F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2011-2012) – indennità di formazione – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2011-2012) – training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 1 February 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member David Mayebi (Cameroon), member Philippe Diallo (France), member Essa M. Saleh Al Housani (United Arab Emirates), member on the claim presented by the club, Club P, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club Q, from country G as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player W

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2011-2012) - indennità di formazione – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2011-2012) - training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 1 February 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member David Mayebi (Cameroon), member Philippe Diallo (France), member Essa M. Saleh Al Housani (United Arab Emirates), member on the claim presented by the club, Club P, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club Q, from country G as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player W I. Facts of the case 1. The country B Football Federation confirmed that the player, Player W (hereinafter: the player), born in April 1989, was registered with its affiliated club, Club P(hereinafter: the Claimant) as from 1 January 2005 until 1 July 2007 as an amateur and as from 2 July 2007 until 9 February 2009 as well as from 1 April 2009 until 12 May 2009 as a professional. Between 10 February 2009 and 31 March 2009 the player was loaned to a third club. 2. The football season in country B during the period of time the player was registered with the Claimant started on 1 January and ended on 31 December. 3. According to the player passport issued by the country B Football Federation, on 14 August 2009, the player was transferred to the country G club, Club Q (hereinafter: the Respondent) as a professional player. As to the player’s registration between 13 May 2009 and 13 August 2009, the player passport indicated that there was “no record found”. 4. According to an official confirmation of the country G Football Federation, the Respondent belonged to the category II at the time the player was registered with the Respondent. Furthermore, the country G Football Federation confirmed that the player was registered with the Respondent on 18 August 2009 as a professional and that the player’s International Transfer Certificate (ITC) was issued by the country B Football Federation on 14 August 2009. 5. On 21 September 2010, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting the payment of training compensation from the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant is requesting EUR 60,000 for each year that the player was registered with the Claimant, i.e. EUR 60,000 for the complete seasons of the player’s 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th birthday and 2,72 months of the season of the player’s 20th birthday. 6. On 1 April 2011, the Respondent provided FIFA with its position. In this respect, the Respondent argued that the player “was not coming from country B directly but was under contract with the Club R, from country S” and that “Club R got the player and loaned him to Club Q”. Therefore, it argued that Club R should pay the relevant training compensation and requested FIFA to integrate Club R in the present proceedings. 7. To its submission, the Respondent enclosed a copy of an agreement dated 10 June 2009 signed between Club R and the Respondent according to which both clubs agreed upon a cooperation venture regarding the loan of youth division players, exchange of technicians and possible friendly matches. Equally, the Respondent enclosed a copy of an unsigned loan agreement involving both clubs and the player, dated 20 August 2009. 8. Also, the Respondent enclosed extracts from press releases referring to the transfer of the player from Club R to the Respondent and provided copies of e- mails exchanged between it and Club R in connection with the alleged transfer. The Respondent is of the opinion that the present matter is a clear case where a club is trying to avoid the payment of training compensation by loaning a player to a smaller club. The Respondent deems that it is not important if the player was ever registered with the country S Football Federation the essential point is whether the player was of Club R, which, in the Respondent’s view, is impossible to refute. 9. Upon FIFA’s request, the Respondent stated that no ITC was issued from the country S Football Federation to the country G Football Federation as, even though the player was under contract with Club R, Club R never requested the ITC from the country B Football Federation and, therefore, the Respondent had to request it from the country B Football Federation. Also, the Respondent indicated that there was no registration of the player in the country S Football Federation at the time of the loan. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as: 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 21 September 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. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake concerning training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. Furthermore, 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 2008, 2009 and 2010), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 21 September 2010 as well as that the player was registered with the Respondent on 18 August 2009, the 2008 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. 5. First of all, the Chamber recalled that the player was born in April 1989 and was registered with the Claimant as from 1 January 2005 until 1 July 2007 as an amateur and as from 2 July 2007 until 9 February 2009 as well as from 1 April 2009 until 12 May 2009 as a professional. 6. In continuation, the Chamber took note that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent, indicating that the player was registered as a professional with the Respondent and that, in accordance with art. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is due when a professional is transferred between clubs of two different associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 7. Equally, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant, arguing that the player was under contract with the Club R, from country S before being transferred to the Respondent. Therefore, the Respondent argues that Club R, from country S is the club liable to pay training compensation. 8. In this context, the Chamber first referred to the rules applicable to training compensation, and stated 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 be owed to the player’s former club for the time he was effectively trained by the club. 9. In continuation, and as to the arguments put forward by the Respondent, the Chamber observed that the Respondent had enclosed an extract of a website, press releases and several e-mails which, in the Respondent’s view, proved that the player joined Club R and that he was loaned from Club R to the Respondent. In this respect, the Chamber also noted that the Respondent submitted a copy of an agreement dated 10 June 2009 concluded between Club R and the Respondent, according to which both clubs agreed upon a cooperation venture regarding the loan of youth division players. Equally, the Chamber noted that the Respondent enclosed a copy of an unsigned loan agreement dated 20 August 2009 which contained the name of Club R, the Respondent and the player. 10. On account of the above, and as to the submissions of both parties in the present matter, the Chamber considered that the Claimant and the Respondent had divergent views on whether the player was registered with a third club prior to being registered with the Respondent i.e. divergent views on whether the player was transferred from the Claimant to the Respondent in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, and, consequently, whether the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant. 11. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. The application of this principle in the present matter led the members of the Chamber to conclude that it was up to the Respondent to prove that the player was indeed registered with Club R and thus that the latter club was liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant. 12. Turning its attention to the documentation contained in the file, the Chamber could verify that neither an International Transfer Certificate (ITC) was issued by the country B Football Federation to the country S Football Federation in connection with the player concerned nor by the country S Football Federation to the country G Football Federation. Equally, the Chamber pointed out that the country G Football Federation had confirmed that the player’s ITC was received from the country B Football Federation directly and not from the country S Football Federation. Hence, and contrary to the statement of the Respondent, the Chamber established that, based on the information provided by the relevant associations, the player was at no time officially registered with Club R nor loaned or transferred from Club R to the Respondent. 13. In this regard, the Chamber considered that the fact that an extract of Club R webpage, press releases and the e-mail correspondence indicated that the player was a player of Club R is not sufficient evidence to establish that the player was indeed officially registered with, or transferred to, Club R or, as the Respondent puts it, “was of Club R”. Equally, the Chamber considered that it could not be proven that the player was loaned from Club R to the Respondent. In this context, the Chamber emphasized that the loan agreement submitted by the Respondent was not signed by any of the involved parties. 14. In view of all the above, the Chamber considered that the last club with which the player was officially registered before his transfer to the Respondent was the Claimant and that it, therefore, could be established that the player was transferred as a professional from the Claimant to the Respondent in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. In view of all the foregoing, the Chamber deemed that Club R does not have any standing to be sued in the present matter. 15. On account of the above considerations, in particular, in view of the fact that all the official documentation issued by the relevant associations indicated that the player’s ITC was issued directly by the country B Football Federation to the country G Football Federation, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant was the former club of the player in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 16. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber referred to the FIFA circular no. 1185 dated 22 April 2009, which provides details for the calculation of training compensation, as well as to art. 5 par. 1 and par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulate, inter alia, 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. 17. In continuation, the Chamber took into account that according to the documentation on file, the Respondent belonged to the club category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) and that the player, born on 1 April 1989, was registered with the Claimant as from 1 January 2005 until 9 February 2009 and as from 1 April 2009 until 12 May 2009. 18. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and concluded that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 250,000. 19. The Chamber concluded its deliberations as to the substance of the case by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant. 20. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which in the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Chamber relating to disputes regarding training compensation and the solidarity mechanism, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 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 proceeding are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 21. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 22. Considering that the case at hand allowed to be dealt with following a reasonable procedure, that the present case did not show particular factual difficulty and that it did not involve specific legal complexity, the Chamber determined the final amount of costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 12,000. 23. In view of all of the above and considering that the Respondent was the unsuccessful party in the present matter, the Chamber concluded that the amount of currency of H 12,000 has to be paid by the Respondent to cover the costs of the present proceedings. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club P, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club Q, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 250,000 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. falls 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 in the amount of currency of country H 12,000 is to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1 The amount of currency of country H 7,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. XX-XXXXX: 5.2 The amount of currency of country H 5,000 to the Claimant. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances 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. 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives