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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 September 2015, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, 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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 September 2015, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, 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. The Football Federation from country B confirmed that the player, Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 6 December 1994, was registered with its affiliated club, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), from 1 October 2005 until 30 September 2012 as an amateur. 2. The football season in country B runs as from 1 October until 30 September of the following year. 3. According to a written confirmation of The Football Association of country D the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 31 January 2013. 4. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), at the time the player was registered with the Respondent, said club belonged to the category IV (indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year). 5. On 28 June 2013, the Claimant contacted FIFA and, after completing its claim in November 2014, requested to be awarded with the amount of EUR 65,000, plus 5% interest as of 12 February 2013, as training compensation in connection with the first registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent. In addition, the Claimant requested to be awarded with the amount of EUR 10,000 as damages. 6. In this respect, the Claimant outlined that art. 2 par. 1 of the Annexe 4 of the FIFA Regulations provides that training compensation is due either 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 23rd birthday. Having said this, the Claimant explained that art. 2 par. 2 of the aforementioned annexe stipulates that training compensation is not due if the player is “transferred” to a category 4 club but does not refer to the first registration as a professional. Consequently, and since exceptions have to be strictly interpreted, the Claimant concluded that training compensation is due in case of first registration as a professional with a category IV club. 7. In continuation, the Claimant alleges that according to the FIFA Circular 769, said exception is only applicable within the EU/EEA and is thus not applicable to the present matter which concerns a player’s move from country B to country D. 8. Moreover, the Claimant held that the aforementioned circular stipulates that, in order to be considered as category IV, a club must either play in the fourth division in countries where there are clubs falling under category I or play in the third division or lower in countries where professional football exists or play in a country, where only amateur football exists. In view of the above, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent plays in the first division of country D and took part, in the recent past, in the UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League. 9. In its reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent explains that it hired the player in order for him to escape from the war. In continuation, the Respondent alleges that before signing the contract with the player, it was informed by Agent F, the alleged player’s agent, that an amount of only EUR 10,000 should be paid to the Claimant for the player’s training until the age of 18. In addition, the Respondent states that it would have never signed a contract with the player if it had known that a higher amount was due. 10. In its replica, the Claimant outlines that the Respondent does not challenge its obligation to pay training compensation but only the “quantum” of the latter. In this regard, the Claimant highlights that the Respondent had already undertaken to pay it training compensation in a previous exchange of correspondence. 11. In its final comments, the Respondent outlines that it belongs to the category IV and has therefore no obligation to pay training compensation. In this regard, the Respondent explains that its categorisation as such by The Football Association of country D is correct, in particular considering that it has no academy and has never participated in a major competition. In this respect, the Respondent points out that the Claimant also acknowledges in its submission that it belonged to category IV. Moreover, the Respondent highlights that if it offered to pay EUR 10,000 to the Claimant, it was only as an act of benevolence. 12. Finally, the Respondent challenges the validity of the player passport, alleging that it has been issued by the Claimant itself. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 28 June 2013. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, edition 2012 (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 lit. ii. in combination with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), the DRC judge is competent to deal with the matter at stake relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 28 June 2013 as well as that the player was registered with the Respondent on 31 January 2013, the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. The DRC judge started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. First of all, the DRC judge recalled that the player was born on 6 December 1994 and was registered with the Claimant as from 1 October 2005 until 30 September 2012 as an amateur. 6. In continuation, the DRC judge took note that the Claimant argued that it is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 65,000 plus 5% interest as of 12 February 2013, on the basis that the player was registered for the first time as a professional with the Respondent. In this respect, the DRC judge observed that the Claimant asserted that in accordance with the FIFA Circular 769, the Respondent should be deemed belonging to a higher category, in particular considering the fact that it participates in the first division of country D and takes part in the European competitions. 7. Equally, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant, arguing that The Football Association of country D rightly categorised it in the category IV, taking into account that it had never participated in a major competition. 8. In this context, the DRC judge 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. 9. Equally, the DRC judge went on to recall that, in accordance with art. 2 par. 2 lit. ii. of Annexe 4 of the Regulations as well as the longstanding and wellestablished jurisprudence of the DRC, training compensation is not due when a player is transferred to a category IV club or is registered for the first time as a professional with a club of such a category. 10. In continuation, the DRC judge emphasised that, in accordance with the FIFA Circular 1299, clubs in country D shall be allocated either in category III or IV. In this respect, the DRC judge deemed it of utmost importance to point out that the power of classification belongs in principle to the national association and that, therefore, his control may only be marginal. Indeed, the national association is in the best position to allocate each of its affiliated clubs into a particular category. Furthermore, the DRC judge outlined that the FIFA Circular 769, to which the Claimant is referring, constitutes guidelines aiming to help the national associations in their mission of classification. 11. With this established, the DRC judge emphasised that it was the Claimant’s responsibility to demonstrate that The Football Association of country D had committed a manifest error of assessment when categorising the Respondent. In this regard, the DRC judge recalled the basic principle of the burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Having the latter principle in mind, the DRC judge pointed out that the Claimant did not substantiate its assertions as to the Respondent’s participation in the first division of country D as well as in the European competitions with any documentation and thus, held that the Claimant failed to satisfactorily carry the burden of proof regarding the alleged wrong categorisation of the Respondent. 12. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the Respondent was to be considered as a category IV club and that therefore, in accordance with art. 2 par. 2 lit. ii. of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, no training compensation is due by the latter in connection with the first registration as a professional of the player. 13. On account of all the aforesaid, the DRC judge decided to reject the Claimant’s claim for training compensation. 14. Lastly, the DRC judge referred to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the DRC, including the DRC judge, 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 Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 15. In respect of the above, the DRC judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 65,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules). 16. As a result, taking into account the particularities of the present matter as well as that the Claimant was the unsuccessful party in the present proceedings, the DRC judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 2,000, which shall be borne by the Claimant. **** III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is rejected. 2. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 2,000 is to be borne by the Claimant, which amount has already been paid by the Claimant, Club A, to FIFA as advance of costs. ***** 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 DRC judge: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS directives