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 June 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member on the claim presented by the club, A, country A as Claimant against the club, B, country C as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player C 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 June 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member on the claim presented by the club, A, country A as Claimant against the club, B, country C as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player C I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of A (FFA) the player, C, born on 24 February 1994, was registered with its affiliated club A (hereinafter: the Claimant) as from 21 August 2013 until 5 June 2015 as a professional. 2. The football season in FFA lasts from 1 July to 30 June of the following year. 3. On 5 June 2015, the player and the Claimant concluded an “agreement to terminate the individual employment agreement”, which reads as follows: “A (the Club) and player C (the Player) have mutually agreed to: 1. Terminate the Individual Employment Contract signed between them on 04 July 2013. 2. By signing this Agreement the Player confirms he has no financial, legal, administrative, moral or other claims toward the Club. 3. The Player is free to sign with other clubs.” 4. The Football Federation of C (FFC) confirmed that the player was registered with B (hereinafter: the Respondent) as a professional player on 3 July 2015. 5. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), at the time the player was registered for the Respondent, said club belonged to the category 3 (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA). 6. On 5 August 2015, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training compensation from the Respondent for the subsequent professional registration of the player. In particular, the Claimant requested EUR 60,000, disciplinary sanctions and that the procedural costs be borne by the Respondent. 7. In particular, the Claimant held that at the end of the season 2014/2015 the player requested it to terminate their employment relationship by mutual agreement. As a result, on 5 June 2015 the Claimant and the player concluded a termination agreement in accordance with which the employment relationship was terminated “without any legal or financial reciprocal consequences” (cf. point I.3 above). 8. In this context, the Claimant stated that it had unsuccessfully contacted the Respondent in order to settle this matter amicably and provided a copy of its correspondence dated 10 and 30 July 2015 allegedly addressed to the Respondent, as well as the latter’s correspondence dated 28 July 2015 in reply thereof. 9. Furthermore, the Claimant asserted that the Respondent firstly replied to the unsuccessful attempts to settle the matter amicably that it had executed the payment. However, the Claimant asserted that the Respondent subsequently refused to pay training compensation on the basis of art. 3 of the termination agreement (cf. point I.3 above). 10. In this respect, the Claimant rejected the Respondent’s reply by stating that i) the termination agreement provided that the player was “free” to sign with other clubs with no reciprocal obligations, but that this fact does not exclude the obligation of third parties to pay the relevant amounts to the club that has trained and educated the player, ii) it is common that players are released in writing and that iii) the Claimant never waived its right to receive training compensation on the basis of the Annexe 4 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. 11. On 10 March 2016, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim by stating that for the period between August 2013 and June 2015 the maximum amount payable as training compensation would be EUR 55,000. 12. Furthermore, the Respondent asserted that, since the Claimant never offered the player a new contract, no training compensation is payable. 13. Lastly, the Respondent referred to the termination agreement and held that according to its wording “the player is free to sign with other clubs”. As a result, the Respondent is of the opinion that the Claimant waived its right to receive training compensation for the player. In this respect, the Respondent concluded by stating that the player confirmed before singing his employment contract with the Respondent that “A will never not to seek any amount from him”. 14. On 1 April 2016, after the investigation-phase at the present matter had been concluded, the Claimant reiterated its previous arguments and stated that the Respondent failed to justify the non-payment of the training compensation. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: 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 5 August 2015. Consequently, the 2015 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC referred to art. 3 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 and art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015 and 2016) it is competent to deal with the matter at stake relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with his new club on 3 July 2015, the Chamber analysed which regulations 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 2015 and 2016), the 2015 version of said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance. 4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC entered into the substance of the matter. The Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well as the documentation 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. In this respect, the DRC took note of the fact that the player, born on 24 February 1994, was registered with the Claimant as from 21 August 2013 until 5 June 2015 as a professional. 6. Furthermore, the DRC duly noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant is requesting training compensation for the training and education of the player concerned from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 60,000 for his subsequent professional registration with the Respondent. 7. Moreover, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant, arguing that its calculation is wrong, that the Claimant failed to offer the player a contract and that the Claimant waived its right to training compensation in the termination agreement concluded with the player, interpretation that was allegedly confirmed by the player. 8. In this context, the DRC firstly underscored that it is undisputed that, on 3 July 2015, the player was subsequently registered as a professional with the Respondent. 9. In continuation, the DRC stated that, as established 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 the player concerned is registered for the first time as a professional, or when a professional is transferred between two clubs of two different Associations, before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 10. Furthermore, the DRC judge also referred to art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, in accordance with which, as a general principle, in case of subsequent transfers of the professional player, training compensation will only be owed to his former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club. 11. Firstly, the Chamber referred to art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations and stressed that said provision is limited to a well-defined geographic scope. Since A is neither a member of the European Union (EU), nor of the European Economic Area (EEA), the Chamber found it evident that art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations does not apply in the present case as lex specialis. 12. Consequently, the DRC concluded that the Claimant was not obliged to offer the player a contract in order to retain its entitlement to training compensation. 13. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which essentially stipulates that any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof and, in this respect, it concluded that the Respondent bears the burden of proving that the Claimant had waived its right to claim training compensation. However, the Chamber underscored that the Respondent’s allegation is based on the wording of the termination agreement concluded between the player and the Claimant and that at no point it provided any proof for its aforementioned assumption that it could register the player without the obligation to pay training compensation to any third club. 14. In this context, the DRC stressed that the termination agreement, which was concluded between the Claimant and the player, expressly authorises the player to move and to join another club so as to continue his career, without the prior consent or authorisation of the Claimant. Furthermore, the agreement only establishes that the player and the Claimant have no financial claims against each other, but nowhere mentions that the Claimant has waived its right to receive training compensation. 15. Having said that, the Chamber unanimously came to the conclusion that no element in that part of the termination agreement, nor in the entire document, could possibly lead to understanding that the Claimant was waiving its right to receive training compensation for the player. Hence, the DRC considered that the termination agreement could not be interpreted as a waiver encompassing training compensation and which could be afterwards evoked by the player’s future club. 16. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber considered that the Respondent’s argument based on the document at stake was ungrounded and had to be rejected. 17. What is more, the DRC wished to stress that in all reasonableness, and so as to act in compliance with its duty of care, the Respondent could have easily contacted the Claimant directly in order to ask for information, or a confirmation, regarding its position with respect to training compensation in relation with the player at hand. 18. As a result, considering art. 3 par. 1 of the 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 concluded that the effective period of time to be considered at the matter at stake corresponds to ten months of the season of the player’s 20th birthday as well as eleven months of the season of the player’s 21st birthday. 19. Turning his attention to the calculation of training compensation, the DRC referred to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of the Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulate that as a general rule, it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club as 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. 20. In continuation, the DRC observed that according to the documentation on file, the Respondent belonged to the category 3 and that the player was registered with the Claimant as from 21 August 2013 until 5 June 2015. 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 52,500 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the subsequent professional 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 Annexe 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 DRC held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 60,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 24. As a result, considering that the case at hand allowed to be dealt with following a reasonable procedure as well as considering the degree of success of the parties, the DRC determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 8,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, B, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 52,500 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum is not paid within the stated time limit, interest of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the stipulated time limit and 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 amount of costs of the proceedings, amounting to CHF 8,000, are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1. The amount of CHF 6,000 has to be paid 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 5.2. The amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid to the Claimant. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 5.2. are 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. 58 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: __________________________________ Marco Villiger Deputy Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives