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 Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 August 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Taku Nomiya (Japan), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member on the claim presented by the club, Club B, from country I as Claimant against the club, Club R, from country E as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player S

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 Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 August 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Taku Nomiya (Japan), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member on the claim presented by the club, Club B, from country I as Claimant against the club, Club R, from country E as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player S I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Association of country I, the player S, born in September 1994, was registered with its affiliated club B (hereinafter: the Claimant) as amateur as follows: - from 1 August 2006 until “30 June” 2007; - from 1 August 2007 until “30 June” 2008; - from 1 August 2008 until “30 June” 2009; - from 1 August 2009 until “30 June” 2010; and - from 1 August 2010 until “30 June” 2011. 2. The football season in country I lasts from 1 August to “30 June” of the following year. 3. Furthermore, the player was registered with the Irish club, Club W (hereinafter: the involved club), as follows: Status Registration dates Amateur from 1 August 2011 until 30 June 2012 Professional from 1 July 2012 until 4 July 2012 4. The Football Association of country I confirmed that the Claimant belonged to the category IV (indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year). 5. The Football Association (The FA) confirmed that the player “signed a professional contract on 4th July 2012 and was registered as a professional on 3rd August 2012” with Club R (hereinafter: the Respondent). 6. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Respondent belonged to the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year) during the season at the time the player was registered with said club. 7. On 2 September 2013, the Claimant contacted FIFA requesting the payment of training compensation from the Respondent, indicating that the Respondent tried to circumvent the rules governing training compensation. In particular, the Claimant requested EUR 90,000. 8. In this respect, the Claimant stated that the player was registered with the Respondent on 5 or 6 July 2012 as a professional, after having been registered as a professional with the involved club, a club belonging to the category IV, for four days only. Moreover, the Claimant held that the player never played for the involved club. In particular, the Claimant is of the opinion that the player was registered as a professional in country I as an attempt to circumvent FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player and that “if successful could be widely used by many of the Senior Clubs in this Country”. 9. On 22 January 2014, the claim was remitted to the Respondent via The FA, inviting it to provide with its position regarding the Claimant’s claim. In particular, the Respondent was informed that, in absence of a reply, the Dispute Resolution Chamber would take a decision on the basis of the information and evidence at disposal. 10. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to provide with its position regarding the claim, the Respondent did neither respond to the claim nor make any statements at all during the course of the investigation. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 21 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules; edition 2013). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 2 September 2013, thus before the aforementioned Rules entered into force on 1 August 2014. Therefore, the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that the 2012 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand. 2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, which states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its jurisdiction in the light of art. 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2014). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in connection with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on the present litigation 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, the Chamber referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010, 2012 and 2014) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the player was registered for the Respondent on 3 August 2012. In view of the aforementioned, the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that 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 Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Chamber emphasized that in the following consideration it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. Firstly, the DRC underlined that the Claimant requested the payment of training compensation in an amount of EUR 90,000 from the Respondent, maintaining that the transfer of the player to the involved club only pursued to circumvent the provisions of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players on training compensation. The Chamber noted that the Claimant stated that, as a matter of fact, the player signed the professional employment contract with the Respondent only four days after the player was registered with the involved club as a professional. 6. Subsequently, the DRC took also note that the Respondent, for its part, failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so. In this way, the Chamber considered that the Respondent renounced its right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 7. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the Chamber concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules it shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 8. In continuation, the Chamber deemed it necessary to examine the very specific circumstances of the case at hand and had to establish whether the Claimant was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent. In other words, the DRC, considering the claim of the Claimant and the specificities of the present matter, had to establish whether or not the Respondent tried to circumvent the application of the provisions on training compensation. 9. In this context, the Chamber first of all referred to the rules applicable to training compensation and stated 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. 10. Equally, the Chamber went on to recall that, in accordance with art. 2 par. 2 lit. ii) of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is not due when a player is transferred to a category IV club. 11. The aforementioned having been established, the Chamber then 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 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. 12. However, in this regard, the Chamber pointed out that, in casu, a possible obligation to offer the player a contract in compliance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations would in principle lie with the former club of the player and not with the Claimant. As stated in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, said provision is without prejudice to the right of training compensation of the player’s previous club(s). 13. Turning to the specific circumstances of the present matter, the members of the Chamber were eager to emphasize that it was undisputed that the player was registered and de-registered with the Claimant, the involved club and the Respondent as follows: - On 30 June 2011: de-registered with the Claimant; - On 1 August 2011: registered with the involved club as an amateur; - On 1 July 2012: registered with the involved club as a professional - On 4 July 2012: de-registered with the involved club; and - On 3 August 2012: registered as a professional with the Respondent by The FA. In this regard, the Chamber underlined that the player was registered as a professional with the involved club for only 4 days, that the employment contract between the involved club and the player had been terminated after 4 days and that on the same day the player signed a professional contract with the Respondent. 14. Hence, considering that the relevant facts and arguments of the Claimant remained uncontested by the Respondent, and also considering the information and documentary evidence on file, the Chamber deemed that it was clear that in fact the first registration as a professional of the player for the purpose of training compensation shall be deemed to have occurred upon his transfer to the Respondent. 15. In view of the above, in particular taking into account that the player was registered as a professional with the involved club for only 4 days as well as that the player and the Respondent signed a professional contract 4 days after the player was registered as a professional with the involved club, the Chamber came to the unanimous conclusion that the Respondent tried to avoid the payment of training compensation to the Claimant. 16. Thus, in view of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber considered that the Respondent tried to circumvent the application of the provisions regarding the payment of training compensation. 17. Therefore, the DRC deemed that the Respondent, which profited from the training efforts invested by the Claimant, shall be liable for the payment of training compensation to the Claimant. 18. In conclusion, the DRC determined that the Respondent shall be liable for the payment of training compensation to the Claimant. 19. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber referred to the FIFA circular no. 1223 dated 29 April 2010 which provides details for the calculation of training compensation as well as 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 due to a player’s former club, 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 art. 6 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. 20. The members of the Chamber recalled that the player, born on 11 September 1994, was registered for the Claimant as from 1 August 2006 until 30 June 2007, as from 1 August 2007 until 30 June 2008, as from 1 August 2008 until 30 June 2009, as from 1 August 2009 until 30 August 2010 and as from 1 August 2010 until 2011 as an amateur and that the Claimant is requesting training compensation in the amount of EUR 90,000 for the training and education of the player incurred during the seasons 2006/2007, 2007/2008, 2008/2009, 2009/2010 and 2010/2011. Equally, the Chamber noted that the seasons in country I ran as from 1 August until 30 June of the following year. 21. In continuation, the DRC took due note that according to the country I Football Association, the Claimant belonged to category IV, as well as that The FA, the Respondent was a category I club at the time the player was registered with it. Consequently, the Chamber took into account that the indicative training costs for a category IV club and member of a national association affiliated to the Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) amounts to EUR 10,000, whereas the training costs for a club which belongs to the category I and member of a national association affiliated to UEFA amounts to EUR 90,000. 22. In this respect, the Chamber considered that the player was registered with the Claimant for the complete seasons of the player’s 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th birthday. 23. Consequently, and taking into account all the above-mentioned elements, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 82,500 and, hence, the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. 24. The Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant. 25. Finally, 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 the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Chamber relating to disputes regarding training compensation and the solidarity mechanism costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings. 26. In this respect, the Chamber reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. Therefore, both the Claimant as well as the Respondent have to bear a part of the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 27. According to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 28. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings amounts to EUR 90,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 15,000 29. Considering that the case involved various particular factual difficulties and involved a certain specific legal complexity, the Chamber determined the final amount of costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 10,000. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club B, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club R, has to pay to the Claimant, Club B, within 30 days as of the date of notification of the present decision, the amount of EUR 82,500. 3. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the stated time limit, an interest rate of 5% p.a. year will apply as of expiry of the fixed time limit and 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, Club B, is rejected. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 10,000 are to be paid within 30 days of notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1 The amount of currency of country H 7,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, Club R, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 5.2 The amount of currency of country H 1,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, Club R, to the Claimant, Club B. 5.3 The amount of currency of country H 2,000 has to be paid by the Claimant, Club B, to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of currency of country H 3,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant is exempted from paying the abovementioned costs of the proceedings. 6. The Claimant, Club B, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club R, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance 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 Encl. CAS directives