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 18 March 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Piat (France), member John Bramhall (England), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Zola Majavu (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 a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of 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 18 March 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Piat (France), member John Bramhall (England), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Zola Majavu (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 a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the Player E I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of country D, the player, Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 28 February 1994, was registered as an amateur with its affiliated clubs as follows: - Club F as from 6 July 2004 until 9 July 2006; - Club G as from 10 July 2006 until 12 June 2009; - Club H as from 17 July 2009 until 30 June 2012; - Club I as from 31 August 2012 until 27 December 2012; - Club A as from 11 July 2013 until 27 December 2013; - Club J as from 29 January 2014 until 28 June 2014. 2. The football season in country B lasts from 1 July until 30 June of the following year. 3. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player was registered with the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 28 August 2015 as a professional and said club 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. 4. On 24 October 2015, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant) contacted FIFA requesting training compensation on the ground that the player, on 28 August 2015, was registered for the first time as a professional with the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant, after amending its claim, is requesting EUR 13,972.60 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 28 September 2015. 5. In its reply, the Respondent firstly stated that it had no information about the status of the player before he was registered with it, and therefore cannot accept the “statements of the captioned clubs about Player’s history”. 6. Furthermore, the Respondent stressed that the employment contract between the player and the Respondent was signed on 28 August 2015 and terminated on 19 November 2015, less than 3 months later. According to the Respondent, the player never played in any match during that time and consequently the contract never came into force. 7. Moreover, the Respondent highlighted that the purpose of the payment of training compensation is to ensure that the new club, which benefits from the services of the player, contributes to the training and therefore pays to the former clubs, which trained the player. Further to this, the Respondent pointed out, as it never benefited from the services of the player, it would be groundless to be obliged to pay training compensation. 8. In the event that training compensation would be due, the Respondent argued that the amount claimed by the Claimant is not substantiated and excessive. Moreover, the Respondent stressed that, for the calculation of the training compensation, the costs have to be taken into account “that would have been incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself” according to art. 5 of Annexe 4 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. 9. In this respect, the Respondent highlighted that the annual costs of a player trained with the Respondent would amount to approximately EUR 880. Furthermore, the salary of the player which was agreed between the Respondent and the player was about EUR 625, which should be taken into account for the calculation of the training compensation as well. 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 24 October 2015. Consequently, the 2015 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 2015 edition of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules, and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in connection with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on the present matter 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 (edition 2015), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 28 August 2015, the 2015 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 and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. However, the DRC emphasized 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 members of the DRC took note that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 13,972.60 indicating that the player, on 28 August 2015, was registered as a professional for the first time with the Respondent. 6. Equally, the DRC noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant, arguing that the player was registered with it less than 3 months whereby he has not played any game with the Respondent and therefore, contrary to the purpose of the regulations for training compensation, it did not benefit from the services of the player, which is why it is not liable to pay anything. 7. In this context, the Chamber highlighted that the main issue in the present matter is whether or not a club is liable to pay training compensation if the player was registered with it for a short period only. 8. In consideration of the above-mentioned issue, the Chamber 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 lit. i. 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. In case the player is registered for the first time as a professional, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that the club with which the player is registered is responsible for paying training compensation within 30 days of registration to every club with which the player has previously been registered and that has contributed to his training starting from the season of his 12th birthday. Based on the documentation provided by the Football Federation of country D and the information contained in TMS, the Chamber concluded that it could indeed be established that the player had been registered for the first time as a professional with the Respondent. 9. In continuation, the DRC observed that it was undisputed that the player, who was an amateur, was registered as a professional for the first time with a club belonging to a different association, i.e. the Respondent, before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. Equally, the DRC wished to emphasise that according to the above mentioned regulations, the duration of the registration of a player with a club is not of importance with respect to the entitlement for training compensation, but rather the registration itself. In view of the foregoing, the DRC decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant. 10. Turning its attention to the calculation of the training compensation, the Chamber 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. 11. In continuation, the Chamber took into account that according to the documentation on file, 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 and that the player, born on 28 February 1994, was registered with the Claimant as from 11 July 2013 until 27 December 2013. 12. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber pointed out that, in principle, the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 13,972.60, as claimed by the Claimant. However, the Chamber noted that the Respondent challenged this amount indicating that it was clearly disproportional in the case at hand. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber deemed it necessary to examine the alleged disproportionality of the amount payable as training compensation taking into account the arguments and documentation presented by the Respondent in this regard. 13. In this context, the Chamber firstly turned its attention to the Respondent’s argument that the amount claimed by the Claimant, i.e. EUR 13,972.60, was disproportionate, asserting that the amount payable as training compensation needs to be in accordance with the real training costs. In this regard, the Respondent argued that the annual costs of a player trained with the Respondent would amount to approximately EUR 880. Also, the Chamber gave due consideration to the argument of the Respondent that the salary of the player which was agreed between the Respondent and the player was about EUR 625 which should be taken into account for the calculation of the training compensation as well. 14. In consideration of the issues raised by the Respondent, the Chamber wished to recall the provision of art. 5 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which stipulates that: “As a general rule, to calculate the training compensation due to a player’s former club(s), it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself”. In this respect, the Respondent did not provide corroborative evidence of the alleged training costs of EUR 880. Furthermore, taking into consideration that the Football Federation of country D had allocated the Respondent in the club category III and the Respondent had never contested its allocation to this club category, the Chamber had no reason to believe that the amount payable was disproportionate. 15. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber found the amount of EUR 13,972.60 not disproportionate, accepted the Claimant’s claim and decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 13,972.60. 16. Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim, the Chamber 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 due date, i.e. 28 September 2015. 17. Lastly, the DRC 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. 18. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 13,972.60 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000 (cf. table in Annex A). 19. As a result, and taking into account that the Claimant is the successful party as well as the particularities of the case at hand, the Chamber determined the final costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 3,000 which shall be borne by the Respondent. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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 EUR 13,972.60 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 28 September 2015 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 3,000 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 nr. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH 27 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 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 Enclosed: CAS directives