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 28 January 2016, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the club, Club X, from country X, as Claimant against the club, Club A, from country A as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player D 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 28 January 2016, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the club, Club X, from country X, as Claimant against the club, Club A, from country A as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player D I. Facts of the case 1. According to the passport issued by the Football-Association of country X the player, D (hereinafter: the player), born on 5 January 1991, was registered as a professional with its affiliated club, Club X, from country X (hereinafter: the Claimant), from 26 August 2011 until 30 June 2012, on loan from the country Z club, Club Z (hereinafter: the involved club). 2. The football season in country X runs from 1 July until 30 June of the following year. 3. According to the player passport issued by the Football Association of country X, at the time the player was registered on loan with the Claimant, said club belonged to the category 2 (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year within UEFA). 4. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player was registered with the Club A, from country A (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 1 February 2014 as a professional, having been transferred from the involved club. 5. According to TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category 3 (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA) at the time the player was registered with said club. 6. On 16 July 2015, the Claimant contacted FIFA requesting training compensation for the subsequent professional registration of the player. In particular, the Claimant requested the amount of EUR 25,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 4 March 2014 until the date of effective payment. 7. In support of its claim, the Claimant held that the player was loaned from the involved club and that, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), upon the international transfer of the player, the former club of the player as well as the clubs with which the player has been registered on loan are entitled to receive training compensation from the new club of the player, provided that the relevant transfer occurs before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 8. In this context, the Claimant further stated that any other interpretation would contravene the nature of training compensation since the Claimant’s efforts to educate the player would not be rewarded. As a result, the Claimant is of the opinion that clubs that receive players on loan shall be entitled to receive training compensation for the period of time that have indeed trained and educated the player. 9. In reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent referred to the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) as well as to the jurisprudence of CAS and, in this respect, held that the Claimant is not the last club of the player in the sense of the Regulations and that, as a result, no training compensation is payable to it. 10. Alternatively, the Respondent stated that training compensation would only be payable until his 21st birthday, this is, until 5 January 2012. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the 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 16 July 2015. Consequently, the 2015 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 Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 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) he is competent to deal with the matter at stake relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations 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 2015, 2014 and 2012), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 1 February 2014, the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. The DRC judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. However, the DRC judge emphasized 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 5 January 1991, was registered on a loan basis with the Claimant for the period between 26 August 2011 and 30 June 2012. Equally, the DRC judge observed that after the loan with the Claimant had expired, the player returned to his club of origin, Club Z, i.e. the club with which the player was still contractually bound. Thereafter, on 1 February 2014, the player was internationally transferred from the involved club to the Respondent on a definitive basis. 6. In continuation, 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 25,000. 7. Equally, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant, arguing that the Claimant is not the player’s former club in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. Alternatively, the Respondent stated that, if any, training compensation would only be payable until the player’s 21st birthday, i.e. 5 January 2012. 8. In this context, the DRC judge highlighted that the first issue to analyse in the present matter is whether or not a club that accepted a professional on loan is entitled to receive training compensation when, after the expiry of the loan, the professional returns to his club of origin, and, thereafter, is transferred from the club of origin to a club belonging to another association before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 9. In consideration of the above-mentioned issue, 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. 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. 10. Furthermore, according to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations, professionals may be loaned to another club on the basis of a written agreement between the professional and the clubs concerned. Moreover, the last sentence of said provision stipulates that any such loan is subject to the same rules as apply to the transfer of players, including the provisions on training compensation and solidarity mechanism. 11. Following the above, the DRC judge stressed that one of the aims of the last sentence of art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations is to ensure that training clubs which register a player on loan basis also benefit from the solidarity mechanism and training compensation, provided that the relevant prerequisites in the pertinent provisions of the Regulations are fulfilled. This approach is also in line with the Dispute Resolution Chamber’s well-established jurisprudence that all clubs which have in fact contributed to the training and education of a player as from the age of 12 are, in principle, entitled to training compensation for the timeframe that the player was effectively trained by them. 12. In other words, the DRC judge emphasised that the nature of the player’s registration with a club claiming training compensation, i.e. on a definite or on a temporary basis, is in fact irrelevant with respect to the question as to whether such club would be entitled to receive training compensation for the period of time that the player was effectively trained by that club. 13. In this respect and for the sake of good order, the DRC judge deemed it essential to emphasise that, as to the liability to pay training compensation, the analogy established in art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations could not be extended to the case in which players were loaned to other clubs and thus are not being definitively transferred to a new club. In other words, the transfer of a player from the club of origin to the club that accepts the player on loan as well as the return of the player from the club that accepted him on loan to the club of origin do not constitute a subsequent transfer in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. The DRC judge was eager to point out that it could not have been the intention of the legislator of the relevant regulatory provision (art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations) to trigger the consequences of art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the occasion of a transfer on a loan basis and, thus, potentially depriving the loan of its essential flexibility and function of providing young players the opportunity to gain practical experience in another club in order to develop in a positive way, personally and, eventually, also for the benefit of the player’s new club. 14. Following the above, the DRC judge pointed out that the obligation to pay training compensation thus arises in case a player is definitively transferred from one club to another club belonging to a different association, but not when he is temporarily transferred to another club while still being contractually bound to his club of origin (yet, with the effects of the relevant contract being temporarily suspended), such as a loan. Hence, the relevant entitlement can only be claimed towards a new club that acquires the services of a player on a definitive and permanent basis subject to the fulfilment of the prerequisites established in art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 15. As to the argument of the Respondent that the Claimant is not the former club in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the DRC judge wished to recall that art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 stipulates that “In the case of subsequent transfers of the professional, training compensation will only be owed to his former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club”. In this context, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant was not the player’s former club stricto sensu, however, he pointed out that, within the framework of loans, the period of time that the player was registered with the involved club and the period of time that the player was registered with the Claimant on loan, should be considered as one entire timeframe. Any other interpretation would lead to the situation in which clubs accepting a player on loan would never be entitled to receive training compensation, even if they contribute to the training and education of players. 16. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the DRC judge deemed that the Respondent’s interpretation of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations would clearly contravene the intention of the legislator of the Regulations according to which all training clubs shall, in principle, be rewarded for their efforts invested in training young players, including those clubs that have accepted a player on a temporary basis. 17. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the DRC judge concluded that he had to reject the Respondent’s arguments and decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant for the training of the player in accordance with art. 20 of the Regulations and art. 2 par. 1 lit. ii. and art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 18. Subsequently, the DRC judge turned his attention to the Respondent’s argument according to which training compensation, if any, would only be payable until the player’s 21st birthday, this is, until 5 January 2012. 19. In this context, the DRC judge referred to art. 5 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, in accordance with which the relevant period for the calculation of training compensation is, in principle, from the season of the player’s 12th birthday to the season of his 21st birthday. 20. In light of the above, the DRC judge concluded that he had to reject the Respondent’s argument regarding the calculation of the training compensation up to the day in which the player turned 21, i.e. up to 5 January 2012. 21. As a result, 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 10 months of the 2011/2012 season, i.e. as from 26 August 2011 until 30 June 2012. 22. Furthermore, the DRC judge 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. 23. In addition, the DRC judge referred to art. 6 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which contains special provisions regarding players moving from one association to another association inside the territory of the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA). 24. In view of the above, the DRC judge stated that he had to verify whether art. 6 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies in the present case as lex specialis, and, in the affirmative, to determine the amount of training compensation payable. 25. As far as the applicability of art. 6 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations is concerned, the DRC judge indicated that, since the player moved from country Z to country A, i.e. moved from one association to another association inside the territory of the EU, said article is applicable. Therefore, he concluded that the aforementioned provision applies in the case at hand as lex specialis. 26. In this context, the DRC judge took into account that according to the documentation on file, the Claimant belonged to the club category 2 and that the Respondent belonged to the club category 3. 27. Consequently, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 25,000. 28. 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 the Dispute Resolution Chamber’s 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 on a definitive basis, i.e. as of 4 March 2014, until the date of effective payment. 29. Lastly, the DRC judge 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, including the DRC judge, relating to disputes regarding training compensation and solidarity mechanism, 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. 30. In respect of the above, the DRC judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 25,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules). 31. As a result, and considering that the case at hand did not compose any complex factual or legal issue, the DRC judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 4,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent. III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club X, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club Y, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 25,000 plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 4 March 2014 until the date of effective payment. 3. If 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 amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 4,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no.: 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. 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: Marco Villiger Deputy Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives