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 12 March 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member on the claim presented by 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 12 March 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member on the claim presented by 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. The Football Federation from country B confirmed that the player, Player E, born on 13 May 1992, was registered with its affiliated club, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant or Club A) as from 10 July 2006 until 30 June 2010 as an amateur. 2. The football season in country B runs from 1 July to 30 June of the following year. 3. According to the information contained in the player passport, at the time the player was registered with Club A, said club belonged to the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year). 4. The Football Federation from country D confirmed that, on 4 August 2010, the player was registered with the second team of Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent or Club C) as a “juvenile” player. The Football Federation from country D further confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year) during the season 2010/2011, however the second team of the Respondent belonged to the category IV (indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year). In this regard, according to the player passport issued by the Football Federation from country D, the player was registered with “Club C”, specifying that the latter was a category IV club. 5. On 31 January 2011, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training compensation from the Respondent. In particular, Club A requested EUR 270,000 for the first professional registration of the player. 6. In this respect, the Claimant held that on 28 April 2010 it had offered a contract to the player as follows: - Season 2010/2011: 55 points in League 2 and 30 in National - Season 2011/2012: 85 points in League 1, 75 points in League 2 and 40 points in National. 7. In its reply, the Respondent stated that when the player was registered for it, he did not enter into an employment contract but that, on the contrary, he was registered with the Respondent as a “juvenile”. 8. Furthermore, the Respondent provided a copy of an employment contract dated 1 July 2011 concluded between the player and the Respondent (hereinafter: the contract) which reads as follows: “the object of the contract is the provision of services as a professional football player”. 9. Art. 2 of the contract stipulates that it is valid from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2014, i.e. 4 seasons. Equally, its art. 3 provides that the gross salary of the player is EUR 24,000 for the 2010/2011 season; EUR 30,000 for the 2011/2012 season; EUR 32,000 for the 2012/2013 season and EUR 50,000 for the 2013/2014 season. 10. Moreover, the player and the Respondent agreed upon bonuses for matches played with the player’s national team or the A squad of the Respondent and a yearly payment of EUR 12,000 for the accommodation expenses in the event the player did not receive any bonus. Furthermore, the parties also agreed upon a buy-out clause amounting to EUR 6,000,000. 11. In this context, the Respondent further rejected the Claimant’s claim by referring to art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Respondent stated that the Claimant only remitted on 4 May 2010 a mere “letter of intentions” to the player, thus, not offering him a contract 60 days before the expiry of his contract. In particular, the Respondent referred to the correspondence remitted by the Claimant to the player dated 28 April 2010 (cf. point I.6. above), received by the player on 4 May 2010, which reads as follows: “we inform you that Club A proposes for the 2010/2011 season a contract as a “trainee” player for 2 years”. 12. Alternatively, the Respondent held that, in accordance with art. 500 of the “Professional Football Admittance”, the Claimant was not able to offer a contract to the player for the seasons 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 due to the fact that during the seasons 2007/208 to 2009/2010 the player was not duly remunerated for his services in accordance with the three “training agreements” allegedly concluded between Club A and the player for these seasons, which provided for the following remuneration: for the 2007/2008 season, 35 points; for the 2008/2009 season, 40 points; and for the 2009/2010 season, 50 points. In this respect, Club C provided a default notice of the player to the club, dated 22 July 2010, claiming the non-payment of the aforementioned amounts. 13. On 23 November 2011, the Football Federation from country B informed FIFA that the Claimant was under liquidation proceedings. 14. Upon request, the Football Federation from country B clarified the Claimant’s situation by means of its letters dated 13 February 2012 and 5 June 2012. 15. On 14 August 2012, the Claimant was informed by FIFA that, due to the liquidation proceedings, FIFA decision-making bodies were not able to deal with the present matter. 16. On 17 April 2014, the Claimant insisted in having a formal decision and amended its claim. In particular, the Claimant claimed the amount of EUR 280,000. 17. In addition, the Claimant reiterated that it had offered a contract to the player on 28 April 2010 via registered mail for two seasons and with a fixed remuneration. In this respect, Club A pointed out that the remuneration as well as the length of the contract were clear and that, thus, it cannot be understood as a “letter of intentions”. Consequently, the Claimant is of the opinion that it acted in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations and, thus, is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent. 18. On 9 October 2014, the Football Federation from country B confirmed that the Claimant has always been an affiliate and has participated in the competitions organized under its auspices. 19. In its reaction to the Claimant’s amended claim, the Respondent reiterated its previous arguments. 20. In addition, the Respondent referred to CAS jurisprudence and asserted that FIFA administration’s letter dated 14 August 2012 (cf. point I.15. above) contained a legal decision since it affected the legal situation of at least one of the parties. In particular, the Respondent stressed that this correspondence, de facto, terminated the present proceeding and that, thus, should be understood as a final decision, subject to appeal within 21 days of its notification. 21. In this context, the Respondent asserted that the Claimant did neither react nor appeal for twenty months and that, as a result, its communication dated 17 April 2014 (cf. point 16 above), by means of which the club from country B insisted in its claim, infringes the general principle venire contra factum propium. 22. On account of the above, the Respondent is of the opinion that, for the sake of legal certainty, the present matter should be considered as decided since it involves the same parties for the same object and cause. 23. Moreover, the Respondent stressed that while the Claimant was under liquidation it never informed the liquidator of its alleged right of receiving training compensation for the registration of the player with the Respondent. As a result, the Respondent concluded that in the event the Claimant had the right it would have informed it and such right would have been recognized in country B. 24. Furthermore, the Respondent referred to art. 234.3 of the General Rules of the Football Federation from country B, which provides that a club loses its rights when is under liquidation proceedings. In this respect, the Respondent referred to the minutes of the Executive Committee of the Football Federation from country B dated 24 August 2011, which reads as follows: “the Committee acknowledges the derogation claim lodged by the president of the Association Club A, intended to promote the first team into the amateur championship of country B for the next season in spite of the liquidation of the [Club A] (…). Taking into account the contents of art. 234.3 of the General Rules of the Football Federation from country B (…) [the Committee] decided to allocate the rights of the [Club A] to the Association [Club A] (…)”. 25. In this context, the Respondent held that the Claimant tried to mix its right to participate in the competitions with the alleged right to receive training compensation after being liquidated. 26. Equally, the Respondent pointed that according to the French regulations, the Claimant had to create a new company, i.e. Club A2, in order to be able to remunerate its players and to increase its revenue and that this new company is a different company, thus, it cannot claim on behalf of the company that was liquidated, i.e. Club A. 27. In addition, the Respondent stressed that the Claimant did not offer a contract to the player in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations and asserted that it could not offer him a contract because it was on breach of an essential obligation: Club A allegedly failed to pay the player’s remuneration. In this respect, the Respondent referred to the correspondence remitted by the legal representative of the player to the Claimant, which reads as follows: “[I] inform you that [the player] does not accept your offer as “trainee” player received today, 22 July 2010, due to the outstanding remuneration in the previous contract”. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) 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 31 January 2011. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, edition 2008 (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 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 2014, 2012 and 2010) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is, in principle, competent to decide on the present litigation concerning training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. At this point, the DRC, however, deemed it appropriate to address the objection of the Respondent to continue with the proceedings in front of the Chamber, after a request of the Claimant dated 17 April 2014, subsequent to FIFA’s letter to the parties on 14 August 2012 (cf. points I.15., I.16. and I.20. above). In this context, the DRC referred to the very clear wording of the last sentence of FIFA’s letter of 14 August 2012, according to which “[…] our statements made above are based on the information we received from the Football Federation from country B only and hence are of a general nature and thus without prejudice whatsoever”. Thus, the DRC was eager to confirm that such letter by no means consists of a final and binding decision on the present matter and, therefore, the Chamber is in the position to enter the analysis of this case as to the substance. 4. In this context, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that contrary to the information contained in FIFA’s letter dated 5 March 2015, by means of which the parties were informed of the composition of the Chamber, the member Mr Santiago Nebot and the member Mr Guillermo Saltos Guale refrained from participating in the deliberations in the case at hand, due to the fact that the member Mr Santiago Nebot has the same nationality as the Respondent and that, in order to comply with the prerequisite of equal representation of club and player representatives, also the member Mr Guillermo Saltos Guale refrained from participating and thus the Dispute Resolution Chamber adjudicated the case in presence of three members in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations. 5. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with the Respondent on 4 August 2010, the Chamber analysed which regulations 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 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2014), the 2009 edition of the said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 6. The competence of the Chamber 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 above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. 7. First of all, the Chamber recalled that the player, born on 13 May 1992, was registered with the Claimant as from 10 July 2006 until 30 June 2010 as an amateur, until his move from the Claimant to the Respondent. 8. In continuation, the Chamber took note that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 280,000, since the player was transferred to a club belonging to a different association before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 9. Equally, the Chamber took note that the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim for the payment of training compensation, stating firstly that the player did not acquire the professional status upon his registration with the Respondent. 10. In this respect, and hereby referring to the rules applicable to the status of players, the Chamber stated that, in accordance with art. 2 par. 2, a professional is a player who has a written contract with a club and is paid more for his footballing activity than the expenses he effectively incurs and that all the other players are considered to be amateur. 11. Equally, the DRC referred to art. 1 par. 1 in combination with art. 2 par. 1 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 or when a professional is transferred between clubs of two different Associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 12. Moreover, the Chamber referred, in particular, 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). More specifically, the Chamber turned its attention to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 which stipulates, inter alia, that the former club must offer the player a contract in writing via registered post at least 60 days before the expiry of his current contract. 13. In view of the above, the Chamber stated that, first and foremost, the player acquired the professional status upon registering for the Respondent. In this respect, the DRC referred to the contract the player and the Respondent entered into on 1 July 2011 (cf. I.8., I.9 and I.10. above) and, in this context, the Chamber concluded that the player was registered as a professional with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 14. Subsequently, the DRC analysed whether art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies in the present case as lex specialis, and, in the affirmative, to determine if the Claimant had complied with the said provision in order to be entitled to training compensation. 15. As far as the applicability of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations is concerned, the Chamber stated that, as the player moved from a club in country B to a club in country D, i.e. moved from one Association to another Association inside the territory of the EU, the said article is applicable. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the aforementioned provision applies in the case at hand as lex specialis. 16. On account of the aforesaid, the Chamber analysed whether or not the Claimant had complied with the prerequisites of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations in order to be entitled to training compensation. In this context, the Chamber underscored that the player appeared to have been already contractually bound with the Claimant prior to his move to the Respondent taking into account that the several “training agreements” concluded between the player and Club A for the seasons 2007/2008 to 2009/2010 for the amounts mentioned in point I.12. above, a fact that remained uncontested by the Claimant. 17. In this sense, the Chamber emphasized that, in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, if the former club does not offer the player a contract at least of an equivalent value to the current contract, no training compensation is payable unless the former club can justify that it is entitled to such compensation. The former club must offer the player a contract in writing via registered mail at least 60 days before the expiry of his current contract (cf. art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations). 18. As a consequence, the Chamber stressed that, on 28 April 2010, the Claimant had offered the player, who was already under a contract when registered with the Claimant, a new contract. In particular, the DRC noted that the value of the contract with Club A was 35 points for the season 2007/2008; 40 points for the season 2008/2009 and 50 points for the season 2009/2010 and that the offer was 55 points in League 2 or 30 points in National for the season 2010/2011, and 85 points in League 1, or 75 points in League 2 or 40 points in National for the season 2011/2012. 19. In light of the foregoing, the DRC was of the view that the aforementioned considerations could lead to no other conclusion than that the Claimant had not complied with the prerequisites of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations as the contract offer cannot be considered as of a better value than the previous agreement, in particular, since the amount the player would receive in the “National” (i.e. 30 or 40 points) are of a lower value than the amount e would earn in the 2009/2010 season (i.e. 50 points). In view of the foregoing, the Chamber determined that the Claimant is not entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent for the training and education of the player. 20. Finally, and taking into account the above, the members of the Chamber did not deem it necessary to enter into the substance of the other arguments brought up by the parties to the present dispute, since the prerequisites in order for the Claimant to be entitled to training compensation were not complied with. 21. In view of all the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber rejected the Claimant’s claim for training compensation. 22. Lastly, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in conjunction with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the DRC relating to disputes regarding training compensation and the solidarity mechanism, 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, 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. 23. 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 Annex A). 24. As a result, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been rejected, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 25. Considering that the case at hand did not compose any complex factual or legal issues, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 15,000. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 15,000 are to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA. Given that the latter already paid an advance of costs of CHF 5,000 at the beginning of the present proceedings, the Claimant has to pay the amount of CHF 10,000, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, 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 ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 63 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