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 17 December 2015, in the following composition Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), 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.

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 17 December 2015, in the following composition Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), 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 dated 25 March 2014, issued by the Football Association of country B, Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 11 November 1992, was registered with its affiliated club, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant) as of 1 August 2004 until 31 December 2008 as an amateur. 2. The relevant seasons in country B ran from 1 August until 31 July of the following year. 3. Furthermore, according to the player passport issued by the Football Association of country D, the player was registered with the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 31 January 2011 as a professional and said club belonged to category I (UEFA indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year), when the player was registered with it. The Football Association of country D and the Respondent subsequently confirmed this information. 4. In this framework, on 23 August 2012, by means of a communication dated 22 August 2012, the Claimant contacted FIFA regarding “Improper registration and request for return of ITC, and additionally Training Compensation and Solidarity Pay” while referring to an alleged previous claim lodged by the Football Association of country B on 13 January 2012. On 7 September 2012, the FIFA administration invited the Claimant to split and complete its claims for training compensation and solidarity contribution. 5. On 2 April 2014, the Claimant lodged an amendment of the claim while referring to its communication dated 22 August 2012, requesting training compensation from the Respondent, on the ground of the player’s first registration as a professional before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. In particular, the Claimant requested EUR 360,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 2 March 2011 until the date of effective payment. 6. In its claim, the Claimant explained that on 12 July 2008, with the player as part of the squad, the Claimant travelled to country F to participate in an international tournament. In relation, the Claimant stated that the player’s parents, who lived in the country G at the time, provided parental consent for him to travel with the Claimant. 7. The Claimant then explained that the player’s parents had arranged for the player to stay in the country H for one more month after the tournament, with an uncle of his. In this respect, the Claimant outlined that it agreed with the player staying, provided that the player returned on 20 August 2008. Moreover, the Claimant claimed that his uncle effectively collected the player after the tournament. 8. Subsequently, the Claimant argued it lost all contact with the player and that the player never came back. 9. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim, arguing that “as you will see from the supporting information provided we are of the opinion that no training compensation is payable or solidarity and which is a view held by the Football Association of country D and has been communicated to FIFA previously back in 2010 following the arrival of the player in the country H”. 10. In this respect, the Respondent stressed that the player was the subject of a Border Agency Investigation from country H into the “trafficking” of young players into the country H. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that while the facts of how the player first arrived into the country H remain unclear, it explained that the player attended trials with it in July 2010, and afterwards “efforts were made through communication with the Border Agency of country H” in order to resolve the player’s immigration status. 11. According to the documentation enclosed, the Football Association of country D supports the position of the Respondent, where it is stated by the Football Association of country D that it received confirmation from both the Football Association of country B and the Football Association of country G informing it that they held no previous record of the player, and therefore, the player was free to register in country D without the need for an International Transfer Certificate. 12. Finally, the Football Association of country D argued that the Claimant’s claim is time barred. 13. The Claimant submitted unsolicited correspondence on 27 June 2014, in which it argued that “it is evident that since lodging the claim i.e. 22 August 2012, until the registration of the player at the Football Association of country D of country D (31 January 2011) the period of two years had not yet elapsed. Consequently, the present claim is not time-barred”. 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 23 August 2012. Consequently, the 2008 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 2008, 2012, 2014 and 2015 editions 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 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. 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 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2015), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 31 January 2011, 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. However, and although the Chamber underlined that the following argument was not raised by the Respondent itself, the Chamber reverted to the argument brought by the Football Association of country D, according to whom “it is also pertinent to raise the delay in making the claim which is clearly well over two years since the player first registered on a professional contract with [the Respondent] in January 2011”. In this regard, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations, 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 lodged in front of the DRC on 23 August 2012 and the registration of the player with the Respondent having occurred on 31 January 2011, the members of the Chamber had to reject the respective argument brought by the Football Association of country D on behalf of the Respondent and confirmed that the present petition was lodged in front of the DRC within said two years’ period of time. In this regard, the Chamber wished to recall that, according to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the deadline for payment of training compensation is 30 days following the registration of the professional with the new association. Hence, the event giving rise to the dispute is the non-payment of training compensation 30 days after 31 January 2011. The matter is, thus, not barred by the statute of limitations in accordance with art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations. 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 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. 6. First of all, the DRC took note that the Claimant maintained that it is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 360,000, indicating that the player had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 7. Likewise, the DRC noted that the Respondent argued that due to the fact that the player was the subject of a Border Agency Investigation from country H into the “trafficking” of young players into the country H, the Respondent was of the opinion that no training compensation is payable in respect to the registration of the player. The Chamber noted that this position was supported by the Football Association of country D. 8. At this stage, the DRC considered it appropriate to remark that, as a general rule, it does not have jurisdiction to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the ones of “trafficking” of young players. Therefore, the Chamber cannot consider the abovementioned argument from the Respondent. 