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: Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Todd Durbin (USA), member Brendan Schwab (Australia), member Carlos Soto (Chile), member on the claim presented by the club, X, as Claimant against the club, S, as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the player M

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: Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Todd Durbin (USA), member Brendan Schwab (Australia), member Carlos Soto (Chile), member on the claim presented by the club, X, as Claimant against the club, S, as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the player M I. Facts of the case 1. The Football Association F (FAF) confirmed that the player, M (hereinafter: the player), born on 21 November 1989, was registered with the country F club, X (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 15 July 2004 until 30 June 2007 as an amateur. 2. The sporting season in country F runs from 1 July until 30 June of the following year. 3. According to a written confirmation of The Football Federation E (The FFE), the player was registered with its affiliated club S (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 6 August 2007 as a professional. 4. The Football Association F confirmed that the Claimant belonged to the category III (indicative amount of EUR 30,000 per year within UEFA) during the time when the player was registered with it. 5. The Football Federation E confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year within UEFA) during the season when the player was registered with it. 6. On 4 June 2008, the Claimant contacted FIFA, claiming its proportion of training compensation from the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant requested payment of the amount of EUR 130,000 as well as that the Respondent should pay all procedural costs. 7. In support of its claim, the Claimant explained that the player had signed his first professional contract with the Respondent and that it was therefore entitled to receive training compensation. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that, after the player had been with the Claimant for three seasons, it was satisfied with his development and that it therefore wanted to keep him on the team for the next season. 8. In this respect, the Claimant also stated that the person who is responsible for the team “18 ans Honneur” had addressed a fax letter to the Respondent, dated 15 June 2007 (hereinafter: the letter dated 15 June 2007), declaring that the player was a free agent and therefore free to sign a contract with the Respondent, free of payment. 9. The aforementioned letter bears the letterhead of the Claimant and is entitled “lettre de sortie”; it reads as follows [free translation]: “The undersigned, Mr. D, responsible for the 18 years Honneur of club X, authorises the player M, licensed for our club for the season 2006-2007, to sign a license for the club of his choice free of payment.” 10. As regards the aforementioned letter, the Claimant stated that Mr. D did not have any authorisation to represent it or to issue such a statement and that he did not inform the Claimant about the statement. Furthermore, the Claimant explained that Mr. D had just before been informed that his employment contract with the Claimant would not be renewed after 30 June 2007. 11. In this regard, the Claimant also alleged that the player himself confessed having used, together with the Respondent, a “trick” in order to leave the Claimant. In support of this, the Claimant submitted an article of the magazine “…” in which the player is quoted as saying (free translation): “They did not want to let me go. It’s a retiring coach of the club (…), Mr. D, who signed the ‘lettre de sortie’ for me.” 12. Subsequently, after having asked to be provided with the original of the “lettre de sortie”, the Respondent had allegedly also asked for another letter in which the directors of the Claimant would declare that there was not only no transfer compensation due, but also no training compensation. 13. The Claimant furthermore held that the Respondent was trying to artificially assimilate the expression “free player” (in the sense that no transfer compensation would have to be paid for the player) to a hypothetical renouncement of the Claimant to its entitlement to receive training compensation. 14. As to the obligation to offer a contract to the player (art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players; hereinafter: the Regulations), the Claimant primarily held that, according to the commentary on the Regulations, said article was only applicable to players which are already professionals. Consequently, since the player was registered with the Claimant as an amateur, there was no obligation to offer a contract to him. 15. Subsidiarily, in case FIFA was of the opinion that the Claimant was, in principle, obliged to offer a contract to the player, the Claimant held that it was impossible for it to make such an offer, since the training centre of the Claimant had not received the approbation to offer contracts, as required by the relevant provisions of the professional league in country F. Therefore, the Claimant held that it could justify its right to claim training compensation. 16. In its response, the Respondent rejected the claim lodged against it and submitted the following requests for relief: - primarily, that no training compensation is due because the Claimant did not offer a contract to the player; - subsidiarily, if the DRC rules that training compensation is payable, then the Claimant waived its right to training compensation by means of the letter dated 15 June 2007; - subsidiarily, if the DRC rules that training compensation is payable, the DRC should “strike out the Appellant’s submission and consider its own decision on the grounds it is in breach of the European Community Law and in particular (…) the freedom of movement of workers and the rules on competition”; - subsidiarily, if the DRC rules that training compensation is payable, the claimed amounts should be reduced since they are excessive, disproportionate and since club X did not show a genuine interest in retaining the player; - in case the Respondent is successful, the Claimant should be liable for all costs and expenses incurred by the Respondent. 17. The Respondent did not dispute that the player signed his first professional contract, but held that no training compensation is payable if a player does not receive a contract from the club where he was trained. The Respondent argued that the Claimant did not offer any kind of contract to the player, that it did not do so in writing via registered mail 60 days in advance to the expiry of the contract, and that it did not show a bona fide and genuine interest in keeping the player. 18. In this respect, the Respondent also held that, even if the DRC was of the opinion that the letter dated 15 June 2007 was not a valid waiver, it was nevertheless clear evidence that the Claimant did not wish to retain the player in any capacity. 19. Furthermore, the Respondent submitted a witness statement of the player, dated 24 April 2009, in which the latter states, inter alia, the following: “During my time at the club I was an amateur player and did not play under any contract. Also during that time I was never offered any contract by the club. (…) At the end of 2005/6 season club X had still not offered me any contract for the following year and had not stated that they wanted to keep me. (…) At no point during the 2005/6 season, and in particular at the end of the season did any club official talk to me regarding a contract for the following season. (…) Clearly they must have decided that I was not good enough. (…) My former coach Mr. D, the Under 18’s coach, gave me a letter which confirmed that I was free to leave the club and could join another side. When I read the letter from him it confirmed to me that I was free and that I could leave the club and join another club for free. I also contacted the League to make sure that I could leave. They subsequently gave me a letter and told me that it was not a problem and that I was free to leave. (…) I have also been shown an article from the website of club X. I categorically deny that that is a quote from myself. The article is a joke. (…) It also appears that club X has stated that I was never offered a contract because they not offer contracts due to their amateur status. This is wrong. Whilst at the club and after I left the club they offered professional contracts to a number of players. It was also never put to me that my departure was due to the rules of the Football Association F. Indeed club X registered new players after I had left on professional contracts (…)”. 20. Moreover, the Respondent submitted a witness statement of its Director, Mr. Y, stating, inter alia, that club S had signed the player based on the assumption that the Respondent would not have to pay any fee or compensation as well as based on the letter dated 15 June 2007. Equally, the Respondent submitted a witness statement of the Academy Manager of the Respondent, Mr. Z, stating that the Respondent would not have signed the player had it been aware that any compensation would be due. 21. Furthermore, the Respondent held that the Claimant did not prove, and would also not be able to prove, that it was not allowed to offer a contract to the player. The Respondent stated that, since the Claimant had a training centre, it is able to offer players a “Contract Aspirant” which “may lead to a professional contract when the player turns 20”. Consequently, the Respondent argued that even if the Claimant could not have offered a professional contract, it could have offered another type of contract (“Contrat Aspirant”, “Federal Contract/Contrat de Formation”). In support of this, the Respondent referred to the CAS award CAS 2004/X/XXX. 22. Equally, the Respondent stated that the Claimant had simply stated that it “wanted to keep” the player, but that it could not provide any evidence in this respect. 23. In addition, the Respondent emphasised that Mr. D, in the letter dated 15 June 2007, bearing the letterhead of the Claimant, described himself as being “responsible” and “authorised”, and that therefore this letter confirmed that the Claimant had concluded that nothing (i.e. no transfer fee and/or training compensation) was payable should any club register the player. 24. Moreover, the Respondent held that, in case the DRC decided to award training compensation to the Claimant, this would be in breach of European Community Law, in particular of the freedom of movement of workers and the rules of competition. 25. As to the disproportionality of the amounts claimed, the Respondent held that the DRC could not simply award training compensation based upon the number of years it considered the player to have been registered with the Claimant, but that it must ensure that it only awards training compensation based upon the number of years of proper and proven training. Equally, the Respondent stated that the Claimant should prove the incurred actual costs for the training of the player. 26. By means of a subsequent submission, the Claimant rejected the arguments raised by the Respondent and reiterated its previous position. In this respect, the Claimant, inter alia, reiterated that it could not offer a professional contract to the player because its training centre was not approved. The Claimant held that, had it been able to offer a professional contract to the player, it would have done so. 27. In its subsequent submission, the Respondent reiterated its previous position and requested to be reimbursed with a sum of 10,000 for the legal fees incurred. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed which procedural rules were applicable to the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 4 June 2008. Consequently, the 2005 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 at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules, edition 2008, in combination with art. 18 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. In continuation, the Chamber analysed which regulations were applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 and art. 29 of the 2005 and 2008 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and considering that the present claim was lodged on 4 June 2008 and that the player was registered with the Respondent on 6 August 2007, the 2005 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) was applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 3. 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 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber was competent to adjudicate on a dispute relating to training compensation between a country F club and a country E club. 4. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that contrary to the information contained in FIFA’s letter dated 20 April 2012 by means of which the parties were informed of the composition of the Chamber, the Chairman, Mr Geoff Thompson (England), refrained from participating in the deliberations in the case at hand, due to the fact that he has the same nationality as the Respondent. Therefore, the Dispute Resolution Chamber adjudicated the case in the presence of four members in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations. 5. 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 and the documentation contained in the file. 6. In this respect, the Chamber took due note that the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA, claiming its proportion of training compensation from the Respondent, based on the alleged first registration of the player with the Respondent. Equally, the Chamber noted that the Claimant stated that, after the player had stayed with it for three seasons, it was satisfied with his development and that it wanted to keep him on the team. 7. Furthermore, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant held that the person who was responsible for a youth team of the Claimant had, without having the authorisation to do so, declared, by means of a letter, that the player was a free agent and therefore free to leave the club. Likewise, the Chamber noted that the Claimant held that also the player himself confessed having used a “trick” in order to leave the Claimant, and it took note of an article of the magazine “…”, submitted by the Clamiant. 8. Moreover, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant held that, after having asked for the original of the aforementioned letter, the Respondent asked for another letter in which the Claimant should have declared that there was no training compensation due. 9. Furthermore, the Chamber took note of the argument of the Claimant that the Respondent allegedly tried to assimilate the expression “free player” to a renouncement of the Claimant to its entitlement to receive training compensation. 10. Likewise, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant held that the obligation to offer a contract was only applicable in cases of professional players and that, in case FIFA was of the opinion that the Claimant would have been obliged to offer a contract to the player, the Claimant had not been in a position to do so, because its training centre had not been approved. 11. In continuation, the Chamber took due note of all the requests for relief of the Respondent. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Respondent did not dispute that the player signed his first professional contract with the Respondent, but that the Claimant had, despite having been obliged to do so, not offered a contract to the player and not displayed any interest in the player and that, consequently, the Claimant was not entitled to training compensation. 12. In this respect, the Chamber furthermore took note of the argument of the Respondent, according to which the Claimant had not proven that it was not allowed to offer a contract to the player and that, even if the Claimant could not have offered a professional contract, it could still have offered another type of contract. 13. Likewise, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent held that the Claimant had, by means of the letter dated 15 June 2007 and signed by Mr. D, waived its right to receive training compensation. In particular, the Chamber took note that the Respondent held that Mr. D had described himself as “responsible” and “authorised” and that therefore, this letter confirmed that club X had concluded that nothing was payable should any club register the player. 14. In this respect, the Chamber also took note of the various witness statements submitted by the Respondent. 15. Moreover, the Chamber duly noted that the Respondent held that the amounts claimed were disproportionate and that any entitlement of the Claimant to receive training compensation would be in breach of the European Community Law. 16. Finally, the Chamber took note that the Respondent requested to be reimbursed with a sum of 10,000 for the legal fees it had allegedly incurred. 17. Bearing in mind all the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue of the present matter was to establish whether any entitlement of the Claimant to receive training compensation had arisen out of the registration of the player with the Respondent. 18. In this respect, the Chamber was of the opinion that, before entering into the discussion as to whether an obligation of the Respondent to pay training compensation to the Claimant indeed existed, it had to be established whether the Claimant had, by means of the letter dated 15 June 2007, renounced to any possible right to receive training compensation. 19. In doing so, the Chamber carefully examined the letter dated 15 June 2007. In this respect, the Chamber noted that this document bore the letterhead of the Claimant, that the person who signed the letter declared himself to be “responsible” of the team of the player and, in particular, that the letter explicitly stated that the player was “authorised (…) to sign (…) in the club of his choice, free of payment”. 20. According to the Chamber, the wording of the aforementioned letter was clear and unambiguous, and it expressed that a third club who would sign the player would not have to make any kind of monetary compensation which, in the case at hand, the Claimant could have possibly requested from the Respondent in connection with the player M, thus also training compensation. 21. In addition, the Chamber considered that, from the perspective of a third club, it can be assumed in good faith that, based on such wording, no payment whatsoever would have to be made for the transfer of the respective player, i.e. neither a payment of a transfer sum, nor of any other compensation, such as training compensation. 22. In this respect, the Chamber also laid particular emphasis on the fact that the person who signed the letter dated 15 June 2007, which bore the Claimant’s letterhead, was employed by the Claimant and that, therefore, the Claimant could be held accountable for actions taken by one of its employees. 23. Therefore, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Claimant had indeed waived its right to claim training compensation from the Respondent. 24. In conclusion and bearing in mind all of the aforementioned, the Chamber decided to reject the claim of the Claimant for training compensation for the captioned player. 25. Finally, as regards the Respondent’s request to be reimburse with an amount of 10,000 for the legal fees it had allegedly incurred, the Chamber referred to art. 15 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which no procedural compensation is awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber The claim of the Claimant, club X, 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