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 as well as a confirmation issued by the Football Association of Country B the Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 6 October 1986, was registered with the Club of Country B, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 31 August 2001 until 26 July 2005 as an amateur, and from 27 July 2005 until 25 May 2008 as a professional. 2. The football seasons in Country B during the period of time the player was registered with Club A started on 1 July and ended on 30 June of the following year. 3. According to the aforementioned player passport, 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. 4. The Football Federation of Country D confirmed that the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 15 October 2008. 5. Furthermore, the Football Federation of Country D confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) at the moment the player was registered with it. 6. On 9 February 2010, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player, on 14 October 2008, was transferred as a professional from the Claimant to the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. The Claimant stated that the player had unilaterally terminated his employment contract without just cause on 22 May 2008 and, subsequently, signed an employment contract with the Respondent on 30 July 2008. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 280,000 plus 5% interest as of 14 November 2008. 7. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent referred to art. 6 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and argued that the player had completed his training period before the season of his 21st birthday. In this respect, the Respondent referred to CAS jurisprudence and stated that the player had made 11 appearances for the Claimant’s first team during the 2006/2007 season, out of which he completed the 90 minutes in “9” games. In addition, the Respondent stated that the player had made his debut for the National Team of Country B on 6 December 2006 and was named captain of such team on one occasion. As a consequence, the Respondent concluded that the player had completed his training period at the end of the 2005/2006 season and, therefore, deemed that the amount payable for training compensation is EUR 188,328.76. 8. Subsidiarily, in the event the aforementioned argumentation is not being upheld by the DRC, the Respondent argued that the Claimant is not entitled to receive training compensation for the period after 22 May 2008, since it is undisputed between the parties that the player terminated his employment contract with the Claimant on said date. Therefore, the amount payable for training compensation is EUR 273,643.83. 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 9 February 2010. 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 of the 2008, 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 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2014), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 15 October 2008, the 2008 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 280,000, 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. Equally, the DRC noted that the Respondent did not dispute that training compensation was due but argued that the player had completed his training period at the end of the 2005/2006 season and, therefore, deemed that the amount payable for training compensation is EUR 188,328.76. 7. In continuation, the DRC took note of the Respondent’s submission that, in any case, the Claimant is not entitled to receive training compensation for the period after 22 May 2008, since it is undisputed between the parties that the player terminated his employment contract with the Claimant on said date. Therefore, and should the Respondent’s primary argument not be upheld, the amount payable for training compensation is EUR 273,643.83. 8. After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, taking into consideration all the aforementioned arguments, the DRC observed that it is undisputed between the parties that the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent, but that the parties disagreed on the exact amount of training compensation to which the Claimant is entitled. 9. In view of the foregoing, 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 B to Country D, i.e. from one association to another association inside the territory of the EU, said article is applicable. 10. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber referred to art. 6 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which stipulates that, inside the EU/EEA, the final season of training may occur before the season of the player’s 21st birthday if it is established that the player completed his training before that time. In this respect, the DRC emphasised that cases involving a possible early completion of a player’s training period have to be analysed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration all the specific circumstances and all the evidence produced. Thus, several factors and indications have to be considered in order to establish whether a particular player’s training has indeed been completed before the age of 21, as the Respondent stated. For the sake of completeness, the members of the Chamber stressed that both the DRC and the CAS have adopted a strict approach in establishing the early completion of the player’s training before the age of 21, so as to not jeopardize the right of training clubs to, in principle, receive training compensation. 11. In this regard, the Chamber noted, once more, all the specific circumstances of the present matter as well as all the evidence produced by the parties. According to the Respondent, the player completed his training period at the end of the 2005/2006 season, since the player had made 11 appearances for the Claimant’s first team during the 2006/2007 season, out of which he completed the 90 minutes in “9” games. In addition, the Respondent stated that the player had made his debut for the National Team of Country B on 6 December 2006 and was named captain of such team on one occasion. 12. In this respect, the Chamber referred to the documentation submitted by the Respondent and acknowledged that the player had indeed made 11 appearances for the Claimant’s first team during the 2006/2007. However, the members of the Chamber noted from the aforementioned documentation that the player had completed the 90 minutes in only 8 of the 11 games as well as that the player was “not in the squad” in the remaining 19 games of the season. The DRC held that the number of games completed by the player would rather indicate that the player’s training was not yet completed at that time. 13. Furthermore, with regard to the Respondent’s argument that the player had made his debut for the National Team of Country B on 6 December 2006 at the age of 20, the members of the Chamber outlined that this may be an indication of the player’s talent, skills and level of training, but that such fact is not conclusive to establish that the player had completed his training before his 21st birthday. 14. In light of the above and taking into account all the above-mentioned elements and circumstances, as well as the strict approach adopted by the DRC and the CAS in similar cases, the Chamber concurred that it could not be established that it was evident that the player had indeed completed his training period at the end of the 2005/2006 season. 15. In continuation, the Chamber turned its attention to the Respondent’s submission that the Claimant is not entitled to receive training compensation for the period after 22 May 2008, since it is undisputed between the parties that the player terminated his employment contract with the Claimant on said date. 16. In this respect, the members of the Chamber referred to the decision passed by them during the same meeting on 21 January 2015 in the labour dispute opposing the Claimant and the player as well as the Respondent, in which it was established that the player had terminated his employment contract with the Claimant without just cause on 22 May 2008. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber held that the Claimant is only entitled to training compensation for the period during which it had actually trained the player. 17. 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. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to the exception contained in the first sentence of art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which stipulates that to ensure that training compensation for very young players is not set at unreasonably high levels, the training costs for players for the seasons between their 12th and 15th birthdays (i.e. four seasons) shall be based on the training and education costs of category 4 clubs. 18. Having established the above, the DRC referred to art. 6 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which contains special provisions in case a player moves from a lower to a higher category club or from a higher to a lower category club within the territory of the EU/EEA. 19. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 6 October 1986 and was registered with the Claimant as from 31 August 2001 until 25 May 2008 as well as that the player had terminated his employment contract with the Claimant on 22 May 2008. 20. Equally, the DRC recalled that the Football Federation of Country D confirmed that the player was registered with the Respondent on 15 October 2008. 21. 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 10 months of the 2001/2002 season (EUR 8,333), the entire seasons 2002/2003 until 2006/2007 (EUR 45,000 per season) as well as 11 months of the 2007/2008 season (EUR 41,250). 22. In view of all of the above, the DRC decided to partially accept the claim of the Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 274,583 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent. 23. Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent has to pay, in conformity with its longstanding practice, interest at 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of the 31st day of the registration of the player with the Respondent, i.e. as of 15 November 2008, until the date of effective payment. 24. 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. 25. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 280,000 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). 26. As a result, taking into account the particularities of the present matter as well as that the Claimant is the successful party in the present proceedings, the DRC determined the final costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 18,000 which shall be borne by the Respondent. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is partially 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 274,583 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 15 November 2008 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum 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 CHF 18,000 are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of the notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1. The amount of CHF 13,000 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 5.2. The amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid to the Claimant. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 5.2. 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: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives