F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) – indennità di formazione – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) – training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 21 September 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Piat (France), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Thilina Panditaratne (Sri Lanka), member on the claim presented by the club, FC P, of Country R, as Claimant against the club, FC H, of Country U as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the player D

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) - indennità di formazione – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) - training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 21 September 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Piat (France), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Thilina Panditaratne (Sri Lanka), member on the claim presented by the club, FC P, of Country R, as Claimant against the club, FC H, of Country U as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the transfer of the player D I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the National Football Federation of Country R (NFF) the player, D (hereinafter: the player), born on xy June 1991, was registered with the Club FC P(hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 1 July 2009 until 31 December 2009 as an amateur. Equally the player passport indicates “no record found” during the period as from 1 January 2010 until 21 February 2010 and that the player was transferred to Country U on 22 February 2010. 2. The sporting season in Country R follows the calendar year. 3. According to a written statement from the Football Federation of Country U (FFU) the player was registered with FC H (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 26 February 2010, as a professional. 4. The FFU confirmed that the Respondent belongs to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year within UEFA). 5. On 29 August 2011, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training compensation for the transfer of the player to the Respondent on 22 February 2010. In particular, the Claimant requested EUR 30,245.92 as training compensation plus an interest rate of 5% p.a. as from “the date when the due amount became outstanding, i.e. since the signature of the first professional contract by the player”, as well as EUR 2,000 as legal fees. 6. In its response to the claim, the Respondent stated that it does not owe any compensation to the Claimant since the latter gave up all such rights in writing on 10 January 2010. In this respect, the Respondent provided a letter sent by the Regional Federation of Country R to the Liga J of Country R dated 9 February 2010 stating that “in reply to your office, we inform you that the amateur player D, born on xy/06/1991, Fiscal number xxxxx was registered with the Football Club P, affiliated to the Liga J of Country R, and he is currently free, but bound to this entity for transfer purposes” (free translation from French to English). 7. Moreover, the Respondent provided a correspondence dated 10 February 2010 signed by the president of the Claimant and declaring that he “was asked to release the player D; ID number: xxxxxxx and Fiscal number: xxxxxx, who can be transferred to the club of his convenience, equally he is freed from any penalties, fines or compensation” (free translation from French to English). 8. In its replica, the Claimant argued that the documents presented by the Respondent had the sole and exclusive purpose of declaring that the player did not had any contract with the Claimant. Furthermore, the Claimant held that the said document cannot in any way be considered as a waiver of rights “because it is not expressed textually in that document and definitely it was not what the club was intended to expressing at that time”. Finally, the Claimant stated that it would never waive its right to receive training compensation because it is only a small amateur club which needs all the possible resources to continue to exist. 9. In its final position, the Respondent pointed out that it only engaged the player because the Respondent had the confirmation of the Claimant that no training compensation or other indemnity would be due. Also, the Respondent stated that “it is crystal clear that the player had no registration at any club prior to coming to [FC H] except for a 6 month period from July 01. to December 31. 2009 when he was registered at [Club P]”. Equally, the Respondent underlined that it “wanted to be sure that there will be no training compensation or other indemnity payable for the 6 month period to the club of Country R (FC P)”. 10. The Respondent added that it refused to sign the player until it received the document dated 10 February 2010, signed by FC P’s President stating “that the player can be engaged by [FC H] free of any indemnity that would otherwise be payable to [FC P]”. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) 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 29 August 2011. Consequently, 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 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 (editions 2009 and 2010), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. Furthermore, 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, taking into consideration that the player was registered with the Respondent on 26 February 2010 as well as the fact that the present claim was lodged on 29 August 2011, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2009 and 2010), the 2009 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the 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 on xy June 1991 and was registered with the Claimant as from 1 July 2009 until 31 December 2009 as an amateur. 6. Moreover, the Chamber noted that the Player was registered with the Respondent on 26 February 2010 as a professional. 7. In continuation, the Chamber took note that on 29 August 2011 the Claimant claimed EUR 30,245.92 as training compensation plus an interest rate of 5% p.a. as from “the date when the due amount became outstanding, i.e. since the signature of the first professional contract by the player”, as well as EUR 2,000 as legal fees. 8. Equally, the Chamber acknowledged that it is undisputed by the parties that the player was registered for the first time as a professional football player by the FFU on 26 February 2010 with the Respondent who, according to the FFU, belonged to category II. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the indicative training costs for a category II club (UEFA) amounts to EUR 60,000. 9. In view of the above, the Chamber reverted to the Regulations and held that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 lit. i of Annexe 4 of said 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 football player before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 10. Furthermore, the Chamber also referred to art. 3 par. 1 and par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, in accordance with which, as a general principle, the club for which the player was registered for the first time as a professional is responsible for paying training compensation to every club with which the player has previously been registered and that has contributed to his training, the aforementioned in accordance with the player’s career history as provided in the player passport. 11. In this respect, the DRC evoked the fact that it was established that the player had been registered for the first time as a professional football player with the Respondent. 12. In continuation, the Chamber reminded that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 30,245.92 since it trained the player as from 1 July 2009 until 31 December 2009, as per the contents of the player passport. 13. Equally, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim and asserted, in the first place, that the Claimant would have given up its right to receive training compensation in writing on 10 January 2010. 14. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Claimant denied having ever waived in any ways its right to claim training compensation in relation with the player and that the documents (cf. point I.6. and I.7.) presented by the Respondent had the sole and exclusive purpose of declaring that the player did not have any contract with the Claimant. 15. In view of the above-mentioned, the Chamber recalled that according to the legal principle of the burden of proof, any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). 16. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent shall carry the burden of proof that the Claimant had waived its right to claim training compensation. As a result, the Chamber turned its attention to the letter sent by the Regional Federation of Country R to the Liga J dated 9 February 2010 (cf. point I.6.). 17. By doing so, the Chamber firstly wished to point out that said document, sent by the Regional Federation of Country R, was apparently only addressed to the Liga J of Country R and not to any other person or entity. Furthermore, the members noted that the letter was not signed by the Claimant. 18. After a careful examination of the contents of said document, and without restating its entire contents, the Chamber noted that the general topic developed therein consisted in informing the Liga J that the player was not contractually bound to the Claimant, but bound to the Claimant in relation to any transfer. 19. In light of the above, the members found that it could not be considered that said statement was a conclusive evidence of the fact that the Claimant would have had indeed waived its right to claim training compensation. 20. As a consequence thereof, the Chamber rejected the Respondent’s argument in this respect. 21. In continuation, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the document presented by the Respondent, which is the correspondence dated 10 February 2010 signed by the president of the Claimant (cf. point I.7.). 22. By doing so, the DRC deemed important to point out that the aforementioned letter does not indicate any addressee. Therefore, it is not clear for what purposes the letter was sent. Moreover, the Chamber refer to the content of said document, by means of which the president of the Claimant wrote that he was asked to release the player, who can be transferred to the club of his convenience, equally he is freed from any penalties fines or compensation. In other words, by means of said correspondence the Claimant’s president stated that the player did not have any contract with the Claimant. 23. In this respect, the Chamber concluded that the content of said correspondence refers to the relationship between the Claimant and the player, i.e. that the player himself is freed from any penalties, fines or compensation and that therefore he can start to look for a new club to be registered for without the prior consent or authorisation from the Claimant. 24. The members hence considered that the letter dated 10 February 2010 could not be interpreted as a waiver for training compensation. 25. In light of all of the above, the members considered that the Respondent had not provided sufficient evidence to support its allegation that the Claimant had waived its right to claim training compensation. 26. Having established that none of the arguments presented by the Respondent were leading to consider that the Claimant would have waived its right to claim training compensation, and bearing in mind that the conditions set in art. 2 par. 1 lit. i of Annexe 4 of the Regulations were met, the Chamber considered that the Respondent was liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 27. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation due to the Claimant by the Respondent, the Chamber referred to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of the Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, as a general rule, it is necessary to take into consideration 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. 28. In this respect, the members acknowledged the fact that the player in question was born on xy June 1991 and had been registered with the Claimant as from 1 July 2009 until 31 December 2009 as an amateur. 29. Additionally, and considering art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of 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 each club, the Chamber concluded that the effective period of time to be considered in the matter at stake corresponds to 6 months. 30. Furthermore, the Chamber took due note that according to the information provided by the FFU the Respondent belonged to the category II. 31. Consequently and taking into account all the above-mentioned elements, the DRC decided that the Claimant was entitled to receive training compensation for the training and education of the player for the period of time as from 1 July 2009 until 31 December 2009, during the season of the player’s 18th birthday, i.e. for 6 months, for an indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year. 32. As a result, the members of the Chamber, taking into consideration all the above as well as art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, concluded that the Claimant is entitled to receive the amount of EUR 30,000 from the Respondent for the training and education of the player. 33. In view of all of the above, the Chamber decided that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and, in this regard, reiterated that the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 30,000 to the Claimant. 34. Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the members of the Chamber decided that the Respondent has to pay interest at 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of the 31st day of the registration of the player with the Respondent, i.e. as of 29 March 2010, until the date of effective payment. 35. With regard to the Claimant’s claim for the reimbursement of legal expenses, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 15 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which clearly stipulates that no procedural compensation is awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Therefore, the members of the Chamber had no other alternative than to reject this part of the claim. 36. 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 CHF 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings. 37. 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. 38. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings amounts to EUR 30,245.92 related to the claim of the Claimant. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 39. Considering that the case at hand did not show particular factual difficulty but, on the other hand a certain legal complexity, the Chamber determined the final amount of costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 3,000. 40. In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the amount of CHF 3,000 has to be paid by the Respondent to cover the costs of the present proceedings. 41. In conclusion, the DRC decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 30,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 29 March 2010 until the date of effective payment to the Claimant for the training and education of the player as well as the amount of CHF 3,000 as procedural costs. 42. Finally, the Chamber concluded its deliberation by deciding that any further claim of the Claimant is rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, FC P, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, FC H, has to pay to the Claimant, FC P, the amount of EUR 30,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 29 March 2010 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision. 3. If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee, for consideration and a formal decision. 4. The final amount of costs of the proceeding in the amount of CHF 3,000 is to be paid by the Respondent, FC H, to FIFA within 30 days of notification of the present decision to the following bank account with reference to case no. [xxxxxxx-xx]: xxxxxx Account number yyyyyyy (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number xxx IBAN: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx SWIFT:yyyyyyyyyyy 5. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, FC P, are rejected. 6. The Claimant, FC P, is directed to inform the Respondent, FC H, 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 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