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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 12 May 2015, by Theo van Seggelen (the Netherlands), 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.

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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 12 May 2015, by Theo van Seggelen (the Netherlands), 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. According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of country B, Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 20 June 1993, was registered with its affiliated clubs as follows: - Club A as from 1 August 2009 until 27 January 2013 as a professional; - Club F as from 28 January 2013 until 30 June 2014 as an amateur. 2. The football season in country B lasts from 1 July until 30 June of the following year. 3. According to the Football Association of country D, the player was registered with its affiliated club, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 2 September 2014 as a professional. 4. Furthermore, according to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA) during the season when the player was registered with the club. 5. On 10 February 2015, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant) contacted FIFA requesting training compensation in an amount of EUR 152,136.98 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 17 August 2014 on the ground that the player, on 18 July 2014, was reregistered as a professional with the Respondent. 6. The Claimant stated that even though the player was transferred from the Claimant to the club from country B, Club F, as an amateur, he was re-registered as a professional with the Respondent after only 16 months. Therefore, according to the Claimant, art. 3 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players is applicable and it is entitled to receive training compensation. 7. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to provide its position regarding the claim, the Respondent did not respond to the claim or make any statements at all during the course of the investigation. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge (hereinafter also referred to as 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 10 February 2015. Consequently, the 2014 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the 2014 and 2015 Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules, which states that the DRC judge shall examine its jurisdiction in light of art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 lit. ii. in connection with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC judge is competent to decide on the present matter relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. Furthermore, the DRC judge 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, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2014 and 2015), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 2 September 2014, the 2014 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 judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, the DRC judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. However, the DRC judge 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 judge took note that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 152,136.98 indicating that the player, on 18 July 2014, was registered as a professional with the Respondent. 6. Equally, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, despite having been invited to do so. Therefore, the DRC judge deemed that, in this way, the Respondent renounced its right to defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 7. As a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC judge established that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules it shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 8. Having established the above, the DRC judge, and hereby referring to the rules applicable to training compensation, started by stating 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 referred to art. 3 par. 2 sent. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that if a player re-registers as a professional within 30 months of being reinstated as an amateur, his new club shall pay training compensation in accordance with art. 20 of the Regulations. 10. In this respect, the DRC judge recalled that the player was registered with the Claimant as from 1 August 2009 until 27 January 2013 as a professional and, thereafter, with Club F as from 28 January 2013 until 30 June 2014 as an amateur. Subsequently, the player was registered with the Respondent as a professional on 2 September 2014. 11. In view of the above, the DRC judge concurred that the player was re-registered as a professional with the Respondent after a period of 20 months and, thus, within 30 months of being reinstated as an amateur. Consequently, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent shall, in principle, pay training compensation in accordance with art. 20 of the Regulations. 12. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the DRC judge referred to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations, which stipulates 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. 13. In continuation, the DRC judge recalled that the player was born on 20 June 1993 and was registered with the Claimant as from 1 August 2009 until 27 January 2013. 14. On account of the above, the DRC judge considered that the Claimant is, thus, entitled to receive training compensation for the period as from 1 August 2009 until 27 January 2013. 15. Moreover, the DRC judge observed that according to the information contained in the TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year) at the time the player was registered with the Respondent. 16. Equally, the DRC judge recalled that the Football Association of country D confirmed that the player was registered with the Respondent on 2 September 2014 as a professional. 17. Furthermore, and considering art. 3 par. 1 sent. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the amount payable is calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of training that the player spent with each club, the DRC judge concluded that the effective period of time to be considered in the matter at stake corresponds to 11 months of the 2009/2010 season, the full 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 seasons as well as 7 months of the 2012/2013 season. 18. In view of all of the above and taking into account the amount claimed by the Claimant, the DRC judge decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 105,000 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to registration of the player as a professional with the Respondent. 19. Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent has to pay, in conformity with its longstanding practice, interest at 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of the 31st day of the registration of the player with the Respondent, i.e. 3 October 2014, until the date of effective payment. 20. Lastly, the DRC judge 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 judge relating to disputes regarding training compensation and the solidarity mechanism, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25’000 are levied. The relevant provision further states that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and that, 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. 21. In respect of the above, the DRC judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 152,136.98 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 20,000 (cf. table in Annex A). 22. As a result, and taking into account the particularities of the present matter as well as the degree of success, the DRC judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 20,000, of which CHF 5,000 shall be borne by the Claimant and CHF 15,000 by the Respondent. III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is partially accepted. 2. 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 105,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 3 October 2014 until the date of effective payment. 3. 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. 4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 20,000 are to be paid within 30 days of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1. The amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid by the Claimant. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of CHF 4,000 as advance of costs at the beginning of the present proceedings, the additional amount of CHF 1,000 has to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA. 5.2. The amount of CHF 15,000 has to be paid by the Respondent. 5.3. The above mentioned amounts have 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 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 2. above is to be made and to notify the DRC judge 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 DRC judge: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives