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 26 April 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Carlos Soto (Chile), member Brendan Schwab (Australia), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Todd Durbin (USA), member on the claim presented by the club Club S, from country M as Claimant against the club Club L, from country A as Respondent regarding a dispute relating to training compensation in connection with the transfer of the player P

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 26 April 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Carlos Soto (Chile), member Brendan Schwab (Australia), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Todd Durbin (USA), member on the claim presented by the club Club S, from country M as Claimant against the club Club L, from country A as Respondent regarding a dispute relating to training compensation in connection with the transfer of the player P I. Facts of the case 1. The country S Football Association confirmed that the player, Player P (hereinafter: the player), born in June 1990, was registered as an amateur player with its affiliated clubs, as follows: • with the Club I (hereinafter: Club I) from 13 September 2000 until 27 February 2004; • with the Club S (hereinafter: the Claimant) from 1 March 2004 until 16 January 2006; • with the country S club, Club T, from 17 January 2006 until 17 July 2006; and finally, • with the country S club, Club P, from 18 July 2006 until 28 July 2009. Pursuant to the country S Football Association, the player was registered under a scholarship agreement during his registration with Club P. 2. According to the International Transfer Certificate (hereinafter: ITC) dated 29 July 2009, issued by the country S Football Association in favour of the country A Football Association, as well as to the “allowance” dated 29 July 2009 of Club P and the “clearance” dated 28 July 2009 of the respective country S league, the player had always amateur status during his registration with Club P. 3. The sporting season in country S lasts from 1 August until 31 July of the following year. 4. On 30 July 2009, the player was registered as a professional for the country A club, Club L (hereinafter: the Respondent). 5. The country A Football Association confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 within UEFA) during the season 2008/09. 6. On 20 October 2009, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming training compensation from the Respondent in connection with the player’s first registration as a professional. In particular, the Claimant requested the amount of EUR 41,910 plus interest as from the day of submission of its claim. 7. In its statement of defence, the Respondent argued that Club P had confirmed that the player had already been registered as a professional with Club P, as also quoted in the transfer agreement dated 29 June 2009: “1) Object of this agreement is the transfer of the professional football player P, born in June, 1990”. 8. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that according to the second clause of the transfer agreement, “any additional payments (eg. training compensation, solidarity contribution) according to FIFA/UEFA regulations are included in the aforementioned transfer compensation”. Therefore, so the Respondent, Club P would have to pay training compensation in case the Claimant should be entitled to receive it. 9. In its replication, however, the Claimant maintained its position that in accordance with the player passport issued by the country S Football Association, the player was registered with Club P as an amateur, and also provided a confirmation dated 26 July 2010 of said country S club, stating that it did not yet receive the payment of the agreed transfer compensation amounting to EUR 200,000 from the Respondent. 10. In its rejoinder, the Respondent maintained its comments and pointed out that the basis to decide about the status of a player was his salary, and not the confirmation of the respective football federation. In this respect, the Respondent provided the FIFA administration with a letter, dated 16 February 2010, of Club P, by means of which the latter club confirmed that the player was paid more than the expenses he incurred, and that, therefore, he should be considered as a professional player. Furthermore, the Respondent confirmed that it did not yet pay the transfer compensation of EUR 200,000 to Club P due to the present dispute. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, it referred to art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 20 October 2009. As a consequence, the Chamber concluded that the 2008 edition 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. 2. With regard to the competence of the Chamber, art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules 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. 1 par. 1 of the aforementioned Regulations, which describes the scope of the relevant Regulations, in connection with articles 24 par. 1 and 22 d) of said Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on the present litigation with an international dimension concerning the training compensation claimed by the country M club for the training and education of the player in connection with the first registration of said player as a professional for the country A club. 3. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered for the Respondent on 30 July 2009, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players 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 and 2009), the previous edition (2008) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (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 and started by acknowledging the facts of the case, as well as the documentation contained in the file. 5. In this respect, the members of the Chamber first of all acknowledged that the Claimant requested the amount of EUR 41,910 as training compensation from the Respondent plus interest as from the day of the submission of its claim. Particularly, the country M club insisted that its claim was based on the first registration of the player as a professional. 6. The Chamber took also note, on the other hand, that the Respondent contested the claim of the country M club emphasising that the player had already been registered as a professional with the country S club, Club P. In order to corroborate its position, the Respondent provided a copy of the transfer agreement signed with Club P in June 2009, according to which the parties had agreed a transfer compensation of EUR 200,000. 7. Equally, the members of the Chamber considered that the country S Football Association confirmed that the player had been registered as an amateur with Club P based on a scholarship agreement, a copy of which had not been provided by either party. 8. Thereafter, the DRC maintained 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 the Annexe 4 to the Regulations). 9. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to the general legal principle of the burden of proof, which is a basic principle in every legal system, according to which a party deriving a right from an asserted fact has the obligation to prove the relevant fact (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). 10. In this respect, the DRC turned its attention to the rare evidence on file and considered the relevant transfer agreement as the most convincing element. According to said agreement, Club P and the Respondent had agreed a transfer compensation amounting to EUR 200,000. Said payment, so the members of the Chamber, symbolises the amount payable to the former club in order to enable the transfer of a player to a new club during the validity of his employment contract. Consequently, the members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber unanimously concluded that a transfer compensation would clearly speak for a professional status of the player with his previous club. 11. Taking into account the above and due to the lack of proof with regard to the amateur status of the player with Club P, the DRC did not uphold the Claimant’s position in this regard. 12. Thus, and bearing in mind all the above-mentioned points, the members of the Chamber underlined that in accordance with the clear wording of the Regulations in case of subsequent transfers 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 Annexe 4 to the Regulations). 13. In light of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant is not entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent since the transfer of the player from the country S to the country A club has to be considered as a subsequent transfer of a professional player, and, therefore, only the previous club of the player would be entitled to receive training compensation. 14. Taking into account all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant’s demand for training compensation has to be rejected. 15. In continuation, 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 costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings. 16. In this respect, the Chamber reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is rejected. Therefore, the latter club has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 17. 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. 18. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings amounts to EUR 41,910 related to the claim of the country M club. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 10,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules). 19. Considering that the matter at stake allowed to be dealt with following a reasonable procedure, that the present matter 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 2,000. 20. In this respect, the DRC took into account that the Claimant had paid advance of costs in the amount of currency of country H 2,000 in accordance with art. 17 of the Procedural Rules. 21. In view of all the above, the Chamber concluded that the costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 2,000 had already been paid by the Claimant to FIFA. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club S, is rejected. 2. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 2,000 is to be borne by the Claimant, Club S, which amount has already been paid by the Claimant to FIFA as advance of costs. Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 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