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 23 January 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Todd Durbin (USA), member Jon Newman (USA), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member on the claim presented by the club, Club N, from country F as Claimant against the club, Club R, from country I as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the player N

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 23 January 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Todd Durbin (USA), member Jon Newman (USA), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member on the claim presented by the club, Club N, from country F as Claimant against the club, Club R, from country I as Respondent regarding a training compensation dispute related to the player N I. Facts of the case 1. The Football Federation of country F (hereinafter: Football Federation of country F) confirmed that the player L (hereinafter: the player), born in 1991, was registered with its affiliated Club N (hereinafter: Claimant) as from 3 July 2006 until 30 June 2007 as an amateur, from 1 July 2007 until 30 June 2008 as an “Aspirant” and from 1 July 2008 until 30 June 2011 as a professional. 2. The football season in country F lasts from 1 July until 30 June of the following year. 3. According to the Football Federation of country I (hereinafter: Football Federation of country I), the player was registered with its affiliated Club R (hereinafter: Respondent) on 4 August 2011 as a professional. 4. The Football Federation of country F confirmed that the Claimant belonged to the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year within UEFA) during the time when the player was registered with it. 5. The Football Federation of country I 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 the club. 6. On 6 October 2011, the Claimant contacted FIFA requesting the training compensation for the transfer of the player to the Respondent for an amount of EUR 450,000. 7. In its reply, the Respondent stated that no training compensation would be due, since the Claimant did not offer the player a new contract in writing via registered post at least 60 day before the expiry of the player’s current contract. 8. In its replica, the Claimant provided the latest employment contract signed between the Claimant and the player dated 16 June 2008 valid until season 2010/2011, which contained the following terms (NB: freely translated from language F): “The player L’s monthly gross salary shall evolve as follows: - 2008-2009: 5,000 Euros gross; - 2009-2010: 6,000 Euros gross; - 2010-2011: 7,000 Euros gross. The player L shall receive an exceptional advance of EUR 30,000 (thirty thousand euros) in the following instalments: - 10,000 Euros on the 1st of July 2008 - 10,000 Euros on the 1st of January 2009 - 10,000 Euros on the 1st of January 2009” 9. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that it offered a contract extension with an augmented salary nine months before the expiration of the contract to the player’s agent via e-mail, in order to extend the contract as of 1 July 2011. In this respect, it provided an email correspondence exchange between the Claimant and the player’s agent as from 9 October 2010. - In the e-mail to the player’s agent, dated 20 October 2010, and also in an official contract offer for the validity of 1 July 2011 until 30 June 2014 and dated 27 October 2010 enclosed, the Claimant proposed: “The player L’s monthly gross salary shall evolve as follows: Should Club N play in Ligue 2 during the season: - 2011-2012: 7,000 Euros gross; - 2012-2013: 8,000 Euros gross; - 2013-2014: 9,000 Euros gross. Should Club N play in Ligue 1 during the season: - 2011-2012: 12,000 Euros gross; - 2012-2013: 13,000 Euros gross; - 2013-2014: 14,000 Euros gross.” - In the player agent’s reply, also via email dated, 27 October 2010, he proposed to the Claimant: “Contract for 3 seasons: Should Club N play in Ligue 2: - 2011-2012: gross salaray of 12,000 Euros - 2012-2013: gross salaray of 15,000 Euros - 2013-2014: gross salaray of 18,000 Euros Should Club N play in Ligue 1 during the season: - 2011-2012: gross salaray of 18,000 Euros - 2012-2013: gross salaray of 23,000 Euros - 2013-2014: gross salaray of 84,000 Euros In case the player participates in 20 or more games in L1 as a starter, he shall receive a bonus of 40,000 euros gross. “ 10. Moreover, the Claimant referred to three DRC decisions which state in respect to the formal obligations of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), that it can be sufficient “if the club which had trained the player has made an offer of contract to the player” or “if the club wanted to continue its cooperation with the player” or “if the club has shown a real desire to keep the player”. 11. Consequently, the Claimant indicated that it was not always absolutely necessary to make an offer in writing via registered post as long as one of the abovementioned requirements was fulfilled. 12. In its final position, the Respondent insisted on the formal requirements stipulated in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, stating that these rules were equally part of the Rules and “not to comply with those rules would lead to a laisser-faire attitude, which would be unacceptable for lawyers and FIFA”. 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 6 October 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. article 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 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations (edition 2009), the Dispute Resolution Chamber was competent to adjudicate on a dispute relating to training compensation between a country F club and an country I club. 3. 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 2008, 2009 and 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and considering that the present claim was lodged on 6 October 2011 and that the player was registered with the Respondent on 4 August 2011, the 2010 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) was 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 and the documentation contained in the file. 5. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the player was registered with the Claimant as an amateur as from 3 July 2006 until 30 June 2007, as an “Aspirant” as from 1 July 2007 until 30 June 2008 and as a professional as from 1 July 2008 until 30 June 2011, and that he was registered with the Respondent as a professional on 4 August 2011. 6. Equally, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, requesting payment of training compensation in the amount of EUR 450,000, based on the alleged transfer of the player to the Respondent and his registration as a professional with the latter. 7. