F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2010-2011) – indennità di formazione – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2010-2011) – training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 May 2011, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman ad interim Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on the claim presented by the club O, as Claimant against the club P, as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the player H

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2010-2011) - indennità di formazione – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2010-2011) - training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 May 2011, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman ad interim Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on the claim presented by the club O, as Claimant against the club P, as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the player H I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation P (FFP), the player, H (hereinafter: the player), born on 1 January 1991, was registered with the clubs of the country P as follows: • Club O (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 21 February 2003 until 9 October 2006, as an amateur; • Club SP (hereinafter SP:), as from 10 October 2006 until 24 August 2008, as an amateur; • Club E (hereinafter: E), as from 25 August 2008 until 11 August 2009, as an amateur. 2. The football season in the country P runs as from 1 July until 30 June of the following year. 3. On 11 August 2009, the player was registered with the Football Association C (FAC) for its affiliated club P (hereinafter: the Respondent). 4. The Football Federation P confirmed that at the time the player was registered with it, the Claimant was a category IV club. 5. The Football Association C confirmed that the Respondent belonged to category IV club when the player was registered with it. 6. On 29 October 2010, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its relevant proportion of training compensation from the Respondent based on the fact that the player allegedly signed his first professional contract with the Respondent on 11 August 2009. 7. In particular, the Claimant requested training compensation for “the seasons when [the player] completed 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th birthdays (…), corresponding to 1328 days”, in the amount of EUR 39,917.80, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 11 September 2009 until the date of its effective payment as well as procedural costs. 8. On 24 January 2011, FIFA informed the Claimant that according to art. 2 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, training compensation is not due if a player is transferred to a category IV club, and that, consequently, the Claimant did not appear to have any valid legal basis for its claim for training compensation. 9. However, the Claimant insisted on its claim and held that “the Respondent’s category to be taken into account must be the one that it had during the sporting season when it acquired the player (UEFA’s Category III) instead of its current one (UEFA’s Category IV)”. Additionally, the Claimant stated that according to the table of the 1st Football League in 2009/2010 in the country C, the Respondent was participating in such division when the player was registered for it. 10. Upon specific request, the Football Association C informed FIFA that the Respondent participated in the 1st division in country C during the seasons 2008/2009 and 2009/2010, and then in the 2nd division during the season 2010/2011. Moreover, the Football AC confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the category IV during the sporting seasons 2008/2009, 2009/2010 and 2010/2011. 11. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to provide its position regarding the claim, the Respondent did not respond to the claim. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the DRC) 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 29 October 2010. Consequently, the 2008 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. article 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, which states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its jurisdiction in the light of art. 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2008). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 as well as art. 22 lit. d) of the aforementioned Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on disputes relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with the Respondent on 11 August 2009, 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 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2009 and 2008) and considering that the present claim was lodged on 29 October 2010, the 2008 edition of the said Regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the present matter as to the substance. 4. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that, contrary to the information contained in FIFA’s letter dated 13 May and 10 June 2011 by means of which the parties were informed of the composition of the Chamber, the member X and the member Z refrained from participating in the deliberations in the case at hand, due to the fact that the member X has the same nationality as the Claimant and that, in order to comply with the prerequisite of equal representation of club and player representatives, also the member Z refrained from participating. Thus, the Dispute Resolution Chamber adjudicated the case in presence of three members in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations. 5. The competence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file. 6. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging that the player was registered with the Claimant, as from 21 February 2003 until 9 October 2006, as an amateur. Moreover, the DRC took note that, afterwards, the player was registered with Club SP as from 10 October 2006 until 24 August 2008, as an amateur and with Club E as from 25 August 2008 until 11 August 2009, again as an amateur. 7. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant claimed training compensation from the Respondent for a total amount of EUR 39,917.80, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 11 September 2009. 8. In continuation, the DRC acknowledged that the Football Association C (FAC) confirmed that the player was registered with the Respondent on 11 August 2009, and that the Respondent was a category IV club at the time the player was registered with it as well as during the sporting seasons 2008/2009, 2009/2010 and 2010/2011. 9. In this context, the members of the Chamber, referring to the rules applicable to training compensation, stated that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in conjunction with art. 2 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations, training compensation is payable, as a general rule, up to the age of 23, for training incurred between the ages of 12 and 21 in case a player is registered for the first time as a professional and each time a professional is transferred until the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 10. Subsequently, the DRC referred to art. 2 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations, which stipulates, inter alia, that training compensation is not due if the player is transferred to a category IV club. 11. In this respect, the Chamber turned its attention to the official documents issued by the Football Association C as well as to the documentation provide by the Claimant. 12. Firstly, the Chamber took into consideration the documentation provided by the Football Association C by means of which it informed FIFA that the Respondent belonged to category IV at the time the player was registered with it. 13. In continuation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber recalled the general principle of burden of proof, (cf. 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 burden of proof. In this respect, the Chamber took into account the Claimant’s arguments in this respect and noted that the latter did not provide sufficient documentation in order to support its position that the Respondent belonged to category III and was not, therefore, able to sufficiently prove that the Respondent did not belong to category IV. 14. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled FIFA’s circular letter n. 1085 dated 11 April 2007 with regards to each national association’s responsibility to categorize its affiliated clubs. In this context, the Chamber reiterated that the Football Association C confirmed that the Respondent belonged to category IV when the player was registered with it, i.e. in August 2009, as well as for the seasons 2008/2009 and 2010/2011. 15. As a consequence of the above and having taken all the documentation provided by the parties into account, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant is not entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent since the latter belongs to category IV club, and that the relevant claim lodged by the Claimant had to be rejected. 16. Finally, the DRC referred to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which in the proceedings before the DRC relating to disputes regarding solidarity mechanism, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. According to the cited provision, the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings. 17. In this respect, the members of the Chamber reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is rejected. Therefore, the Claimant has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 18. According to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 19. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings amounts to EUR 39,917.80, 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). 20. Considering that the case at hand showed some degree of factual difficulty and a certain legal complexity, the Chamber determined the final amount of costs of the current proceedings in the amount of CHF 7,500. 21. However, the members of the Chamber took note that the Claimant had paid the amount of CHF 2,000 as advance of costs for the present affair. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the amount of CHF 5,500 has to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA to cover the cost of the proceedings. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, O, is rejected. 2. The final amount of costs of the proceedings amounts to CHF 7,500, of which CHF 2,000 have already been paid by the Claimant, O. Consequently, the amount of CHF 5,500 is to be paid by the Claimant, O, within 30 days of notification of the present decision to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. [XX- XXXXX/xxx]: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 63 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: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives