F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 7 February 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member John Bramhall (England), member Santiago Nebot (Spain), member on the claim presented by the club, Club Z, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club N, from country P as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player A

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 7 February 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member John Bramhall (England), member Santiago Nebot (Spain), member on the claim presented by the club, Club Z, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club N, from country P as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player A I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Association of country S the player, Player A (hereinafter: the player), born in June 1990, was registered with Club Z, from country S (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 8 August 2006 as a professional. The player passport did not indicate the deregistration date of the player with the Claimant. 2. On 12 September 2008, the Football Association of country S issued the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) to the country P Football Federation, indicating that the former club of the player was Club F, from country S. 3. The sporting season in country S ran as follows: - 2005/2006 as from 6 August 2005 until 6 May 2006 - 2006/2007 as from 4 August 2006 until 26 May 2007. 4. According to the player passport of the country P Football Federation, the player was registered with its affiliated clubs as follows: - Club N 12 September 2008 until 30 June 2009 as an amateur - Club P 1 September 2009 until 30 June 2010 as an amateur - Club C 27 August 2010 until 30 June 2011 as a professional - Club Q 8 July 2011 until 30 June 2012 as a professional 5. The country P Football Federation further confirmed that Club N (hereinafter: the Respondent) belonged to the club category II at the time the player was registered with the Respondent. 6. On 21 October 2009, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, which it amended on 15 April 2011 and 18 September 2012, claiming the payment of training compensation for the period as from 8 August 2006 until 12 September 2008 in the amount of EUR 125,753.42, plus interest and legal costs. 7. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent referred to art. 2 lit. iii of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and indicated that the player had re-acquired the amateur status upon being transferred to country P and that, therefore, no training compensation is due. 8. On 25 November 2013, the Claimant insisted that training compensation was due referring to art. 2 of the aforementioned Regulations and providing the contracts concluded between the player and the Respondent on 18 August 2008 and 12 June 2009. In accordance with the contract dated 18 August 2008, the player received a monthly “sports grant” of EUR 400. 9. Although having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not provide FIFA with its final position. 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 October 2009. Consequently, the 2008 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 of the 2008 and 2012 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 in combination with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), 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, 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 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged on 21 October 2009 and that the player was registered for the Respondent on 12 September 2008. In view of the aforementioned, the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that 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 Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file. However, the Chamber 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 Chamber recalled that the player, born in June 1990, was, according to the player passport provided by the Football Association country S, registered with the Claimant as from 8 August 2006 as a professional. 6. In continuation, the Chamber took note that the Claimant held that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 125,753.42, plus interest and legal costs. 7. Equally, the Chamber observed that the Respondent denied that any training compensation was due to the Claimant, asserting that the player had been registered with the amateur status upon being transferred to country P and that, therefore, no training compensation is due. 8. In this context, the Chamber, and hereby referring to the rules applicable to training compensation, 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. 9. 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. 10. Having established the above, the Chamber referred to the decision taken by the Chamber in the employment-related dispute between the Claimant, the player and the Respondent (Ref. Nr. XX-XXXXX) in which it had already established that the player was to be considered an amateur player while being registered with the Claimant. As a consequence, the Chamber held that the only remaining issue it had to address was whether or not the player had been registered for the first time as a professional with the Respondent, before the end of the season of the his 23rd birthday, and thus triggering a right to training compensation for the Claimant, in accordance with art. 2 par. 1 lit. i) of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 11. In this context, and whilst referring to the Respondent’s argument that the player was an amateur while been registered with it, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations which stipulates that “A professional is a player which 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”. The Chamber further stressed that a player’s remuneration as 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 agreement is of no relevance in this regard. 12. After having carefully examined the contract concluded between the player and the Respondent, the Chamber came to the unanimous conclusion that the player had already signed a professional contract with the Respondent on 18 18 August 2008, since the player was earning EUR 400 per month as from the aforementioned date. As a consequence, the Chamber concluded that the player, as from 18 August 2008, was paid more for his footballing activity than the expenses he incurred and that, therefore, he was to be considered a professional. 13. In this context, the DRC determined that the player was registered for the first time as a professional with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. As a result, the DRC decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and art. 2 par. 1 lit. i. in conjunction with art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 14. Turning its attention to the calculation of the training compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant, the Chamber referred to art. 5 par. 1 and par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates 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. 15. In continuation, the Chamber took into account that the Respondent belonged to the category II within UEFA, which corresponds to the indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year, and that the player, born in June 1990, was registered with the Claimant as from 8 August 2006. Equally, the Chamber took into consideration that the player had left the Claimant in the end of August 2008. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the player had been effectively trained and educated by the Claimant for 2 years and 1 month, i.e. during the complete seasons of the player’s 17th and 18th birthday as well as during 1 month of the season of the player’s 19th birthday. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber decided that the Respondent has to pay the amount of EUR 125,000 to the Claimant as training compensation. 16. Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim, the Chamber established 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 from 21 October 2009 until the date of effective payment. 17. Moreover, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s claim pertaining to legal costs in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence in this regard. 18. 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 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. 19. 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. 20. In respect of the above, the DRC held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 125,753.42 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 15,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 21. As a result, considering that the case at hand did not pose any particular factual difficulties as well as that the Respondent had been the unsuccessful party, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 10,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club Z, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club N, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 125,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 21 October 2009 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 currency of country H 10,000 are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1. The amount of currency of country H 5,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. XX-XXXXX: 5.2. The amount of currency of country H 5,000 to the Claimant. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent ***** 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