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 20 August 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Taku Nomiya (Japan), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country F as Claimant against the club, Club C, from country I as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player B

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 20 August 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Taku Nomiya (Japan), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country F as Claimant against the club, Club C, from country I as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player B I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the country F the player, Player B (hereinafter: the player), born in July 1994, was registered as a professional with the Club A, from country F (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 1 July 2012 until 30 June 2013. 2. The football seasons in country F during the period of time the player was registered with the Claimant 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 I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year) during the period of time the player was registered with it. 4. The country I Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 31 July 2013. 5. 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 2013/2014 season. 6. On 21 February 2014, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player, on 31 July 2013, was transferred as a professional from the Claimant to the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 30,000. 8. On 13 March 2014, the Respondent replied to the Claimant’s claim and argued that training compensation is only due in case of a first registration as a professional of a player. Since the player had already signed a professional contract with the Claimant, the Respondent argued that the Claimant is not entitled to training compensation. In addition, the Respondent stated that the Claimant had not offered the player a new contract upon expiry of his previous contract. 9. As to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Claimant stated that it was not in a position to offer the player a new contract since, on 14 March 2013, it had been sanctioned for its financial situation by the Direction Nationale du Contrôle de Gestion with demotion, as from the start of the 2013/2014 season, to the 5th division, in which clubs cannot conclude professional contracts with players. 10. The country F Football Federation confirmed that, at the end of the 2012/2013 season, the Claimant had lost professional status and, as a consequence, did not have the possibility to offer the player a professional contract. 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 21 February 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 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 (edition 2012), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 31 July 2013, the 2012 and 2014 editions 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 30,000, 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. However, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rebutted the claim of the Claimant, arguing that training compensation is only due in case of a first registration as a professional of a player. 7. Equally, the DRC took due note of the Respondent’s statement that the Claimant had not offered the player a new contract upon expiry of his previous contract. 8. After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, the Chamber 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 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. Based on the documentation provided by the country F Football Federation and the information contained in TMS, the Chamber concluded that it could indeed be established that the player had been transferred as a professional from the Claimant to the Respondent. 9. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber concurred that training compensation is, in principle, due. 10. The aforementioned having been established, with reference to the Respondent’s argument that the Claimant did not offer the player a contract, 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 F to country I, i.e. from one association to another association inside the territory of the EU, said article is applicable. Hence, the Chamber concluded that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies in the case at hand as lex specialis. 11. In this regard, the Chamber clarified that, if the former club does not offer a professional player an employment contract, this club loses its entitlement to training compensation unless it can justify that it is entitled to such compensation. In this respect, the Chamber outlined that if a club descends to a lower division in which it is not entitled to register players as professionals, this club will not be in a position to offer an employment contract to young players. However, it will not forfeit its entitlement to claim for training compensation from the player’s new club. 12. In this respect, the Chamber recalled the Claimant’s statement that, on 14 March 2013, it had been sanctioned for its financial situation by the Direction Nationale du Contrôle de Gestion (DNCG) with demotion, as from the start of the 2013/2014 season, to the 5th division, in which clubs cannot conclude professional contracts with players. Equally, the Chamber recalled that the country F Football Federation had confirmed that, at the end of the 2012/2013 season, the Claimant had lost professional status and, as a consequence, did not have the possibility to offer the player a professional contract. 13. Consequently, taking into account all the above-mentioned elements, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant was not able to meet the prerequisite of offering a contract to the player, and could therefore justify that it is entitled to training compensation. 14. On account of the above considerations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 9 July 1994 and was registered with the Claimant as from 1 July 2012 until 30 June 2013. 18. On account of the above, the Chamber considered that the Claimant is, thus, entitled to receive training compensation for the period as from 1 July 2012 until 30 June 2013. 19. Equally, the DRC recalled that the country I Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered with the Respondent on 31 July 2013. 20. Furthermore, DRC recalled that, according to the player passport issued by the country F Football Federation, the Claimant belonged to the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year). Equally, the DRC recalled that, according to the information contained in TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year). 21. 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 30,000 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent. 22. 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 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. 23. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 30,000 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 5,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 24. As a result, and taking into account the particularities of the present matter, the complexity of the case as well as the degree of success, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 4,000 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 30,000. 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 currency of country H 4,000 are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of the notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. : 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 2. above is 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