F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – indennità di formazione – ———-F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 February 2016, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member on the claim presented by the club, 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 (2015-2016) - indennità di formazione – ----------F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) - training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 February 2016, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member on the claim presented by the club, 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. According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of country B, the player, Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 28 May 1997, was registered as an amateur with the following clubs: - Club F, as from 18 February 2005 until 10 September 2008; - Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 11 September 2008 until 1 February 2012; - Club G, as from 2 February 2012 until 18 March 2013. 2. The football seasons in country B 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. 4. According to a confirmation from the Football Federation of country B, the Claimant belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) during the period of time the player was registered with it. 5. The Football Federation of country D confirmed that the player was first registered with Club H (hereinafter: Club H) on 18 March 2013 as an amateur and, thereafter, on 13 August 2013 with Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) as a professional. 6. Furthermore, 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 when the player was registered with it, i.e. the 2013/2014 season. 7. On 23 January 2014, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming the payment of training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player had signed his first professional contract with said club. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 203,835 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 30 days after the player’s registration with the Respondent. 8. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent stated that the player had already signed his first professional contract with Club H. In this respect, the Respondent submitted a player passport issued by the Football Federation of country D according to which the player was registered with Club H as an amateur as from 18 March 2013 until 30 June 2013 and as a professional as from 3 July 2013 until 12 August 2013. Furthermore, the Respondent submitted a declaration from the player in which he stated that he signed his first professional contract with Club H on 3 July 2013. 9. Finally, the Respondent argued that the confirmation from the Football Federation of country D (cf. point 4) is misleading, since it does not refer to the change of status of the player during his registration period at Club H. 10. In order to clarify the discrepancy between its confirmation and the player passport submitted by the Respondent, the Football Federation of country D explained that “the player has been registered with Club H, during the sport season 2012/2013, as an amateur. The club, in that year, participated to an amateur League and, at the end of the sport season 2012/2013 the club has been promoted to the 3rd Professional League in country D. In the beginning of the sport season 2013/2014, the player signed an employment contract with Club H, and became a professional player (3 July 2013). On the 13th August 2013, the player has been transferred from Club H to the professional club [the Respondent]”. 11. In its replica, the Claimant argued that the statements of the Football Federation of country D are contradictory and that the Football Federation of country D was not in possession of the contract apparently signed between the player and Club H on 3 July 2013, at the moment of its first confirmation (cf. point 4). As a consequence, said contract was not registered at the Football Federation of country D as it was only provided at a later stage. Furthermore, the Claimant argued that the Respondent used Club H to avoid the payment of training compensation at the correct level. In continuation, the Claimant held that it was up to the Respondent to prove the existence of the contract between the player and Club H. 12. In its duplica, the Respondent highlighted that the Football Federation of country D, in its first confirmation (cf. point 4), did not state that the player’s first registration as a professional was with Inter on 13 August 2013. The Claimant, however, interpreted the statement of the Football Federation of country D with bad faith and inserted the element of “first registration”. 13. The transfer of the player from Club G to Club H is not entered into TMS. However, from the documentation provided by TMS Compliance, the following can be noted: - The player and his family were registered in country D on 22 December 2012; - The Football Federation of country D authorized the registration of the player with Club H on 18 March 2013; - The Football Federation of country D registered the professional contract between the player and Club H on 3 July 2013, valid until 30 June 2014; - Club H and the Respondent agreed upon the transfer of the player on 13 August 2013 for the amount of EUR 315,000. 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 23 January 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, 2014 and 2015 editions of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 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 2015), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that contrary to the information contained in FIFA’s letter dated 12 February 2016 by means of which the parties were informed of the composition of the Chamber, the member X and the member Y refrained from participating in the deliberations in the case at hand, due to the fact that the member X 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 Y refrained from participating. Thus, the Dispute Resolution Chamber adjudicated the case in presence of three members in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations. 4. 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 (editions 2012, 2014 and 2015), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 13 August 2013, the 2012 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. 5. 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. 6. 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 203,835. 7. Equally, the DRC noted that the Claimant argued that the Respondent used Club H to avoid the payment of training compensation at the correct level. 8. In continuation, the DRC took note of the Respondent’s submission that the player had already signed his first professional contract with Club H. 9. Furthermore, the DRC took note of the information provided by the Football Federation of country D, according to which “the player has been registered with Club H, during the sport season 2012/2013, as an amateur. The club, in that year, participated to an amateur League and, at the end of the sport season 2012/2013 the club has been promoted to the 3rd Professional League in country D. In the beginning of the sport season 2013/2014, the player signed an employment contract with Club H, and became a professional player (3 July 2013). On the 13th August 2013, the player has been transferred from Club H to the professional club [the Respondent]”. 10. In addition, the DRC took note of the information provided by TMS Compliance according to which, inter alia, the Football Federation of country D registered the professional contract between the player and Club H on 3 July 2013 and Club H and the Respondent agreed upon the transfer of the player on 13 August 2013 for the amount of EUR 315,000. 11. After having carefully examined the parties’ positions as well as the information provided by the Football Federation of country D and TMS Compliance, the Chamber held that it first had to establish which club, i.e. Club H or the Respondent, is to be considered the first club of the player where he was to be considered a professional in light of the provisions regarding training compensation. 12. In view of the above, taking into consideration all the surrounding circumstances of this specific matter as well as the documentation presented during the present proceedings, the Chamber emphasised that the Football Federation of country D confirmed that the player signed an employment contract with Club H and was registered as a professional with said club on 3 July 2013, which can lead to no other conclusion than that Club H was the first club of the player where he was to be considered a professional. 13. Equally, the DRC highlighted that Club H and the Respondent agreed upon the transfer of the player for a transfer compensation of EUR 315,000, which is significantly more than the total entitlement of the clubs involved in the training of the player in the hypothetical event that the player had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent. Therefore, the Chamber could not follow the reasoning of the Claimant that the Respondent intended to avoid the payment of training compensation at the correct level. 14. Consequently, in view of the above and considering that the Claimant has not provided any substantive documentation in support of its position, the DRC concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to establish circumvention of the Regulations regarding the payment of training compensation by the Respondent. Therefore, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s claim. 15. 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 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 Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 16. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 203,835 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 Annexe A). 17. As a result, considering the complexity of the present matter as well as that the claim of the Claimant has been rejected, the DRC determined the final costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 15,000 which shall be borne by the Claimant. 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 within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of CHF 5,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the amount of CHF 10,000 is to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 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. 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 Acting Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives