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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 13 September 2013, on the claim presented by the club, Club S, from country M as Claimant against the club, Club B, from country R as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player Q

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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 13 September 2013, on the claim presented by the club, Club S, from country M as Claimant against the club, Club B, from country R as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player Q I. Facts of the case 1. The Football Federation of country M confirmed that the player Q (hereinafter: the player), born on xxxxxxx, was registered with its affiliated club S (hereinafter: Claimant), as from 10 August 2001 until 19 December 2005 as an amateur. As from 20 December 2005 until 16 May 2008, the player was registered as an amateur with the club Z from country M. The player passport further indicated that on 16 August 2008 the player was transferred to country R. 2. The football season in country M runs as from 1 August until 31 July of the following year. 3. According to the official confirmation of the Football Association of country R (FSR) dated 12 March 2013, the player was registered with the club B from country R (hereinafter: Respondent) as an amateur player as from 27 August 2008 until 5 March 2009 and as a professional player as from 6 March 2009. 4. The FSR confirmed that the Respondent belonged to category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year). 5. On 10 December 2012, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training compensation from the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant requested the amount of EUR 25,000. To its claim, the Claimant enclosed an undated player passport of the FSR which indicated that the player was registered with the Respondent as follows: • Amateur: as from 27 August 2008 until 6 March 2009; • Scholarship: as from “3” March 2009 until 9 July 2012; • Professional: as from 9 July 2012. 6. On 16 April 2013 and in light of the confirmation of the FSR of 12 March 2013, FIFA informed the Claimant about art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players indicating that its claim appeared to be barred by the statute of limitations. 7. In its response, dated 24 April 2013, the Claimant stated that “the confirmation issued by the Football Association of country R (FSR) which confirms that in the period between 6 March 2009 – 8 February 2010 the player was in a professional status, is incorrect and imprecisely defined. With this confirmation FSR misinforms FIFA and complicates, with no grounds, the case which is quite clear”. 8. In this regard, the Claimant contested the information provided by the FSR alleging that it is clear that the player was under a scholarship agreement and that it was only after 20 June 2011 that all the players under such kind of contract were considered as professionals, according to the FSR Regulations on registration, status and transfer of players. In this respect, the Claimant enclosed a letter of the FSR sent to one of the latter’s affiliated clubs in which it states that “since 20.06.2011, the Regulations (…) defines: “In terms of the provisions of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of players and the provisions of this Regulations, the player that has concluded a scholarship agreement with a club, has a status of a professional player”. 9. Furthermore, the Claimant submitted a partial translation of the 2007 edition of the FSR Regulations which included 3 categories of players: amateur, scholarships and professionals. Art. 6 of the aforementioned regulations stipulates that “scholarship players are the players that have concluded written agreement on receiving scholarship with a club from the Super, the First and the League of country R, based on which they received monthly scholarship, that has a character of an allowance for sports improvement and the development of the player.” Furthermore, scholarship players “could receive payments of the total costs of accommodation and food, expenses of lost profit due to participation results in the competition (…)”. 10. In this respect, the Claimant assessed that the player was under a scholarship agreement dated 3 March 2009, so “he was not in a professional status and [the Claimant], was not in a legal position to ask the right of training compensation”. 11. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that “from all aspects it is evident that the player didn’t have a successful career in the period as a scholarship player, and had not have until then terminated his training period. As the player’s training already completed, the player was transferred to [the Respondent] and on 9 July 2012 signed his first professional agreement with [the Respondent]”. 12. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to provide its position regarding the claim, the Respondent did not respond to the claim or make any statements at all during the course of the investigation. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber judge (hereinafter also referred to as the “DRC judge”) 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 5 April 2013. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, edition 2012 (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge 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), he is competent to decide on the present dispute regarding training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2009, 2010 and 2012), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 27 August 2008 as an amateur, on 3 March 2009 as a scholar and on 9 July 2012 as a professional, as well as that the present claim was lodged on 12 December 2012, the 2008 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. He started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. 5. First of all, the DRC judge recalled that the player was born on 24 February 1992 and was registered with the Claimant as from 10 August 2001 until 19 December 2005 as an amateur. Equally, the Chamber took note that the player was registered as an amateur with the club Z, as from 20 December 2005 until 16 May 2008. 6. In continuation, the DRC judge observed that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 25,000, as the player was registered as a professional for the first time with a club belonging to a different association before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. Equally, the DRC judge took note that the Respondent did not answer any of FIFA’s correspondences. 7. In continuation, the DRC judge was keen to remind that, in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is due, in general, when a player is registered for the first time as a professional. Equally, he found it important to stress that, pursuant to art. 2 of the Regulations, 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. 8. Consequently, and in light of the aforementioned facts, the DRC judge deemed it important to establish when the player was registered with the Respondent as a professional. To this end, he carefully examined the documents on file. 9. In so doing, the DRC judge recalled that the Claimant repeatedly alleged that, pursuant to the FSR Regulations, the player was an amateur during the period he was under the scholarship agreement. 10. Equally, the DRC judge noted that, according to the player passport of the FSR as well as to its confirmation dated 12 March 2013, the player was registered with the Respondent as a professional under a scholarship agreement on 3 March 2009. 11. In this respect, the DRC judge underscored the content of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which stipulates that any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof, and underlined that the Claimant had failed to provide any evidence in order to prove that, despite the player passport issued by the FSR and its confirmation dated 12 March 2013, the player was indeed an amateur from 3 March 2009 to 9 July 2012. 12. On account of the above, the DRC form the belief that the player was registered with the Respondent as a professional on 3 March 2009. 13. Having said that, the DRC judge emphasized the content of art. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which provides that the club with which the player is registered for the first time as a professional, is responsible for paying training compensation within 30 days of said registration. Therefore, the DRC judge decided that training compensation fell due on 2 April 2009. 14. The DRC judge, then, referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations, in accordance with which FIFA decision-making bodies shall not hear any case subject to these regulations if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving raise to the dispute. 15. In this respect, the DRC judge observed that the Claimant lodged the present claim on 10 December 2012, this is, that more than two years have elapsed since the training compensation fell due and, therefore, he formed the belief that the claim was inadmissible. 16. Lastly, the DRC 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 judge 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. 17. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 25,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules). 18. As a result, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant is inadmissible, the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 19. Considering that the case at hand did not compose any complex factual or legal issues, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 2,000. ***** III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, club S, is inadmissible. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 2,000 are to be paid by the Claimant, club S, within 30 days of notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. xxxxxxxxxx: ***** 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 Encl. CAS directives