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 3 September 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), 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 3 September 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), 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 E (hereinafter: player), born on 2 March 1989, was registered with the club from country B, Club A (hereinafter Club A or Claimant) as from 23 June 2003 until 28 July 2005 as an amateur and as from 29 July 2005 until 28 August 2008 as a professional. 2. The aforementioned player passport reads “no records found” for the period of time between 29 August 2008 until 27 July 2009, date on which the player was transferred to country D. 3. According to the information provided by the Football Federation of country B, the sporting season in country B follows the calendar year. 4. The Football Federation of country D confirmed that the player was registered with its affiliated Club C (hereinafter Club C or Respondent) on 28 July 2009 as a professional. 5. Furthermore, the Football Federation of country D confirmed that Club C belonged to category 1 (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year within UEFA). 6. On 5 and 26 November 2010, Club C contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training compensation for the transfer of the player to Club C. After having completed its claim on 29 August 2011, Club C requested the amount of EUR 466,604.75 plus interest to be calculated as from the day on which the payment was due. 7. In its reply, Club C firstly held that Club A’s claim is time barred. In this respect, it asserted that as the employment contract it signed with the player on 13 May 2009 entered into force on 1 July 2009, and considering that Club A lodged its claim on 29 August 2011, more than two years have elapsed between the aforementioned dates. 8. In continuation, and as to the substance of the matter at hand, Club C referred to art. 2 par. 2 lit. (i) of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, which inter alia reads that training compensation is not due if the player’s former club terminated the player’s contract without just cause. 9. In this respect, Club C referred to a decision allegedly rendered by a court of country B dated 26 August 2008 and which reportedly reads that the employment contract signed between the player and Club A dated 17 January 2008 and registered at the Football Federation of country B on 28 July 2008 is terminated by the player with just cause due to the club’s non-compliance with its contractual obligations. A copy of said document was only submitted by Club C in its original version in the language of country B. 10. Finally, Club C held that should the aforementioned arguments be rejected, Club A miscalculated the amount of training compensation it is entitled to receive as it disregarded the provisions of the regulations in accordance with which the player’s years of training between the season of his 12th and 15th birthday are valued at the costs of clubs of category 4 within the relevant condeferation. 11. Accordingly, Club C concluded that at the most, Club A would be entitled to an amount of EUR 344,522. 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 matter at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 5 November 2010. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (the 2008 edition; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 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 and par. 2 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. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent challenged the admissibility of the Claimant’s claim on the basis of the alleged fact that it would be time-barred. In this regard, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), according to which, inter alia, the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall not hear any case subject to the said Regulations if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute. The present claim having been initially lodged in front of the DRC on 5 November 2010 before having been completed by the Claimant on 29 August 2011 and the event giving rise to the dispute, that is, the Respondent non-payment of the training compensation allegedly due to the Claimant within the thirty days having followed the player’s registration with the Football Federation of country D on 28 July 2009, the members of the Chamber had to reject the respective argument of the Respondent and confirmed that the present petition was lodged in front of the DRC within said two years’ period of time. The matter is, thus, not barred by the statute of limitations in accordance with art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015) and the claim at hand is admissible. 4. Having so found, the Chamber analysed which 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 (edition 2015), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 28 July 2009, the 2008 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: 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 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. 6. First of all, the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 2 March 1989 and was registered with the Claimant as from 23 June 2003 until 28 July 2005 as an amateur, and as from 29 July 2005 until 28 August 2008 as a professional. 7. In continuation, the DRC took note that the Claimant maintained that it is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 466,604.75, indicating that the player transferred as a professional from the Claimant to the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 8. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rebutted the claim of the Claimant, firstly alleging that on the basis of art. 2 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is not due to the Claimant since the Claimant reportedly terminated the employment contract it had signed with he player without just cause. Equally, the Chamber noted that should the aforementioned argument be rejected, the Respondent argued that the Claimant is entitled to a lower amount of training compensation since, by having omitted to take into account the contents of art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, it miscalculated the amount it would be entitled to receive. 9. In this context, the DRC highlighted that the following issues needed to be analysed in the present matter: 1) When, in general, is training compensation due?; 2) Is art. 2 par. 2 i) of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applicable to the matter at stake? And, should this question be answered in the negative; 3) What amount of training compensation, if any, is the Claimant entitled to receive? 10. When addressing the first issue, the Chamber referred to the rules applicable to cases regarding 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. In case the latter occurs, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that training compensation will only be owed to the player’s former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club. 11. Following the above, the Chamber noted that the Football Federation of country D had confirmed that the player was registered as a professional with the Respondent on 28 July 2009, this is, in the season of his 19th birthday. Equally, the Chamber stressed that, according to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of country B, the player was registered with the Claimant as from 23 June 2003 until 28 July 2005 as an amateur, and as from 29 July 2005 until 28 August 2008 as a professional. 12. On account of the above considerations, the DRC decided that the Respondent would, in principle, be liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant, which is, on the basis of the documentation available on file, the player’s former club in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 13. In continuation, the Chamber analysed whether, as claimed by the Respondent, the Claimant lost its entitlement to receive training compensation because a court of country B ruled that it terminated the employment contract having bound it to the player of relevance without just cause (art. 2 par. 2 (i) of Annexe 4 of the Regulations). In support of this argument, the Respondent submitted a copy of the alleged ruling drafted in the language of country B. 14. In this regard, the Chamber firstly wished to refer to art. 9 par. 1 lit. e) of the Procedural Rules, which set forth that petitions before FIFA’s decision-making bodies shall contain documents of relevance to the dispute, such as contract and previous correspondence with respect to the case in the original version and, if applicable, translated into one of the official FIFA languages, i.e. English, French, Spanish or German. 15. Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that the document submitted by the Respondent in support of its aforementioned argument, i.e. a copy of a ruling of a court of country B drafted in the language of country B, which was not duly translated into one of the official FIFA languages of FIFA, could not be taken into account in the assessment of the present matter. 16. Thus, bearing in mind the contents of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof, the Chamber held that the Respondent’s argument that the Claimant was not entitled to Training Compensation by application of art. 2 par. 2 (i) of Annexe 4 of the Regulations was not corroborated by any conclusive evidence and must therefore be rejected. 17. On account of the above considerations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 18. Turning its attention to the calculation of the training compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant was claiming the amount of EUR 406,604.45 from the Respondent. Equally, the Chamber took into account that the Respondent argued that the amount claimed by the Claimant was not calculated in accordance with art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 19. In this context, the Chamber referred to art. 5 par. 1 and par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulate 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. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which indeed stipulates that to ensure that training compensation for very young players is not set at unreasonably high levels, the training costs for players for the seasons between their 12th and 15th birthday shall be based on the training and education costs for category 4 clubs, i.e. on the basis of EUR 10,000 per year in the case at hand. 20. In continuation, the Chamber took into account that according to the documentation on file, the Respondent belonged to the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year) and that the player, born on 2 March 1989, was registered with the Claimant as from 23 June 2003 until 28 July 2005 as an amateur and as from 29 July 2005 until 28 August 2008 as a professional. 21. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation for the training and education of the player for the period of time between 23 June 2003 until 28 August 2008 corresponding to the seasons of the player’s 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th birthdays. In this respect, the Chamber further held that the player had been registered with the Claimant for 6 months during the season of his 14th birthday, 12 months during the seasons of his 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th birthdays and 8 months during the season of his 19th birthday. 22. As a result, and taking into account art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations for six months of the player’s 14th birthday and the entire season of the player’s 15th birthday, i.e. applying the category IV (indicative amount of EUR 10,000) to those seasons, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and determined that the Claimant is entitled to receive the amount of EUR 345,000 from the Respondent for the training and education of the player. 23. In continuation, the Chamber referred to 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 CHF 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings. 24. In this respect, the Chamber reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. Therefore, both the Claimant and the Respondent have to bear a part of the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 25. 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. 26. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings amounting to EUR 466,604.75 related to the claim of the Claimant. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 27. Considering that the present case did show some factual difficulty as well as that it involved a certain specific legal complexity, the Chamber determined the final amount of costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 20,000. 28. In this respect, the Chamber took into account that the Claimant had paid the advance of costs in the amount of CHF 5,000 in accordance with art. 17 of the Procedural Rules. 29. In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the amount of CHF 5,000 is to be borne by the Claimant and the amount of CHF 15,000 has to be paid by the Respondent to cover the costs of the present proceedings. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. 3. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 345,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 28 August 2009 until the date of effective payment. 4. 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. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 6. The final amount of costs of the proceedings, amounting to CHF 20,000, are to be paid within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 6.1. CHF 15,000 by the Respondent to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. xxxxxxxxxxxx: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 6.2. CHF 5,000 by the Respondent to the Claimant. 7. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 6.2. are to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. ***** 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 Encl.: CAS directives