F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) – indennità di formazione – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) – training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 6 November 2014, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the club, Club T, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club F, from country S as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player F

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) - indennità di formazione – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) - training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 6 November 2014, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the club, Club T, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club F, from country S as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player F I. Facts of the case 1. The country B Football Federation confirmed that the player, Player F (hereinafter: the player), born in January 1991, was registered with its affiliated club, Club T (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 8 May 2007 until 7 April 2009 as an amateur. 2. Furthermore, the aforementioned player passport indicated that: - from 8 April 2009 until 31 December 2009, the player was registered as an amateur with the Club J, from country B; - from 1 January 2010 until 4 April 2010, “no record found”; - from 5 April 2010 until 25 January 2011, the player was registered as an amateur with the Club C, from country B 3. The country B Football Federation confirmed that the sporting season in country B follows the calendar year. 4. Pursuant to the player passport issued by the country S Football Association, the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club S (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 2 February 2011 as a “non-amateur”. 5. The said player passport also indicates that 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. 6. On 31 August 2012, UR 73,479.45, plus 5% interest p.a. “since the 31st day after the registration of the player with the association of his new club”. the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for the payment of training compensation from the Respondent on the basis that the player signed his first professional contract with the Respondent on 1 January 2011. After amending its claim on 17 December 2013, the Claimant is claiming training compensation in the amount of E 7. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent sustained that the player was registered at the country S Football Association as an amateur and that the process of the player’s registration was conducted outside of the Transfer Matching System (TMS). The Respondent also acknowledged that on 1 January 2011, it signed with the player an employment contract, valid as of the date of signature until 31 December 2013. Pursuant to said employment contract, the player was entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 900 for 2011, EUR 1,100 for 2012 and EUR 1,300 for 2013. 8. In view of the foregoing, the Respondent held that the Claimant is not entitled to training compensation and requested that the Claimant’s claim be declined. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 31 August 2012. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that 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 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, which states that the DRC judge shall examine his jurisdiction in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2014). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 lit. ii. in connection with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), the DRC judge is competent to decide on the present matter relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which edition of the Regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations (editions 2010, 2012 and 2014) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged on 31 August 2012 and that the player was registered with the Respondent on 2 February 2011. In view of the aforementioned, the DRC judge concluded that the 2010 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. First of all, the DRC judge recalled that the player, born in January 1991, was, according to the player passport provided by the country B Football Federation, registered with the Claimant as from 8 May 2007 until 7 April 2009 as an amateur. 6. In continuation, the DRC judge took note that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 73,479.45, since the player had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 7. Furthermore, the DRC judge duly noted that the Respondent sustained having registered the player as an amateur and therefore, there is no training compensation due to the Claimant. 8. However, the DRC judge observed that the Respondent acknowledged having signed a contract with the player, according to which the player was entitled to a monthly salary in the amounts of EUR 900 for 2011, EUR 1,100 for 2012 and EUR 1,300 for 2013. 9. Having established the above, the DRC judge 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 professional is registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. In case the player is registered for the first time as a professional, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that the club with which the player is registered is responsible for paying training compensation within 30 days of registration to every club with which the player has previously been registered and that has contributed to his training starting from the season of his 12th birthday. 10. Following the above, the DRC judge pointed out that the player passport issued by the country B Football Federation indicates that the player was registered as an amateur in two subsequent country B clubs for the period between 8 April 2009 and 25 January 2011. Moreover, the DRC judge duly noted that as per the player passport issued by the country S Football Association, the player was registered with the Respondent on 2 February 2011 as a “non-amateur”. 11. On account of the above considerations, the DRC judge concluded that it could indeed be established that the player had been registered for the first time as a professional with the Respondent. In this regard, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 12. Subsequently, the DRC judge considered that it had to determine which should be the relevant amount of training compensation to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. In this regard, the DRC judge went on to establish the proper calculation of the relevant training compensation due to the Claimant. 13. To that end, the DRC judge 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. 14. In continuation, the DRC judge recalled that the player was born in January 1991 and was registered with the Claimant as from 8 May 2007 until 7 April 2009. 15. Equally, the DRC judge recalled that, according to the player passport issued by the country S Football Association, the player was registered with the Respondent on 2 February 2011 and 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. 16. On account of the above, the DRC judge considered that the Claimant is thus entitled to receive training compensation for the period as from 8 May 2007 until 7 April 2009, i.e. for 8 months of the season of the player’s 16th birthday, for the complete season of the player’s 17th birthday as well as for 3 months of the season of the player’s 18th birthday. In view of the foregoing, and considering art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 57,000 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent. 17. Lastly, the DRC judge 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 judge 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. 18. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 73,479.45 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 10,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 19. As a result, considering the degree of success, the DRC judge determined the final costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 10,000, which currency of country H 8,000 shall be borne by the Respondent and currency of country H 2,000 by the Claimant. III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 57,500 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 5 March 2011 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the aforementioned amount 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 10,000 are to be paid, within 30 days of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1 The amount of currency of country H 8,000 by the Respondent to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no.: 5.2 The amount of currency of country H 2,000 by the Claimant to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of currency of country H 2,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, no additional amount has to be paid to FIFA. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 2 is to be made and to notify the DRC judge 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 DRC judge: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives