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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 6 November 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, Country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, Country D as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the Player E

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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 6 November 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, Country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, Country D as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the Player E I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport, dated 9 July 2014 and provided by the Football Association of of Country B, the Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 17 June 1995, was registered as an amateur with the following Clubs of Country B: - Club F as from 12 August 2006 until 11 August 2007; - Club A (on loan) as from 12 August 2007 until 30 July 2011; - Club F as from 31 July 2011 until 2 August 2011; - Club F (on loan) as from 3 August 2011 until 8 March 2012; - Club F as from 9 March 2012 until 11 March 2012. 2. The football seasons in Country B during the period of time the player was registered with Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), ran as follows: - the season 2007/2008: as from 8 July until 14 June; - the season 2008/2009: as from 19 July until 30 May; - the season 2009/2010: as from 11 July until 29 May; - the season 2010/2011: as from 17 July until 28 May; - the season 2011/2012: as from 16 July until 20 May. 4. The Football Association of Country B confirmed that the Claimant belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) during the period of time the player was registered with it. 5. The Football Association of Country D confirmed that the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 12 March 2012 as a professional. 6. According to the player passport, dated 12 March 2012, issued by the Football Association of Country B and uploaded in the Transfer Matching System (TMS) on the same date, the Claimant had trained the player between 12 August 2007 and 30 June 2011. 7. Equally, according to the information contained in the TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category II (indicative amount EUR 60,000 per year) during the season when the player was registered with it, i.e. the 2011/2012 season. 8. On 22 January 2014, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player, on 12 March 2012, had been registered as a professional for the first time with the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 180,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of the due date. 9. The Claimant explained that the player had signed a scholarship agreement with the Respondent and stated that, according to the longstanding jurisprudence of FIFA and the CAS, the player shall therefore be considered a professional. 10. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) and argued that the Claimant’s claim, lodged on “16 January 2014”, is time barred since the event giving rise to the dispute was the conclusion of the scholarship agreement between the Respondent and the player on 1 January 2012. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that the Claimant’s claim was incomplete, since the Club of Country B “has failed to provide all of the documentation relevant to the dispute and has failed to provide proof of payment of the relevant advance of costs”. 11. In addition, the Respondent argued that the obligation to pay training compensation forms a restriction on the freedom of movement of the player as well as a restriction of competition and, therefore, constitutes a breach of EU law. In this respect, the Respondent referred to the Bosman ruling of the European Court of Justice. Furthermore, in light of the Bernard ruling of the European Court of Justice, the Respondent argued that the amount claimed by the Claimant does not reflect the actual training costs and, consequently, constitutes a breach of EU law. 12. In continuation, the Respondent argued that the player passport (dated 22 November 2013) attached to the Claimant’s claim “may not be genuine”, and enclosed “the player’s genuine FIFA passport” (dated 23 May 2011) from which it appears that the player had been registered with Club F only, as of 2 September 2004. The Respondent stated that it received said player passport from the Football Association of Country B (via Football Association of Country D) and that it relied upon said document in good faith. Based upon the aforementioned player passport, the Respondent concluded an agreement regarding training compensation with Club F on 1 January 2012. Further, the Respondent stated that the player earned only 78 per week in 2012 and 83 per week in 2013. Consequently, with reference to art. 2 of the Regulations, the Respondent stated that the player cannot be considered a professional since he was not paid more than the expenses he incurred. 13. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the player had already obtained professional status in Country B when he was transferred on loan to the Claimant, since amateur players cannot be transferred on loan (art. 10 of the Regulations). With regard to the player’s registration on loan with the Claimant, the Respondent further argued that the Claimant could benefit from the player’s services and, therefore, the Claimant is not entitled to training compensation on top of that. Moreover, the Claimant has not shown any interest in retaining the player. 14. The Respondent continued to argue that the amount of training compensation claimed by the Claimant is excessive and shall, therefore, be reduced by the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) in the event it is decided that the Claimant is entitled to training compensation. In this respect, training compensation shall only be awarded for years of proper and proven training by the Claimant. In this regard, the Respondent submitted a witness statement from the player, in which he confirmed that he was trained 5 times a week by the Claimant, but that he had incurred most expenses himself. Furthermore, according to the Respondent, the Claimant has not submitted any evidence from which its actual training costs can be established. 15. Finally, the Respondent held that the amount of training compensation, if due, shall be reduced by the DRC based on the jurisprudence of the CAS as well as the DRC, in accordance with which the Claimant should have offered the player a contract or should have shown a bona fide and genuine interest in retaining the player. 16. In its replica, the Claimant referred to the confirmation of Football Association of Country D, according to which the player was registered with the Respondent as a professional on 12 March 2012. With regard to the player passport issued by the Football Association of Country B, the Claimant stated that the player passport dated 23 May 2011 and submitted by the Respondent is the “international player passport used in the past tracking the player’s career as from the age of 10 containing only the first club ever”. The player passport dated 22 November 2013 and issued by the Football Association of Country B is fully in line with the Regulations, and so is the latest version dated 9 July 2014, which is an extended version of the previous player passport issued by the Football Association of Country B for the purpose of the present case. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that “the player was trained and educated at [the Claimant] for couple of sporting seasons”. Finally, the Claimant underlined that a loan transfer of an amateur player is possible in Country B in accordance with the internal regulations. 17. In its duplica, the Respondent argued that the Claimant had not submitted sufficient proof that the player was registered with it on loan, since no loan agreement had been provided from which it could be established whether the Claimant paid a loan fee or not. Equally, the Respondent argued that there was no sufficient evidence that the player was actually trained by the Claimant, during the period of time he was registered with the club. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that the calculation of training compensation shall be based on the average of the actual training costs of the parties. In continuation, Respondent held that the Claimant should have offered the player a contract in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 18. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that the Football Association of Country B had not given any explanation as to why it had previously issued an incomplete player passport. Finally, the Respondent noted that the Claimant had stated that the player was trained by it for a “couple of sporting seasons”, which is contradictory to the Claimant’s claim for training compensation for a period of five sporting seasons. Therefore, the Respondent argued that the Claimant cannot be entitled to training compensation for more than “a couple of sporting seasons”. 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 22 January 2014. 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 of the 2012 and 2014 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 2014), 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, 2012 and 2014), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 12 March 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 reverted to the argument of the Respondent, according to whom the present matter is barred by the statute of limitations. In this regard, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the FIFA Regulations, according to which, inter alia, the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall not hear any case subject to the said Regulations if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute. The present claim having been lodged in front of the DRC on 22 January 2014 and the event giving rise to the dispute, that is, the player’s registration with the Respondent having occurred, according to a confirmation from Football Association of Country D, on 12 March 2012, the members of the Chamber had to reject the respective argument of the Respondent and confirmed that the present petition was lodged in front of the DRC within said two years’ period of time. The matter is, thus, not barred by the statute of limitations in accordance with art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations. 5. Having established the aforementioned, 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. 6. First of all, the DRC took note that the Claimant held that it had trained the player between 12 August 2007 and 30 July 2011 and, in support of this, submitted a player passport, issued by the Football Association of Country B and dated 22 November 2013, from which it appears that the player had been registered with the Claimant during the aforementioned period. 7. Equally, the DRC noted that the Respondent argued that the aforementioned player passport dated 22 November 2013 “may not be genuine” and submitted “the player’s genuine FIFA passport”, dated 13 May 2011 and issued by the Football Association of Country B, from which it appears that the player had been registered with Club F only. 8. In continuation, the DRC took note of the Respondent’s submission that it had received the player passport dated 23 May 2011 from the Football Association of Country B via Football Association of Country D and that, based upon said player passport, it had concluded an agreement regarding the payment of training compensation for the player with Club F on 1 January 2012. 9. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber recalled that the Respondent had concluded a scholarship agreement with the player on 1 January 2012. 10. In addition, the members of the Chamber highlighted that, according to the information contained in the TMS, the Respondent entered a transfer instruction to engage the player on 5 March 2012. The transfer instruction was finalized by the Football Association of Country B and the Football Association of Country D upon receipt of the International Transfer Certificate by Football Association of Country D on 12 March 2012. 11. In continuation, the members of the DRC referred to the player passport, dated 12 March 2012, issued by the Football Association of Country B and uploaded in the TMS on the same date, which included the Claimant as one of the clubs that had trained the player. 12. In view of the foregoing and in particular the chronology of events, the DRC held that, at the moment that the Respondent concluded the agreements with the player and his former club, Club F, as well as when it entered the transfer instruction into the TMS, it was only in possession of the player passport dated 23 May 2011 which it received from the Football Association of Country B via the Football Association of Country D and according to which the player had only been registered with Club F. 13. In light of all the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent could rely in good faith on the player passport dated 23 May 2011 and reasonably assume that the player had not been trained by any other club than Club F. As a result, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s claim. 14. 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 CHF 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. 15. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 180,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 16. As a result, considering that the case at hand did pose some particular factual difficulties as well as that the claim of the Claimant has been rejected, the DRC determined the final costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 18,000 which shall be borne by the Claimant. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 18,000 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 CHF 5,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the amount of CHF 13,000 is to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A ***** 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