber took note that the Claimant stated that the player’s employment contract would expire on 30 June 2012 and that it had offered the player a new employment contract by mail on 13 March 2012, starting on 1 July 2012 and ending on 30 June 2014. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Claimant provided a “confirmation from country S Post dated on 13 March 2012”, which, in the Claimant’s view, confirmed that the offer was sent to the player. 8. However, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rebutted the claim of the Claimant, alleging that the Claimant had not sufficiently proven on which date the contract offer was sent to the player and if the player had actually received such offer. The Chamber particularly noted that the Respondent argued that the “postal documentation” submitted by the Claimant does not bear the date of registration of the mailed letter and that no evidence was submitted by the Claimant that the document sent to the player was the contract offer. 9. After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, taking into consideration all the aforementioned arguments, the Chamber observed that the parties, in particular, disputed whether the Claimant had complied with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 10. In this regard, 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 country I, 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. 11. 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, i.e. the Claimant. Furthermore, in relation to the subsequent transfer of a professional, art. 6 par. 3 sent. 2 and sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations stipulate that the former club must offer the player a contract in writing via registered post at least 60 days before the expiry of his current contract as well as that the offer shall be at least of an equivalent value to the player’s current contract. 12. Subsequently, and as a general remark, the DRC emphasised that the requirement that a contract offer shall be made “in writing via registered post”, as stipulated in the second sentence of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, was established with the aim of facilitating the burden of proof of a club to demonstrate that it had, indeed, made a contract offer to a player and that it was, therefore, entitled to training compensation. E contrario, the DRC concluded that a club, which does not meet said prerequisite, is not automatically prevented from receiving training compensation, insofar as it can demonstrate beyond doubt that an offer was indeed made to the player. 13. As a result, the DRC had to determine if the Claimant had complied with said provision in order to be entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent. 14. In this respect, the DRC recalled that the Claimant had only provided a “confirmation from country S Post dated on 13 March 2012” in support of its statement that it had offered the player a new employment contract in writing on that date. 15. After having carefully analysed the aforementioned document, the DRC held that such document does not prove that the player had actually acknowledged and received the contract offer from the Claimant. 16. Consequently, the DRC concluded that the Claimant failed to prove that it had complied with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 17. In light of all the foregoing, the Chamber rejected the Claimant’s claim. 18. 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. 19. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 300,000 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 25,000 (cf. table in Annex A). 20. As a result, considering that the case at hand did not pose any particular factual difficulties as well as that the claim of the Claimant has been rejected, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 15,000, which shall be borne by the Claimant. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club D, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 15,000 are to be paid by the Claimant within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of currency of country H 5,000 as advance of costs at the beginning of the present proceedings, the amount of currency of country H 10,000 is to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. ***** 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