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 March 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Michele Colucci (Italy), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Ivan Gazidis (England), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member on the claim presented by the club Club I, from country B as Claimant against the club Club K, from country T as Respondent regarding a dispute relating to training compensation in connection with the transfer of the player S

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 March 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Michele Colucci (Italy), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Ivan Gazidis (England), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member on the claim presented by the club Club I, from country B as Claimant against the club Club K, from country T as Respondent regarding a dispute relating to training compensation in connection with the transfer of the player S I. Facts of the case 1. The player S (hereinafter: the player) was born in August 1983. 2. As per the player passport issued by the country B Football Confederation, the player was registered within said Confederation as from July 1999 as follows: a) as an amateur: - 8 July 1999 - 20 December 2001 Club I - 21 December 2001 - 20 January 2002 “No record found” b) as a professional: - 21 January 2002 - 4 August 2002 Club I - 5 August 2002 - 5 November 2002 loaned to Club E - 6 November 2002 - 11 January 2004 Club I - 12 January 2004 - 31 December 2004 loaned to Club S - 1 January 2005 - 5 September 2005 Club E - 6 September 2005 - 31 December 2005 loaned to Club J - 1 January 2006 - 9 August 2006 Club I - 9 August 2006 - 10 August 2006 Club O 3. Upon specific request, the City P Football Federation informed FIFA, via the country B Football Federation, that “Club I” is a civil association, affiliated to the City P Football Federation but that, in May 2000, said affiliate hired the commercial association “Club I Sociedade Civil de Futebol Ltda” to administrate all the club’s activities related to football, thus substituting “Club I” in its duties and charges with the City P Football Federation. Finally, in November 2006, due to the above-mentioned partnership’s dissolution, the duties and charges with the City P Football Federation were “abdicated” by “Club I Civil de Futebol Ltda” and once again re-established in favour of “Club I”. 4. The country B sporting season follows the calendar year. 5. According to the country T Football Federation, the player signed a professional contract with its affiliated club, Club K (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 7 July 2006, and the issuance of his international transfer certificate (hereinafter: ITC) was requested from the country B Football Federation on 11 July 2006. The country T Football Federation maintained having received the relevant ITC from the country B Football Federation on 18 July 2006 and having registered the player for the Respondent on 4 August 2006. 6. According to the country T Football Federation, the Respondent is classified as a category 2 club (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 within UEFA). 7. On 11 May 2007, the country B club, Club I (hereinafter: the Claimant), lodged a claim before FIFA requesting that the Respondent be ordered to pay to it training compensation in the total amount of EUR 250,685 for the period of time the country B club trained and educated the player. 8. In this regard, the Claimant explained that on 9 August 2006, the country B Football Federation had recognised the termination of the employment contract between the player and the Claimant, in accordance with a preliminary judicial order issued by an ordinary country B labour court on 8 August 2006 upon request of the player. 9. Thereafter, according to the player passport issued by the country b Football Federation, on 10 August 2006, the player had been transferred to the Respondent, without any compensation having been paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. 10. Furthermore, the Claimant maintained that prior to the player’s transfer to the Respondent and even prior to his release from the Claimant by the ordinary country B labour court, the player had already been training in country T in the facilities of the Respondent. 11. The Claimant presented in this respect extracts from the Respondent’s webpage, declaring, inter alia, that the player would arrive to the Respondent at the end of June 2006. 12. According to the Claimant, these circumstances demonstrated that in fact the Respondent had induced the player to breach his contract with the Claimant. 13. Moreover, in order to avoid its obligation to pay training compensation as well as the imposition of sporting sanctions according to the respective FIFA provisions due to its inducement to a breach of contract, the Respondent had arranged for the registration of the player with another country B club, in casu with Club O, immediately prior to his transfer to country T. 14. Consequently, the Claimant summarised that the player had his contract with the Claimant terminated by an ordinary country B labour court on 8 August 2006, was registered one day later with Club O, and again only one day later the country B Football Federation apparently issued his ITC in favour of the Respondent. The player himself had however allegedly already been training with the country T club since 24 June 2006. 15. Therefore, according to the Claimant, when the player concluded his agreement with Club O, he had absolutely no intention of complying with it, as he was already living in country T and training with the Respondent. 16. The Claimant concluded that the Respondent had only registered the player with Club O for a single day in order to prevent the Claimant from receiving its duly earned training compensation. Such simulation would allow the Respondent, instead of paying a considerable amount of training compensation to the Claimant, to pay merely a derisory amount to Club O. Consequently, the Claimant held that, since the registration of the player with Club O constituted an attempt to circumvent the FIFA Regulations regarding training compensation, for the purposes of the distribution of training compensation in the present matter, the player’s registration with Club O shall be disregarded, particularly in view of the dangerous precedent which would be created if such behaviour was admitted. Therefore, the Claimant’s right to receive training compensation from the Respondent for the training of the player shall not be curtailed by his one-day registration for Club O. 17. In its statement of defence, the Respondent firstly held that the player had been transferred, upon the cancellation of his contract with the Claimant by the country B labour court, to Club O and then to the Respondent in compliance with applicable regulations. 18. Moreover, the Respondent held that, whereas the Claimant alleges that the player had been training with the Respondent since 24 June 2006, the contract between the player and the latter club had only been signed on 7 July 2006. The player had only participated in matches with the Respondent upon receipt of his ITC by the country T Football Federation[, i.e. on 18 July 2006]. 19. The Respondent also decidedly refuted any allegations that it had induced the player to cancel his contract with the Claimant or that it had used Club O to circumvent the rules governing the payment of training compensation. In any event, the Respondent emphasised that such claims had not been proven by any documentary evidence. 20. The Respondent concluded that, in the event of the transfer of a professional, training compensation shall only be paid to the player’s last club. Consequently, only Club O is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent. Moreover, the latter club stated that training compensation was only due if a player had been transferred against payment of transfer compensation. As this was not the case in the present matter, the Respondent deemed it had no obligation to pay training compensation to the Claimant. Finally, in view of the circumstances of the player’s departure from country B, the Respondent lent emphasis to art. 2 par. 2 of Annex 4 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players, stipulating that training compensation is, inter alia, not due if the former club terminates the player’s contract without just cause. On account of all the foregoing, the Respondent requested that the Claimant’s complaint be rejected. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 11 May 2007. Consequently, the previous edition (i.e. the edition 2005) 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 in hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the 2008 edition of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the members of 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 arts. 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on the present litigation relating to training compensation between two clubs belonging to different associations. 3. Furthermore, taking into consideration that the player was registered with his new club, i.e. the Respondent - as confirmed by the country T Football Federation - on 4 August 2006, and considering that the present claim was lodged on 11 May 2007, 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 2010, 2009 and 2008), the previous version of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (i.e. the edition 2005; hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter in 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. 5. The members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the aforementioned facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in the file. In particular, the Chamber took due note that the Claimant requested training compensation from the Respondent amounting to EUR 250,685. In particular, the Claimant emphasised that irrespective from the fact that the player in question had already been previously registered as a professional with another country B club, in casu with Club O, it is entitled to receive the claimed training compensation from the Respondent, since the players’ previous registration was aimed to circumvent the Respondent’s obligation to pay training compensation. 6. On the other hand, the deciding authority took note that the Respondent rejected the complaint of the Claimant emphasising that the player had already been registered as a professional with the country B club, Club O, and that only the latter club would be entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent. The Respondent also refuted the allegation of the Claimant, according to which the Respondent had induced the player to cancel his contract with the Claimant or that it had used Club O to circumvent the rules governing the payment of training compensation. As a result, the Respondent underlined that it does not owe any amount at all to the Claimant since the matter at stake has to be considered a subsequent transfer of a professional player. 7. In this context, the Chamber recalled that, as a general rule, training compensation for a player’s training and education is, in principle, due when a player is registered as a Professional for the first time and in case of a subsequent transfer of a Professional, Training Compensation will only be owed to his former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club (cf. art. 3 par. 1 of Annex 4 to the Regulations). 8. Furthermore, in view of the diametrically opposed positions of the parties and the contradictory information provided by both national associations, i.e. the country b Football Federation and the country T Football Federation, the Chamber deemed it necessary to examine the very specific circumstances of the matter at stake in order to establish the player’s career history, and, a fortiori, to establish whether the Claimant was entitled to receive any training compensation from the Respondent. In other words, the DRC had to establish whether the Respondent tried to circumvent FIFA’s applicable rules on training compensation so as to avoid paying any such compensation for the player to the Claimant. 9. First of all, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the information provided by the country B Football Federation and the country T Football Federation throughout the present proceedings regarding the player’s registration with Club O and the Respondent. 10. It is undisputed that the player had signed an employment contract with the Respondent on 7 July 2006. 11. It is further not contested that the player had been transferred definitively from the country B Football Federation to the country T Football Federation based on an “IRTC” dated 18 July 2006, following an ITC request made by the country T Football Federation on 11 July 2006. 12. It is also undisputed that the player had been registered for the first time for the Respondent on 4 August 2006. 13. And finally, it is not contested by the Respondent that the player was never physically present at the premises of Club O. 14. However, it is expressly disputed by the Claimant that the player was registered for the Respondent on 10 August 2006, after having been registered for Club O for one day from 9 until 10 August 2006. 15. In view of the foregoing, the DRC highlighted the rather imprecise, even contradictory information provided by the country B Football Federation and the country T Football Federation regarding the player’s registration(s) with Club O and with the Respondent. 16. In continuation, the Chamber turned its attention to the Claimant’s position, according to which the player had, upon his specific request, asked his contract with the Claimant to be terminated by an ordinary country B labour court on 8 August 2006 and was registered one day later with Club O. The player had, however, allegedly already been training with the Respondent since 24 June 2006, fact that was not contested by the Respondent, and had already signed an employment contract with the latter club on 7 July 2006. The Chamber equally noted that the Claimant provided FIFA with several internet releases from the Respondent’s website, which mentioned that the player had been transferred to them at the end of June 2006 and gone to the pre-season camp at the end of July 2007. Once again, the Chamber reiterated that the presence of the player at the Respondent was not contested by the latter club. 17. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber took note once again of the Claimant’s allegation that the player’s registration with the Club O, from country B, was made only in order to circumvent its entitlement to receive training compensation from the Respondent. 18. In this regard, the Chamber turned its attention to the argumentation provided by the Respondent regarding the registration of the player with Club O and noted that the Respondent had remained rather vague, even contradictory, with regard to the fact that the player was supposed to be registered with Club O for one day, while he was already in country T since the end of June 2006, and had even signed an employment contract there one month prior to said registration. In addition, and recalling the general legal principle of the burden of proof contained in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the DRC noted that the Respondent never tried to demonstrate with convincing documentary evidence that the player had ever been at the premises of Club O, not to speak about having participated to training or even played matches for said club. 19. In view of the foregoing, the DRC was eager to underline the fact that it could not acquire the certainty that the player had indeed played for Club O. On the contrary, the Chamber was of the opinion that Club O did not appear to have benefited from the training efforts invested by the Claimant and that, in reality, the player had always played for the Respondent since his registration already on 4 August 2006, i.e. 5 days prior to his alleged registration for Club O on 9 August 2006. 20. In view of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber was unanimously of the opinion to be in the presence of clear attempt to circumvent the Regulations relating to training compensation. 21. In fact, after having been registered for several years with the Claimant, the player was registered for one day only with a new country B club, i.e. Club O, before being transferred to the Respondent. 22. Equally, the Dispute Resolution Chamber deemed it important to emphasise once again that the player has never physically been at Club O, that the employment contract with the country T club was signed, the ITC requested and the player registered for the country T club prior to the registration for the country B club, Club O. 23. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the registration with Club O should be disregarded and training compensation is due to the Claimant by the Respondent. 24. As a final remark, and for the sake of good order, the Chamber turned its attention to the Respondent’s last argument, according to which the Claimant unilaterally terminated the employment contract with the player. 25. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that on 9 August 2006, the country B Football Federation had recognised the termination of the employment contract between the player and the Claimant, in accordance with a preliminary judicial order issued by an ordinary country B labour court on 8 August 2006 upon request of the player, but that this judicial order does not refer to any fault or breach of contract committed by the Claimant. What is more, said order was suspended by the same judge eight days later. 26. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that it had rather been the player who terminated the relevant employment contract, and that therefore the Respondent’s argument had also to be rejected. 27. In continuation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber recalled that the player, born in August 1983, was registered with the Claimant from 8 July 1999 until at the latest 7 July 2006 (date of the signature of the player’s contract with the Respondent) first as an amateur and then as a professional, and that the latter club is requesting training compensation in an amount of EUR 250,685 for the training and education of the player incurred during six months of the season 1999, during the full seasons 2000 and 2001, during eight months of the season 2002, as well as during the complete season 2003. 28. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of Annex 4 to 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 the training club, as well as to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of Annex 4 to the Regulations, which stipulates that as a general rule, it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club 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. 29. In continuation, the Chamber took due note that according to the information provided by the country T Football Federation, the Respondent was a category 2 club at the time the player was registered for it during the season 2006/2007. Consequently, the Chamber took into account that the indicative training costs for a category 2 club and member of a national association affiliated to the “Union des associations européennes de football” (UEFA) amount to EUR 60,000 (cf. circular nr. 1085 dated 11 April 2007). 30. Consequently and taking into account all the above-mentioned elements as well as art. 5 par. 3 of Annex 4 to the Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided the Claimant was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in an amount of EUR 250,000 and hence, the complaint of the Claimant, Club I, is partially accepted. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club I, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club K, 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. Any further request filed by the Claimant is rejected. 4. If the aforementioned amount is not paid within the above-mentioned deadline, an interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiry of the fixed time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and decision. 5. The Claimant, Club I, is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance 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 article 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: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives