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 10 February 2015, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country U as Claimant against the club, Club V, from country B as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the player H

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 10 February 2015, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country U as Claimant against the club, Club V, from country B as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the player H I. Facts of the case 1. According to the Football Association from country U, the player, Player H (hereinafter: the player), born on 5 April 1992, was registered with its affiliated clubs as follows: Club Registration Status Club D 06.02.2008 – 09.11.2010 Amateur Club D 10.11.2010 – 10.02.2011 Professional Club A 10.02.2011 – 31.12.2011 Amateur Club D 01.01.2012 – 17.02.2012 Professional Club A 17.02.2012 – 31.12.2012 Amateur Club D 01.01.2013 – 29.01.2013 Professional 2. In a statement dated 28 May 2013, the Football Association from country U confirmed that at first the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club D, as an amateur. In this respect, the Football Association from country U stated that the player, thereinafter, signed a (professional) contract with Club D on “17 November 2010” valid, originally, until “31 December 2012”. Nevertheless, on 10 February 2011, the player was transferred on loan to Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant) until 31 December 2011, as an amateur. At the end of the loan period with the Claimant, the player returned to Club D before being transferred once again on loan to the Claimant until 31 December 2012. Finally, after returning to Club D at the end of the second loan, he was transferred to Club V (hereinafter: the Respondent) at the end of his contract with Club D. 3. The Football Association from country U also confirmed that for the period during which the player was registered with the Claimant, the sporting season in country U followed the calendar year. 4. The Football Association from country B confirmed that the player in question was registered with the Respondent on 24 January 2013 as a professional. 5. Furthermore, the Football Association from country B confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the category 3 (UEFA indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) during the season when the player was registered with it. 6. On 4 April 2013, the Claimant contacted FIFA to request training compensation from the Respondent. Specifically, the Claimant requested EUR 60,000 plus interest. 7. In this regard, the Claimant claimed that it had trained the player during the season of his 19th and 20th birthday and alleged that the player had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent. 8. In its response, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant and noted that, despite the Football Association from country U’s statement (cf. point I.2 above), neither the player passport discloses that the transfers to the Claimant were in fact a loan, nor the Claimant mentioned in its claim that the player was registered with it on loan basis. Equally, the Respondent pointed out that, in accordance with art. 10 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, Club D and the Claimant were supposed to conclude a loan agreement for the temporary transfer of the player, however, failed to prove the existence of such agreements. As a consequence, so the Respondent, it can be assumed that the player was transferred permanently and, subsequently, it would be a subsequent transfer of the player after his first registration as a professional. In this context, the Respondent emphasised that the player was not registered with it for the first time as a professional. 9. In this context, the Respondent pointed out that by the time the player was transferred to it on 29 January 2013, the player’s last club was Club D, not the Claimant. Consequently, the only club that would be entitled to claim training compensation from the Respondent would be Club D. 10. Finally, the Respondent stated that in case it is found accountable to pay training compensation, it shall only pay a pro rata amount of EUR 52,849 which corresponds to the period of time the player was registered with the Claimant, i.e. 325 days during the 1st loan period and 318 days during the 2nd loan period. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge (hereinafter also referred to as: the DRC judge or the judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 4 April 2013. Consequently, the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is 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 and 2 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 2012), the judge is competent to adjudicate on the present matter, since it concerns a dispute relating to the payment of training compensation between a club from country U and a club from country B. 3. Furthermore, the 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 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 24 January 2013, the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: 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 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. In this regard, the judge recalled that the player, born on 5 April 1992, was registered on a loan basis with the Claimant for the period between 10 February 2011 and 31 December 2011 as well for the period between 17 February 2012 and 31 December 2012. Equally, the DRC judge observed that after the loan periods with the Claimant had expired, the player returned to his club of origin, Club D, i.e. the club with which the player was still contractually bound. Thereafter, the player was internationally transferred on 24 January 2013 from Club D to the Respondent on a definitive basis. 6. In continuation, the judge took note that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 60,000, plus interest. 7. Equally, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant, arguing that the Claimant is not the player’s former club in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. Also, the Respondent stated that the player did not sign his first professional contract with the Respondent and, thus, was not liable to pay training compensation to every club with which the player had previously been registered. Equally, the judge took due note that the Respondent emphasised that neither the player passport discloses that the transfers to the Claimant were in fact on loan, nor the Claimant mentioned in its claim that the player was registered with it on loan basis on both occasions. As a consequence, so the Respondent, it can be assumed that the player was transferred permanently and, subsequently, it would be a subsequent transfer of the player after his first registration as a professional. 8. In this context, the DRC judge deemed it appropriate to start his considerations by analysing the Respondent’s objection to the player’s registration on a loan basis with the Claimant, since this information was not reflected in the player passport nor had been mentioned by the Claimant in its claim. In this regard, the DRC judge drew the parties’ attention to the document issued by the Football Association from country U on 28 May 2013 (cf. point I.2 above), by means of which it confirms the player’s registration on loan with the Claimant. In view of the presence on file of this official document of the Football Association from country U, the DRC judge deemed that the player’s registration on a loan basis with the Claimant was confirmed. 9. Having established the foregoing, the DRC judge highlighted that the main issue in the present matter is whether or not a club that accepted a professional on loan is entitled to receive training compensation when, after the expiry of the loan, the professional returns to his club of origin, and, thereafter, is transferred from the club of origin to a club belonging to another association before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 10. In consideration of the above-mentioned issue, the judge, and hereby referring to the rules applicable to training compensation, 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 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. In case the latter occurs, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that training compensation will only be owed to the player’s former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club. 11. Furthermore, according to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations, professionals may be loaned to another club on the basis of a written agreement between the professional and the clubs concerned. Moreover, the last sentence of said provision stipulates that any such loan is subject to the same rules as applied to the transfer of players, including the provisions on training compensation and the solidarity mechanism. 12. Following the above, the DRC judge stressed that one of the aims of the last sentence of art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations is to ensure that training clubs which register a player on a loan basis also benefit from the solidarity mechanism and training compensation, provided that the relevant prerequisites in the pertinent provisions of the Regulations are fulfilled. This approach is also in line with the Chamber’s well-established jurisprudence that all clubs which have in fact contributed to the training and education of a player as from the age of 12 are, in principle, entitled to training compensation for the timeframe that the player was effectively trained by them. 13. In other words, the judge emphasised that the nature of the player’s registration with a club claiming training compensation, i.e. on a definite or on a temporary basis, is in fact irrelevant with respect to the question as to whether such club would be entitled to receive training compensation for the period of time that the player was effectively trained by that club. 14. In this respect and for the sake of good order, the DRC judge deemed it essential to emphasise that, as to the liability to pay training compensation, the analogy established in art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations could not be extended to the case in which players were loaned to other clubs and thus are not being definitively transferred to a new club. In other words, the transfer of a player from the club of origin to the club that accepts the player on loan as well as the return of the player from the club that accepted him on loan to the club of origin do not constitute a subsequent transfer in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. The DRC judge was eager to point out that it could not have been the intention of the legislator of the relevant regulatory provision (art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations) to trigger the consequences of art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the occasion of a transfer on a loan basis and, thus, potentially depriving the loan of its essential flexibility and function of providing young players the opportunity to gain practical experience in another club in order to develop in a positive way, personally and, eventually, also for the benefit of the player’s new club. 15. Following the above, the judge pointed out that the obligation to pay training compensation thus arises in case a player is definitively transferred from one club to another club belonging to a different association, but not when he is temporarily transferred to another club while still being contractually bound to his club of origin (yet, with the effects of the relevant contract being temporarily suspended), such as a loan. Hence, the relevant entitlement can only be claimed towards a new club that acquires the services of a player on a definitive and permanent basis subject to the fulfilment of the prerequisites established in art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 16. As to the argument of the Respondent that the Claimant is not the former club in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the DRC judge wished to recall that art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 stipulates that “In the case of subsequent transfers of the professional, training compensation will only be owed to his former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club”. In this context, the judge acknowledged that the Claimant was not the player’s former club stricto sensu, however, the Chamber pointed out that, within the framework of loans, the period of time that the player was registered with Club D and the period of time that the player was registered with the Claimant on loan, should be considered as one entire timeframe. Any other interpretation would lead to the situation in which clubs accepting a player on loan would never be entitled to receive training compensation, even if they contribute to the training and education of players. 17. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the judge deemed that the Respondent’s interpretation of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations would clearly contravene the intention of the legislator of the Regulations according to which all training clubs shall, in principle, be rewarded for their efforts invested in training young players, including those clubs that have accepted a player on a temporary basis. 18. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the DRC judge concurred that it had to reject the Respondent’s arguments and decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant for the training of the player in accordance with art. 20 of the Regulations and art. 2 par. 1 lit. ii. and art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 19. In continuation, the Chamber took into account that the Respondent belonged to the category III within UEFA, which corresponds to the amount of EUR 30,000 per year, and that, as stated above, the player, born on 5 April 1992, was registered with the Claimant as from 10 February 2011 until 31 December 2011 as well as from 17 February 2012 until 31 December 2012, i.e. during 21 months of the seasons of the player’s 19th and 20th birthday. In view of the foregoing, and considering art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent has to pay the amount of EUR 52,500 to the Claimant as training compensation as well as of 5% p.a. on said amount as from 4 April 2013 until the date of effective payment. 20. 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 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 Annex A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 21. In respect of the above, the judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 60,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000 (cf. table in Annex A). 22. As a result, and taking into account the complexity of the case, the DRC judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 5,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent. III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club V, has to pay to the Claimant, Club A, the amount of EUR 52,500 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 4 April 2013 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant, Club A, in accordance with the above-mentioned number 2. plus interest is not paid by the Respondent, Club V, within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Club A, are rejected. 5. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 5,000 is to be paid within 30 days of notification of the present decision by the Respondent, Club V, as follows: a. CHF 3,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no.: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A b. CHF 2,000 to the Claimant, Club A. 6. The Claimant, Club A, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club V, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made in accordance with the above point 2. and to notify the DRC judge of every payment received. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to article 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 Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives