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 a matter between the Club A, from country H as Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the club Club B, from country P as Respondent / Counter-Claimant regarding a dispute related to training compensation in connection with the player J

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 a matter between the Club A, from country H as Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the club Club B, from country P as Respondent / Counter-Claimant regarding a dispute related to training compensation in connection with the player J I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the country H Football Federation the player J (hereinafter: the player), born in April 1990, was registered with the Club A, from country H (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent), as an amateur from 24 May 2002 until 31 December 2005, and as a professional from 1 January 2006 until 31 December 2008. 2. The football season in country H runs from January to December, i.e. it follows the calendar year. 3. The country H Football Federation further confirmed that only amateur football would exist in country H. In this respect, it specified that some clubs sign employment contracts with their players, but that the latters would not be paid more for their football activity than the expenses they effectively incur. In order to prove that the player was always registered as an amateur in country H, the country H Football Federation provided FIFA with a copy of the employment contract concluded between the player and the country H club. 4. This contract, valid from 27 April 2008 until the end of the season 2012, stipulated the player’s expenses for food and transport. In particular, the player was entitled to receive the amount of currency of country H 350 per training and match day for food expenses, as well as the amount of currency of country H 100 per training and match day for transport expenses. Furthermore, the club agreed to pay the costs for the tuition fees and professional education of the player during the period of the contract. The details should have then been included in an additional agreement. 5. According to a written confirmation issued by the country P Football Federation, the player was registered with its affiliate, Club B (hereinafter: the Respondent / CounterClaimant), first as an amateur on 23 January 2009, and then, on 16 July 2009, as a professional. 6. Upon FIFA’s request to confirm to which category the country P club belonged to, when the player was registered with the latter, the country P Football Federation answered that it was a category II club (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year within UEFA). 7. On 16 March 2009, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training compensation from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. In particular, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requested the amount of EUR 70,000 as training compensation. 8. In its statement of defence dated 19 May 2011, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant rejected the country H club’s claim alleging that it would be time-barred, since the player was registered in country P in January 2009. 9. Furthermore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant stated that no training compensation would be due in case the player reacquired amateur status as in the present matter. In this respect, the country P club referred to the International Transfer Certificate (hereinafter: ITC) issued by the country H Football Federation, according to which the player had been transferred as a professional. 10. Finally, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant stated that due to the “badwill” of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent as well as its offenses against the good reputation of the country P club, sporting sanctions should be imposed to the country H club and it should pay a fine “in the same amount claimed, i.e. EUR 70,000 plus EUR 40,000 plus USD 796,000” to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. 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 16 March 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 the articles 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 an country H club for the training and education of the player in connection with the first registration of said player as a professional for a country P club or with the international transfer of the professional player before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 3. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered for the Respondent on 16 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), and also considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 16 March 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. In continuation, the Chamber duly noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was of the opinion that the present claim should be viewed as time-barred, due to the fact that the player was already registered in country P since January 2009. 5. In view of the above, the Chamber deemed fundamental to underline that in order to determine whether it could hear the present matter, it should, first and foremost, establish which is “the event giving rise to the dispute”, i.e. which is the starting point of the time period of two years set out under art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations. In this regard, the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations, which stipulates that “the deadline for payment of training compensation is 30 days following the registration of the professional with the new association”. 6. Reverting to the facts of the present matter, the Chamber emphasised that the player was registered for the country P club, first as an amateur, on 23 January 2009, and then, on 16 July 2009, as a professional. 7. Furthermore, the DRC referred to art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations, according to which training compensation shall be due in case a player is registered for the first time as a professional or in case a professional player is transferred between two clubs of different associations. 8. On account of the foregoing and in accordance with art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Chamber unanimously decided that the event giving rise to the dispute, regarding the payment of training compensation occurred 30 days after the player’s registration as a professional with the country P club. 9. Therefore, the members of the Chamber came to the firm conclusion that, in casu, the payment of training compensation fell due on 15 August 2009, i.e. 30 days after the registration of the player at the country P Football Federation, and that this date was the starting point of the two years’ time period set out under art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations. Equally, the Chamber held that the time period of two years had elapsed, in casu, on 15 August 2011. 10. As a consequence, the Chamber recalled that the present claim was submitted to FIFA on 16 March 2009; this is, before the event giving rise to the dispute, i.e. the time limit of two years had not elapsed. The members of the Chamber therefore concluded that the claim of the country H club for training compensation can be heard by the Dispute Resolution Chamber. 11. In continuation, and entering into the substance of the matter, the members of the Chamber started by acknowledging that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requested the amount of EUR 70,000 as training compensation from the Respondent / Counter- Claimant. 12. On the other hand, the Dispute Resolution Chamber duly noted that Respondent / Counter-Claimant contested owing any amount of training compensation to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent due to the professional status of the player when he was registered in country H and the amateur status at his first registration in country P. Furthermore, the DRC took into account that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant also lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent asking for the total amount of EUR 960,000 as well as sporting sanctions to be imposed on the latter club. 13. First of all, the DRC went on to analyse in detail the exact status of the player while he was registered in country H, and in this context, referred again to art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations, according to which training compensation shall be due in case a player is registered for the first time as a professional or in case a professional player is transferred between clubs of two different associations. 14. In this context, the members of the Chamber determined however that the status of the player within country H would, in no case, prevent the Claimant / CounterRespondent from receiving training compensation. 15. As a matter of fact, the DRC observed that the player was indeed registered first as an amateur player for the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. However, turning their attention to art. 3 par. 2 of the Regulations, pursuant to which the new club shall pay training compensation if a player re-registers as a professional within 30 months of being reinstated as an amateur, the members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber unanimously concluded that the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation from the country P club. 16. As a result, and considering art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 to the Regulations, which stipulates that the amount of training compensation payable is calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of time that the player spent training with each club, the Chamber concluded that the effective period of training to be considered in the matter at stake corresponds to the period from 24 May 2002 until 31 December 2008, i.e. part of the season 2002 as well as the entire seasons 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008, and that these seasons correspond to the seasons of the player’s 12th to 18th birthdays. 17. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber referred in this regard to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of Annexe 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 as 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. However, art. 5 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations provides that the training costs for players for the seasons between their 12th and 15th birthdays are based on the training and education costs of category 4 clubs. 18. In continuation, the Chamber took due note that, according to the information provided by the country P Football Federation, Club B was a category 2 club at the time the player was registered for it. Moreover, the Chamber took into account that since the player was also registered for the Claimant / Counter-Respondent during the seasons of his 12th to 15th birthdays (i.e. three and a half seasons), the applicable club category to be taken into consideration for the calculation of training compensation for these seasons is the category 4 within UEFA, i.e. the amount of EUR 10,000. Thus, the Chamber acknowledged that the training costs for a category 2 club and member of a national association affiliated to the UEFA amount to EUR 60,000 per season, while the training costs for a category 4 club amount to EUR 10,000 per season. 19. Consequently and taking into account all the above-mentioned elements, as well as the claim of the country H club, in casu the amount of EUR 70,000 the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive training compensation in the amount of EUR 70,000 from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. Thus, the claim of the Claimant is accepted, while the counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is consequently rejected. 20. 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 S 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings. 21. In this respect, the Chamber reiterated that the claim of the Claimant / Counter- Respondent is accepted and the counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant rejected. Therefore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 22. 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. 23. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings amounts to EUR 70,000 related to the claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 15,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules). 24. Considering that the matter at stake allowed to be dealt with following a reasonable procedure, that the present matter showed particular factual difficulty, but 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 S 12,000. 25. In view of all the above, and bearing in mind that the claim of the Claimant / Counter- Respondent was accepted and the counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant rejected, the Chamber concluded that the amount of currency of country H 12,000 has to be paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to FIFA in order to cover the costs of the present proceedings. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Club A, is accepted. 2. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club B, has to pay to the Claimant / Counter- Respondent, Club A, the amount of EUR 70,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. If the aforementioned amount is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, an interest rate of 5% per annum 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 a formal decision. 4. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country S 12,000 are to be paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club B, within 30 days of notification of the present decision to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. XX-XXXXX: 5. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Club A, is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club B, 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. 6. The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club B, is rejected. 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