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 25 September 2015, by Theo van Seggelen (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 (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 25 September 2015, by Theo van Seggelen (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. The Football Association of country B (hereinafter: Football Association of country B) confirmed that the player, Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 26 January 1990, was registered with the club from country B, Club A (hereinafter: Club A or the Claimant) as of 5 February 2008 until 30 November 2010 as a professional. 2. The Football Association of country B confirmed that the sporting season in country B begins on 1 December and ends on 30 November of the following year. 3. The player’s transfer from Club A to Club C is registered in the Transfer Matching System (hereinafter: TMS) and indicates that the player was registered with Club C on 25 January 2011. 4. Furthermore, the Football Association of country D confirmed that the Club C belonged to category III (indicative of the amount of USD 10,000 in the Asian Football Confederation) when the player was allegedly registered with it and the Football Association of country D confirmed that the player of reference had been registered as a professional. 5. On 14 March 2012, Club A lodged a claim in front of FIFA against Club C requesting that the club from country D pay the total amount of USD 28,333 as training compensation regarding the subsequent transfer of the referenced professional player plus unspecified interest should Club C be a category III club. Alternatively, should Club C be a category II club, Club A claims USD 85,000 plus unspecified interest. 6. In its response, Club C rejects Club A’s right to receive training compensation on the basis that the player was never registered with the club in any competition under the Football Association of country D because the player and Club C mutually decided to terminate their contract on 27 January 2011, and the player later signed a professional contract with Club F. This information was also provided by the Football Association of country D, it must however be noted that the Football Association of country D mentions 27 January 2012 as being the date of mutual termination. 7. In its reply, Club A notes that Club C initiated the procedure in front of Football Association of country D in order to register the player and that a request was sent by Football Association of country D on behalf of Club C for the ITC of the player, which was issued on 24 January 2011 (cf. point 3 above). Club A further notes that the player was indeed loaned from Club C to Club F during the 2011 season and that it was Club C that was paying his salary. 8. Furthermore, Club A claims that the player was sent on loan to Club F for a second season (i.e. the 2012 season) and Club C allegedly forced the player to sign a document entitled “mutual termination of contract agreement” in which “the player and Club F Mutually agreed to cancel his contract on 27 January 2011”. According to Club A, the termination was signed on 17 April 2012 after Club A had lodged its claim for training compensation and not on 27 January 2011 as Club C alleges. 9. Club A claims that even if the player had not played any matches for Club C, it was Club C who requested the ITC and was also paying the player during his loan and therefore, the player “belonged” to Club C. 10. Club C did not reply to Club A’s replica. 11. In reply to repeated and pertinent requests, the Football Association of country D informed FIFA that the player was never registered with Club C. Nonetheless, in accordance with the player’s passport issued by the Football Association of country D and provided as an annexe to its correspondence of clarification, the player was always registered with Club F from 2011 until 2013, on loan from Club C, always as a professional. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 14 March 2012. Consequently, the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (2008 edition; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (2015 edition) he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns a dispute relating to the payment of 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 to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the members referred on the one hand to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (2015 edition), and on the other hand to the fact that the present claim was lodged on 14 March 2012 and that the player was registered with the Respondent on 25 January 2011. In view of the aforementioned, the DRC judge confirmed that the 2010 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 this respect, the DRC judge started by acknowledging the aforementioned facts as well as the arguments and documentation submitted by the parties. The DRC judge however emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. In this regard, the DRC judge recalled that the player born on 26 January 1990, was registered with the Claimant for the period running from 5 February 2008 until 30 November 2010. 6. In continuation, the DRC judge took note that the Claimant maintained that it is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of USD 28,333 plus 5% interest p.a., indicating that the player was transferred as a professional from the Claimant to the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 7. In this respect, the DRC judge first duly noted that the Respondent contests the Claimant’s entitlement to receive any training compensation arguing that the player and the club had mutually terminated the employment contract shortly after the player’s arrival. 8. With regards to the Respondent’s reply, the DRC judge took into account that the Respondent provided unclear statements when asked by FIFA to take position in the present dispute, but did allege that the Respondent and the player had prematurely terminated the employment contract without submitting substantiating evidence. Furthermore, the Respondent thereafter omitted to provide any further statement and/or clarification, in spite of having been invited to do so. 9. Yet, the DRC judge acknowledged that the player’s passport provided for by the Football Association of country D that the player was always registered with Club F from 2011 until 2013 on loan from the Respondent. In addition, the DRC judge acknowledged that from the information contained in TMS, the player was registered with Club C from 25 January 2011, and that his last club before the transfer to Club C was Club A. 10. Continuing, the DRC judge stated that as established in art. 1 par. 1 of Annex 4, in combination with art. 2 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is payable as a general rule for training incurred between the ages of 12 and 21 when the player concerned is registered for the first time as a Professional, or when a Professional is transferred between two clubs of different Member Associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 11. In view of the above, the DRC judge concluded that on the basis of the documentation at his disposal that the professional player in question, born on 26 January 1990, was transferred to the Respondent on 25 January 2011, i.e. before the season of the player’s 23rd birthday, and thus irrespective of whether the player and the Respondent had or not prematurely terminated their employment contract or whether he was loaned from Club C to Club F Once, the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent. 12. As a result and considering the aforementioned points II.7 to point II.9 as well as art. 3 par. 1 of Annex 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 34 months, during the 2007/2008 season for the months of February until November, and thereafter for the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 seasons the entire season, i.e. 12 months each. 13. Turning his attention to the calculation of training compensation the DRC judge referred to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of Annex 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that as a general rule, it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself and thus it is calculated based on the training costs of the new club multiplied by the number of years of training with the former club. 14. In this respect, the DRC judge took due note that according to the information provided by the Football Association of country D and contained in TMS the Respondent belonged to a category 3 club during the season when the player was registered with it (indicative amount of USD 10,000 within the Asian Football Confederation). 15. In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of USD 28,333 as requested plus interest of 5% p.a. from the date of claim, i.e. from 14 March 2012 until the date of effective payment. 16. 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 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. 17. In respect of the above, the DRC judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is CHF 28,333 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings correspondences to CHF 5,000 (cf. table in Annex A). 18. As a result, ad taking into account that the Claimant is the successful party in the proceeding, the DRC judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 19. Considering the particular circumstances of the case at hand the DRC judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 5,000. 20. In view of all of the above, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of CHF 28,333 to the Claimant for the training and education of the player as well as the amount of CHF 5,000 as costs. III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is 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 USD 28,333 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 14 March 2012 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. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 5,000 are to be paid by the Respondent 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. XXXX: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 5. 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. 63 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