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 25 September 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of 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 25 September 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the Player E I. Facts of the case 1. According to a player passport (hereinafter: player passport 1) issued by the Football Association of country B and uploaded in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player, Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 25 August 1995, was registered with the following clubs: - Club F (country G) as from 2007 until 2012; - Club H (country B) during the 2012/2013 season. 2. Furthermore, according to another player passport (hereinafter: player passport 2) issued by the Football Association of country B and uploaded in TMS, the player was registered as an amateur with its affiliated clubs as follows: - Club A as from 16 April 2007 until 1 August 2011; - Club H as from 1 August 2011 until 27 January 2014. 3. The relevant football seasons in country B ran as follows: - season 2007 from 11 March 2007 until 11 November 2007; - season 2008 from 16 March 2008 until 22 November 2008; - season 2009 from 15 March 2009 until 29 November 2009; - season 2010 from 14 March 2010 until 28 November 2010; - season 2011/2012 from 20 January 2011 until 13 May 2012. 4. According to the information contained in TMS, the player was registered with Club C from country D (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 2 February 2014. 5. Furthermore, as well confirmed by the information contained in TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA) during the time when the player was registered with it. 6. On 19 February 2015, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant) contacted FIFA requesting training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground that the player had signed his first professional contract with said club “in the year 2014”. In particular, the Claimant is claiming EUR 42,541. 7. In support of its claim, the Claimant attached the original of a player passport (hereinafter: player passport 3) issued by the Football Association of country B with a translation into English. According to player passport 3, the player was registered with Club A as from 16 April 2007 until 1 August 2011. 8. In its reply, the Respondent firstly explained that, according to the player passport uploaded by the Football Association of country B in TMS at the time the player was registered with the Respondent, the player had not been registered with the Claimant but only with Club H and Club F from country G. 9. Upon request of the FIFA administration, the Football Association of country B clarified and confirmed that player passport 1 is not valid and was uploaded in TMS by mistake. Furthermore, the Football Association of country B confirmed that it had uploaded the correct player passport (i.e. player passport 2) in TMS on 23 April 2015. 10. In its replica, the Claimant stated that the clarification of the Football Association of country B confirms its position. 11. In its duplica, the Respondent pointed out that player passport 2 did in fact not contain the name of the football club “Club A”, but “Sports School Club A” instead. In this respect, the Respondent contested that “Sports School Club A” is an affiliated member of the Football Association of country B and has the legal capacity with respect to art. 6 par. 1 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber to file a claim before the competent bodies of FIFA. 12. Furthermore, the Respondent emphasized that the original and translated copy of player passport 3, which were provided by the Claimant, do not match with each other as the date of issuance on the original is 10 April 2015, whereas the date of issuance on the translated copy is 27 January 2015. With respect to this fact, it is clear that the Claimant is acting in bad faith, according to the Respondent. 13. Furthermore, the Respondent repeated that, during the course of the registration of the player, the Respondent received the confirmation as well as player passport 1 from the Football Association of country B according to which the player was only registered with Club H and Club F. In this respect, according to the Respondent, Club H waived its right for training compensation. 14. Moreover, the Respondent outlined that the Claimant only noticed the wrong uploaded player passport approximately 15 months later. In this regard, according to the Respondent it is irresponsible of the Football Association of country B to issue two player passports and create confusion and inconsistency in the registration process of a player. Therefore, the Respondent argued that it cannot be held liable to pay training compensation due to this kind of mistake of the Football Association of country B. 15. In addition, the Respondent added that, in order to be entitled to receive training compensation, according to art. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players it is not enough that the club contributed to the training of the player, but the player has to be registered with the club “in accordance with the players’ career history as provided for in the player’s passport”. As the Claimant did not appear in the player passport at the time the player was registered with the Respondent, it is not liable to pay training compensation. 16. Finally, the Respondent mentioned that it is the responsibility of the association to assure that the information contained in a player passport is correct according to art. 8 par. 1 no. 3 of Annexe 3 and art. 2 no. 3 of Annexe 3a of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. Further to this, the Respondent stated that according to well-established jurisprudence of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, a club that relies in good faith on the information contained in a player passport cannot be held liable due to information which appeared in a second player passport. Therefore, the Respondent asserted that it could in good faith trust the information contained in player passport 1, which was firstly issued and uploaded by the Football Association of country B. 17. Upon request of the FIFA administration, the Football Association of country B clarified that “Club A (which was later renamed into Club A2) is wholly owned by Club A, which is the sole founder of the Academy and effects the whole it’s financing”. Further, the Football Association of country B added that “Club A and Club A2 are different legal entities.” 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 19 February 2015. Consequently, the 2014 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 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. 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 2 February 2014, 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. 4. 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. 5. First of all, the DRC took note that the Claimant held that it had trained the player between 16 April 2007 and 1 August 2011 and, in support of this, submitted a player passport (i.e. player passport 3), issued by the Football Association of country B and dated 27 January 2015, from which it appears that the player had been registered with the Claimant during the aforementioned period. 6. Equally, the DRC noted that the Respondent argued that the only player passport (i.e. player passport 1) which was uploaded into TMS by the Football Association of country B, at the time the player was registered with the Respondent, did not contain the Claimant but only the club from country G, Club F, and the club from country B, Club H. 7. In addition, the members of the Chamber highlighted that, according to the information contained in the TMS, the Respondent entered a transfer instruction to engage the player on 31 January 2014. The transfer instruction was finalized by the Football Association of country B and the Football Federation of country D upon receipt of the International Transfer Certificate by the Football Federation of country D on 2 February 2014. 8. In continuation, the members of the DRC referred to the player passport dated 7 February 2014 (i.e. player passport 2), uploaded in the TMS on 24 April 2015, which included the Claimant as one of the clubs that had trained the player. 9. In view of the foregoing and in particular the chronology of events, the DRC held that, at the moment that the Respondent was in the process of registering the player, as well as when it entered the transfer instruction into the TMS, it was only in possession of the player passport 1 which it received from the Football Association of country B and according to which the player had only been registered with Club F and Club H. 10. In light of all the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent could rely in good faith on the player passport 1 and reasonably assume that the player had not been trained by any other club than Club F and Club H. As a result, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s claim. 11. 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. 12. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 42,541 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 13. As a result, considering that the case at hand did pose some particular factual difficulties 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 4,000 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 4,000 are to be paid by the Claimant. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of CHF 2,000 as advance of costs at the beginning of the present proceedings, the additional amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid by the Claimant within 30 days as from the date of the notification of the present decision, 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