9. Subsequently, after having carefully examined the parties’ positions, and the documentation submitted in support of them, the Chamber observed the documentation that the Respondent enclosed to its reply, where it is stated that the Football Association of country D received confirmation from both the Football Association of country B and the Football Association of country G informing it that they held no previous record of the player, and therefore, the player was free to register in country D without the need for an International Transfer Certificate. 10. In this respect, the Chamber 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. 11. In this context, the Chamber highlighted that according to the documentation on file, and submitted by the Respondent, there are no such documents to support that the Football Association of country D received a confirmation from both the Football Association of country B and the Football Association of country G regarding the absence of a previous record of the player, besides the statement from the Football Association of country D itself. 12. Consequently, the Chamber considered that the Respondent had not presented any conclusive documentary evidence which could corroborate the absence of a previous record of the player and therefore could not conclude that the Respondent could rely in good faith and reasonably assume that the player had not been trained by the Claimant. 13. In this context and considering the documentation on file in particular the player passport issued by the Football Association of country D which indicated that the player was registered as a professional with the Respondent, the Chamber first referred to the rules applicable to training compensation and stated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 par. 1 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 his 23rd birthday. Thus, in the absence of any information to the contrary, the Chamber concluded that the player was registered with the Respondent for the first time as a professional before the end of his 23rd birthday and that, therefore, in principle training compensation is due. 14. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, 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, 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 the exception contained in the first sentence of art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which 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 birthdays (i.e. four seasons) shall be based on the training and education costs of category 4 clubs. Equally, the Chamber referred to the second sentence of art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which states that the aforementioned exception shall not be applicable where the event giving rise to the right to training compensation occurs before the end of the season of the player’s 18th birthday. 15. In this context, the Chamber wished to refer to FIFA Circular no. 1190 dated 20 May 2009 by means of which the members of FIFA were, inter alia, informed about the amended art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4, which came into force on 1 October 2009. Said FIFA Circular indicated that art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 “now stipulates that where the event giving rise to the right to training compensation occurs before the end of the season of the player's 18th birthday, the training costs for players for the seasons between their 12th and 15th birthdays (i.e. four seasons) shall no longer be based on the training and education costs of category 4 clubs, but on the category of the new club.” 16. Against this background, in particular since the aforementioned amendment of the pertinent article of Annexe 4 of the Regulations only came into force on 1 October 2009, the Chamber found that it cannot apply said amendment to the years of training and education of the player prior to the coming into force of the amended art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4, i.e. prior to 1 October 2009. In other words, the Chamber concurred that the said provision could not be applied retro-actively and, consequently, decided that the second sentence of art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations does not apply to the seasons 2004/2005 to 2008/2009 during which the player was apparently registered with the Claimant. 17. Having established the above, the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 11 November 1992 and, according to the player passport issued by the Football Association of country B, was registered with the Claimant as from 1 August 2004 until 31 December 2008, as an amateur. 18. It was further noted by the DRC, that the Claimant acknowledged that “since the player was not present at [the Claimant], the Claimant does not claim training compensation for the referred semester (first half of the 2008/2009 season). 19. Equally, the DRC recalled that the Football Association of country D confirmed that the player was registered with the Respondent on 31 January 2011, as a professional. 20. On account of the above and in accordance with art. 20 in combination with Annexe 4 of the Regulations, and taking into account the Claimant’s statement regarding the absence of the player for the period starting from 1 August 2008, the DRC considered that the Claimant is, thus, entitled to receive training compensation for the period as from 1 August 2004 until 31 July 2008, i.e. for the full seasons of 2004/2005, 2005/2006, 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 (seasons of the player’s 12th to 15th birthday). 21. In view of all of the above, the DRC decided to partially accept the claim of the Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 40,000, plus default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. on said amount as of 3 March 2011 until the date of effective payment, to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent. 22. 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 Annex A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 23. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 360,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000 (cf. table in Annex A). 24. As a result, and taking into account the particularities of the present matter as well as the degree of success, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 15,000, of which the amount of CHF 10,000 shall be borne by the Claimant and the amount of CHF 5,000 by the Respondent. 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 40,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 3 March 2011 until the date of effective payment. 4. In the event that the aforementioned sum and interest are 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 costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 15,000 are to be paid within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 6.1. The amount of CHF 10,000 has to be paid by the Claimant. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of CHF 5,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the additional amount of CHF 5,000 as costs of the proceedings has to be paid by the Claimant. 6.2. The amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid by the Respondent. 6.3. The above-mentioned amounts have to be paid 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 7. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 3. above is 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: Training compensation in connection with the Player E (Club A, country B / Club C, country D) 10/9 Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives