F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – solidarity contribution/ contributo di solidarietà – (2017-2018) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 15 June 2017

Decision of the

sub committee of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC)

passed on 15 June 2017,

in the following composition:

Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman

Guillermo S. Guale (Ecuador), member

Johan van Gaalen (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 training compensation in

connection with the player, Player E

I. Facts of the case

1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of Country B (Football Federation F) the player, Player E, born on 26 September 1992, was registered as a professional with its affiliated clubs as follows:

Club Registration dates Category Registration basis Status

Club G

as from 22 August 2007 until 30 June 2010

1

Definitive

Amateur

Club G

as from 1 July 2010 until 30 August 2011

1

Definitive

Professional

Club H

as from 31 August 2011 until 30 June 2012

3

On loan from Club G

Professional

Club G

as from 1 July 2012 until 5 July 2012

1

Definitive

Professional

Club J

as from 6 July 2012 until 30 June 2013

2

On loan from Club G

Professional

Club G

as from 1 July 2013 until 11 July 2013

1

Definitive

Professional

Club A

as from 12 July 2013 until 30 June 2014

1

On loan from Club G

Professional

Club G

as from 1 July 2014 until 28 August 2014

1

Definitive

Professional

2. The football season in Country B runs from 1 July to 30 June of the following year.

3. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player was loaned from Club G to the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), as from 29 August 2014 until 30 June 2015 against the payment of a conditional transfer fee of up to EUR 100,000. Equally, according to the TMS, on 1 July 2015, Club G and the Respondent concluded an agreement for the definitive transfer of the player from Club G to the Respondent against the payment of EUR 500,000. Subsequently, the player was definitively registered with the Respondent.

4. Also according to the TMS, the Respondent belonged to the club category 1 at the time the player was registered with it on a definitive basis.

5. On 4 November 2016, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant) lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent asking to be awarded training compensation in connection with the subsequent professional registration of the player with the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant requested EUR 90,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 1 August 2015.

6. In this context, the Claimant referred to the last sentence of art. 3 of Annexe 4 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), according to which, in case of a subsequent transfer of a professional player, training compensation will only be owed to his former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club, and alleged that the wording has been overcome by the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in relation to loans, in accordance with which, the player’s new club has the obligation to pay training compensation not only to his former club but also to the clubs that have registered the player on temporary basis.

7. In this respect, the Claimant assessed that the interpretation of the aforementioned provision shall be in line with art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations as well as to the ratio behind the provision, which, in the Claimant’s opinion, is to provide for a training compensation system that rewards clubs for their efforts invested in effectively training young players, irrespective of the nature of their registration or transfer, i.e. on a temporary or on a definitive basis, once.

8. Equally, the Claimant submitted that, according to art. 3 of the Commentary in respect of art. 10 of the Regulations, a club receiving a player on loan is entitled to claim training compensation if the player is transferred to a third club, and that any other interpretation would contravene the intention of FIFA and would result in a club that registered a player on loan be deprived of any reward for its efforts in training and educating young players, which would ultimately lead to the reluctance of clubs to register players on loan.

9. Furthermore, the Claimant argued that loans do not trigger the consequences of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, this is, they do not constitute a subsequent transfer of a player. As a result, the period of time in which the player is registered with his club of origin as well as the time the player is on loan and his return to his club of origin should be considered as one entire time frame. Consequently, and taking into account the ratio behind the training compensation system, the Claimant held that there is no reason to reject the entitlement to training compensation of clubs that accept players on loan.

10. In its reply, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim by stating that art. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations stipulates that when a professional player is transferred, only the last club is entitled to training compensation. In this context, the Respondent held that the player was a professional for three seasons before joining the Claimant and that he returned to Club G at the end of his loan. Consequently, the Respondent assessed that the Claimant is not entitled to training compensation as it was not the player’s last club.

11. Moreover, the Respondent submitted a copy of the transfer agreement it entered into with Club G regarding the transfer of the player against the payment of a compensation of EUR 500,000. In this context, the Respondent submitted that, according to the jurisprudence of the DRC, whenever the parties to a transfer agreed upon a transfer compensation, training compensation is included in the transfer fee, unless otherwise explicitly stated, which was not the case in the relevant transfer agreement.

12. Furthermore, the Respondent referred to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations and held that the Claimant did not meet the prerequisites of said provision in order to be entitled to training compensation.

13. In addition, the Respondent asserted that said article was implemented to harmonize the regulations with the principles of the European Union and, in particular, the free movement of workers. Consequently, in the Respondent’s opinion, the interpretation of the Regulations should be in line with said principle. As a result, the Respondent argued that if training compensation is payable to the Claimant, in spite of the fact that a transfer compensation, which included the training compensation, was paid, this would result in accepting that the transfer of a player within the European Union has an extra cost, allegedly resulting in limiting the free movement of workers.

14. Alternatively, the Respondent referred to art. 1 par. 1 and to art. 6 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, and argued that the player had terminated his training and education period before joining the Claimant.

15. In particular, the Respondent provided a copy of a mass media report, according to which the player had been called to play for his U19, U20 and U21 national team, he played 11 minutes in one match for Club G in the League K, 32 matches in “League L” for Club H, 30 matches in the League M for Club J and 20 matches in the League K for the Claimant. Equally, the Respondent stated that the player had been registered as a professional for three seasons before joining the Claimant. As a result, the Respondent was of the opinion that the player was fully trained and that the Claimant did not incur any expenses to train him but that, on the contrary, it benefited from him in the 20 matches he played for the Claimant in the League K.

16. Lastly, the Respondent referred to the CAS who allegedly decided that a 17-year old player, who played 5 matches with the first team during his first season with a club and 15 during the second season, was considered to have terminated his training period before turning 19, as well as that a 17-year old player had terminated his training period as he was the most skilled player in all the national teams.

17. In its replica, the Claimant rejected the Respondent’s argumentation by reiterating that it is not the last club stricto sensu and pointing out that the Respondent has not provided any evidence supporting a deviation from the DRC’s well-established jurisprudence.

18. As to the definitive transfer of the player against payment, the Claimant stated that it is irrelevant as it was not a party to the transfer agreement. In this respect, the Claimant alleged that, according to the jurisprudence of the DRC, the conclusion of a transfer agreement between the player’s club of origin and the new club does not affect the entitlement of the club that accepted the player on loan, and stressed that it is the responsibility of the new club to correctly identify and pay the clubs entitled to training compensation.

19. As to the alleged early termination of the player’s training and education period, the Claimant submitted that it has to be established on a case-by-case basis, considering all the evidence and circumstances of the case. Equally, the Claimant stressed that the burden of proof lies with the Respondent and that the latter failed to provide sufficient and unequivocal evidence in this respect.

20. In this respect, the Claimant alleged that according to the jurisprudence of the DRC, this exception is reserved for “young players, who, at the age of 17 or 18 are globally known for their exceptional talents, who are regulars on both the club and national level and who are frequently focus of the transfer arrangements to the world’s top clubs” and stated that the Respondent failed to demonstrate that the player was globally known, that he was a frequent player with Club G and the National Team of Country B and that he was frequently the focus of transfer arrangements by top clubs.

21. In this context, and as to the transfer compensation paid by the Respondent for the transfer of the player, the Claimant assessed that, although the player’s salary or the fee paid for his transfer may be an indication of the player’s value at a club, it is common that clubs pay significant amounts as transfer fees for promising talents and that this transfer fee was paid after the player was registered for the Claimant and after the end of the season of his 21st birthday. Consequently, the Claimant asserted that the transfer fee itself is not an indication of the early termination of the player’s training period.

22. Equally, the Claimant held that the Respondent failed to prove that Club G was significantly compensated for the loss of the player’s services while he was loaned to third clubs, which could have been an indication that the reason why he was loaned was to obtain an economic benefit rather than to provide him with opportunities to gain experience and continue his training and education in other clubs with which he would be able to play more minutes.

23. Lastly, the Claimant argued that the Respondent failed to demonstrate that the player was publicly known at national and international level. On the contrary, the Claimant submitted that the player was loaned to clubs playing in lower divisions or to clubs that cannot be considered as top clubs and that he was never called for his A national team, playing only in friendly matches for his U19 and U20 national teams. In particular, the Claimant provided mass media reports, according to which the player:

- was in the starting eleven of Club G’s U19 team 22 times in the League N,

- was fielded 31 times out of 34 possible games with Club H in League L, 1 of which as a substitute,

- was fielded 30 times out of the 42 possible games with Club J in League M, 3 of which as a substitute,

- was fielded 20 times out of the 38 possible league games of the Claimant in League K, 13 of which as a substitute, and

- the player was fielded during his loan with the Respondent in 12 games out of 41 in League O, and that in 4 of these matches he was a substitute.

In this context, the Claimant concluded that, although both the latter and Club G were playing in the League K, Club G did not consider him ready to be included in its squad, resulting in the player being loaned to other clubs to give him the opportunity to play.

24. In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated its previous arguments and held that, should training compensation be payable to the Claimant, it would be Club G’s responsibility to pay it as it received the transfer compensation.

25. As to the early termination of the player’s training and education period, the Respondent submitted that it would be unreasonable that a player has to be internationally recognized in order to consider that his training and education period has terminated before the end of the season of his 21st birthday, as the level of a player depends on his quality and potential rather than on his age. In particular, the Respondent argued that would the DRC follow the Claimant’s arguments, only “exceptional” players would terminate their training period before the end of the season of their 21st birthday and this, logically, is not the case.

26. Lastly, the Respondent also pointed out that the player neither before nor after the end of the season of his 21st birthday reached a level that allowed him to be an established player with Club G. Consequently, the Respondent was of the opinion that this is not a matter of maturity of the player but rather of technical criteria.

II. Considerations of the sub-committee of the DRC

1. First of all, the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as the sub-committee) 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 4 November 2016. 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 sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber referred to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its jurisdiction in light of arts 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016). In accordance with art. 3 of Annexe 6 in conjunction with art. 24 par. 3 and art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the sub-committee is competent to decide on the present matter relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations handled through TMS.

3. Furthermore, the sub-committee 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 (edition 2016), and considering that the player was definitely registered with the Respondent on or about 1 July 2015, the 2015 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. The competence of the sub-committee and the applicable regulations having been established, the sub-committee entered into the substance of the matter. The sub-committee started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. However, the sub-committee 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 regard, the sub-committee recalled that the player, born on 26 September 1992, was registered on a loan basis with the Claimant for the period between 12 July 2013 and 30 June 2014. Equally, the sub-committee observed that after expiry of this loan period, the player returned to his club of origin, Club G, i.e. the club with which the player was still contractually bound. Subsequently, after having previously been registered with the Respondent on a loan basis during 1 season, on 1 July 2015, the player was registered with the Respondent on a definitive basis following the conclusion of a transfer agreement between Club G and the Respondent involving a transfer compensation amounting to EUR 500,000.

6. In continuation, the sub-committee took note that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 90,000.

7. Equally, the sub-committee 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 and that, if any amount of training compensation would be due, it should be Club G’s responsibility to pay it as it received the transfer compensation. Also, the Respondent stated that the Claimant did not offer the player a contract in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations and that, therefore, it is not entitled to training compensation. Alternatively, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim alleging that the player’s training and education period had terminated before joining the Claimant.

8. Having said this, the sub-committee referred to the rules applicable to training compensation and 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 the player was effectively trained by that club.

9. 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 the solidarity mechanism.

10. Following the above, the sub-committee 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 a 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 DRC’s well-established jurisprudence that all clubs which have in actual 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.

11. In other words, the sub-committee 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.

12. In this respect and for the sake of good order, the sub-committee 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 sub-committee 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.

13. Following the above, the sub-committee 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.

14. 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 sub-committee 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 sub-committee acknowledged that the Claimant was not the player’s former club stricto sensu, however, the sub-committee pointed out that, within the framework of loans, the period of time that the player was registered with his club of origin, i.e. Club G, and the period of time that the player was registered with the club that accepted him on loan, i.e. the Claimant, 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.

15. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the sub-committee 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.

16. For these reasons, the sub-committee rejected the Respondent’s respective argument.

17. The sub-committee equally decided to reject the Respondent’s argument that training compensation for the player is included in the EUR 500,000 transfer compensation it contractually agreed upon with Club G, since the Claimant was no party to the pertinent transfer agreement.

18. In continuation, the sub-committee went on to examine whether or not the player’s training period had already been completed before the season of the player’s 21st birthday, as alleged by the Respondent.

19. In this respect, the sub-committee referred to art. 6 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). More specifically, the members of the sub-committee referred to art. 6 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that, inside the EU/EEA, the final season of training may occur before the season of the player’s 21st birthday if it is established that the player completed his training before that time.

20. In view of the above, the sub-committee stated that it first had to verify whether art. 6 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies to the present case as lex specialis.

21. In this regard, the sub-committee indicated that, since the player moved from one association to another association inside the territory of the EU, said article is applicable. Therefore, the sub-committee concluded that art. 6 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies in the case at hand as lex specialis.

22. In this context, the sub-committee emphasized that cases involving a possible early completion of a player’s training period have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, whereby all the specific circumstances and all the evidence produced have to be taken into consideration. Hence, several factors and indications have to be considered in order to assess and establish whether a particular player’s training has indeed been completed before the season of his 21st birthday. For the sake of completeness, the sub-committee pointed out that, so far, both the DRC as well as the CAS have adopted a strict approach in establishing that a player’s training had indeed been completed before the season of a player’s 21st birthday, so as to not jeopardize the right of training clubs to, in principle, receive training compensation.

23. Taking into account all the specific circumstances of the present matter as well as all the evidence produced by the parties to the dispute, the sub-committee highlighted that, during the period of registration with Club G, the player had not played on a regular basis with the A team of the latter and had, thus, undoubtedly not the same level of training and football skills as his colleagues. In particular, the sub-committee underlined that, according to the documentation on file, the player had only played for Club G’s U19 team and for 11 minutes in League K, as well as with Club H and Club J in League L and in League M respectively. Consequently, the sub-committee considered that it could not be established that the player had been a permanent member of Club G’s first team.

24. In continuation, the sub-committee noted that the player was a regular for the youth teams of his national team. The sub-committee outlined that this may indeed be an indication of the player’s talent, skills and level of training, however, such fact is in itself not conclusive in establishing that a particular player indeed already completed his training period.

25. The sub-committee further referred to the player’s career, according to which he was a well-established player in League L with Club H and thereafter played regularly in League M with Club J. In this context, the sub-committee pointed out that this may be an indication of his evolution, but does not necessarily mean that he was no longer in need of training.

26. In view of the above, the sub-committee concurred that, in the specific matter at hand and taking all the above-mentioned elements combined, it could not be established that the player had indeed already completed his training before joining the Respondent. Hence, the sub-committee deemed that the training period of the player had not been completed before the season of his 21st birthday.

27. Subsequently, the sub-committee turned its attention to the argument of the Respondent relating to art. 6 par. 3 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that if the former club does not offer the player a contract, no training compensation is payable unless the former club can justify that it is entitled to such compensation.

28. However, in this regard, the sub-committee pointed out that, in casu, a possible obligation to offer the player a contract in compliance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations would in principle lie with Club G, this is, the club with which the player concluded a professional contract that was suspended during the loan, and not with the Claimant. As stated in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, said provision is without prejudice to the right of training compensation of the player’s previous club(s).

29. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the sub-committee concurred that it 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.

30. 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 sub-committee concluded that the effective period of time to be considered in the matter at stake, i.e. 12 July 2013 until 30 June 2014, corresponds to the season of the season of the player’s 21st birthday, i.e. the entire 2013/2014 season.

31. Furthermore, the sub-committee referred to art. 5 paras 1 and 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. Equally, the sub-committee recalled the contents of art. 6 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that when a player moves from a lower to a higher category club within the territory of the EU/EEA, the amount of training compensation payable shall be calculated based on the average training costs of the two clubs.

32. In this respect, the sub-committee noted that both the Claimant and the Respondent belonged to club category 1, which corresponds to the indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year within UEFA.

33. In light of the foregoing, the sub-committee decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 90,000.

34. Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the sub-committee 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 31st day of the registration of the player with the Respondent on a definitive basis, i.e. as of 1 August 2015, until the date of effective payment.

35. Lastly, the sub-committee 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 and the 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.

36. In respect of the above, the sub-committee held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 90,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the sub-committee concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules).

37. As a result, and taking into account the complexity of the case, the sub-committee 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 sub-committee of the DRC

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 90,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 1 August 2015 until the date of effective payment.

3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid by the Respondent 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 8,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, within 30 days of notification of the present decision as follows:

4.1 The amount of CHF 6,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. XXX:

UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH 27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

4.2 The amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid to the Claimant.

5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 4.2. above are to be made and to notify the sub-committee of the DRC 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

For the sub-committee of the DRC:

Omar Ongaro

Football Regulatory Director

Enclosed: CAS directives