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 21 January 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Zola Percival Majavu (South Africa), 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 21 January 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Zola Percival Majavu (South Africa), 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 issued by the Football Federation of Country B, the Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 2 January 1993, was registered with the following Clubs of Country B: - Club F as from 17 August 2005 until 30 July 2009 as an amateur; - Club A as from 5 August 2009 until 24 July 2012 as a professional; - Club G as from 10 August 2012 until 16 January 2013 as an amateur. 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 2009/2010: as from 1 August until 29 May; - the season 2010/2011: as from 31 July until 29 May; - the season 2011/2012: as from 6 August until 23 May. 3. The Football Association of Country D confirmed that the player was registered with Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 20 February 2013 as a professional. 4. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), 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, i.e. the 2012/2013 season. 5. On 1 October 2013, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player was transferred as a professional “from [the Claimant] to [the Respondent]” in February 2013. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 90,000. 6. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent stated that the player had already been registered as a professional with the Claimant. In this respect, the Respondent referred to art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and argued that, in case of a subsequent transfer of a professional, training compensation will only be owed to the player’s former club, i.e. Club G, and not to the Claimant. 7. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the player was an amateur at the moment that he signed the scholarship agreement with it and, therefore, “signing with [the Respondent] cannot be viewed as a transfer of a professional player”. 8. Moreover, the Respondent held that it belonged to the category IV at the time of the conclusion of the scholarship agreement, i.e. 21 December 2012, and that only on 29 December 2012 it was nominated as a category III club by the Football Association of Country D. Consequently, the Respondent concluded that no training compensation is payable. 9. Finally, the Respondent argued that the player was not earning more than the expenses incurred for his football activity under the scholarship agreement and can, therefore, not be considered a professional player in light of art. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. 10. According to the scholarship agreement signed on 21 December 2012 and valid as from 1 February 2013 until 5 November 2017, the player was to receive, besides a signing on fee, accommodation, flight tickets and various other expenses, the following amounts: “5.1…from February 1st, 2013 till March 1st, 2014 in the amount of: 600€ NETO per month and incentive pay of 75€ for each competition game in Master League of Country D or UEFA Champions or Europa League, that the scholarship receiver starts in the main squad, as part of the starting 11 players. 5.2 From March 1st, 2014 … 700€ NETO per month and incentive pay of 100€ … 5.3 From March 1st, 2015 … 1200€ NETO per month and incentive pay of 100€ … 5.4a: …additional incentive pay in the amount of 7000€ if the Scholarship receiver will play 70% from the football season … in the starting eleven … and will win the Championship of Country D … b: … incentive pay in the amount of 3000€ if the Scholarship receiver will play less than 70% (but no less than 25%) from the football season … in the starting eleven … and will win the Championship of Country D …” 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 1 October 2013. 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 and 2 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 2012 and 2014), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 20 February 2013, the 2012 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. 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. 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 90,000. 6. However, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rebutted the claim of the Claimant, arguing that the player had already been registered as a professional with the Claimant and therefore, according to art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, it is only the former club of the player, i.e. Club G, which is entitled to training compensation. 7. In continuation, the DRC took note of the Respondent’s submission that no training compensation is due since it belonged to the category IV at the time of the conclusion of the scholarship agreement, i.e. 21 December 2012, and that only on 29 December 2012 it was nominated as a category III club by the Football Association of Country D. 8. Furthermore, the DRC took note of the Respondent’s argument that the player was not earning more than the expenses incurred for his football activity under the scholarship agreement and can, therefore, not be considered a professional player in light of art. 2 of the Regulations. 9. After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, the Chamber held that it first had to establish whether the player held the amateur status or the professional status at the time he was registered with the Respondent. To this end, the Chamber examined the scholarship agreement dated 21 December 2012 that was provided by the Respondent. 10. In this regard, the members of the Chamber duly noted that, according to said contract, the player was entitled to receive from the Respondent, in exchange for his services between 1 February 2013 and 1 March 2014, the fixed amount of EUR 600 per month, as well as EUR 75 if he played in the starting eleven. Furthermore, between 1 March 2014 and 1 March 2015, the player was entitled to receive the fixed amount of EUR 700 per month, as well as EUR 100 if he played in the starting eleven. Thereafter, as from 1 March 2015, the player was entitled to receive the fixed amount of EUR 1,200 per month, as well as EUR 100 if he played in the starting eleven. Additionally, the player was entitled to receive a bonus amounting to EUR 7,000 in case the club wins the national championship and the player plays more than 70% of the matches in the starting eleven as well as a bonus of EUR 7,000 if the player plays in the starting eleven of the 1st qualifying round of the UEFA Champions League and the club advances to the 2nd qualifying round. Besides the foregoing, the player was entitled to a signing on fee, accommodation and flight tickets. 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 scholarship agreement, 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. In this regard, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that a player’s remuneration as per the criteria set out in art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations constitutes the decisive factor in the determination of the status of the player and that the legal nature or the designation of the contract is of no relevance in this regard. This approach has been confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in its decision CAS 2006/A/1177, whereby the Panel also emphasized that the definition contained in the mentioned provision is the only ground to establish a player’s status. 13. Further to the above, the Chamber pointed out that the Football Association of Country D had confirmed that the player was registered with the Respondent as a professional on 20 February 2013. 14. Subsequently, the Chamber highlighted that the second element contained in the aforementioned art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations, i.e. the existence of a written contract, is met. 15. On account of all the above, the Chamber concurred that the player was to be considered a professional with the Respondent. 16. Having established the above, the Chamber referred to the rules applicable to training compensation. In this context, the Chamber started by stating that, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations as well as in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 par. 1 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 player is registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday or when a professional is transferred between clubs of two different associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 17. Equally, the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 2 sent. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that if a player re-registers as a professional within 30 months of being reinstated as an amateur, his new club shall pay training compensation in accordance with art. 20 of the Regulations. 18. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the player was registered with the Claimant as from 5 August 2009 until 24 July 2012 as a professional and, thereafter, with Club G as from 10 August 2012 until 16 January 2013 as an amateur. Subsequently, the player was registered with the Respondent as a professional on 20 February 2013. 19. In view of the above, the Chamber concurred that the player was re-registered as a professional with the Respondent after a period of 7 months and, thus, within 30 months of being reinstated as an amateur. Consequently, the members of the Chamber decided that the Respondent shall, in principle, pay training compensation in accordance with art. 20 of the Regulations. 20. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber turned its attention to the Respondent’s argument that it belonged to the category IV at the time of the conclusion of the scholarship agreement, i.e. 21 December 2012, and that only on 29 December 2012 it was nominated as a category III club by the Football Association of Country D. 21. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to highlight that, in accordance with its well-established jurisprudence, the event giving rise to a possible entitlement to training compensation is the registration of the player with the new club. 22. In view of the above, the Chamber pointed out that the Respondent belonged to the category III at the time of the player’s registration as a professional with it, i.e. on 20 February 2013. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the club category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA) shall apply to the Respondent and, therefore, training compensation is due. 23. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber 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. 24. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 2 January 1993 and was registered with the Claimant as from 5 August 2009 until 24 July 2012. 25. Furthermore, and considering art. 3 par. 1 sent. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the amount payable is calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of training that the player spent with each club, the Chamber concluded that the effective period of time to be considered in the matter at stake corresponds to 11 months of the 2009/2010 season, the full seasons 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 as well as 1 month of the 2012/2013 season. 26. In view of all of the above, the DRC decided to accept the claim of the Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 90,000 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent. 27. 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. 28. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 90,000 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). 29. 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 successful, the DRC determined the final costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 7,000 which shall be borne by the Respondent. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 90,000. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum is not paid within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of the date of expiry of the stipulated time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 7,000 are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of the notification of the present decision as follows: 4.1. The amount of CHF 4,000 has 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 4.2. The amount of CHF 3,000 has to be paid to the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 4.2. above are 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives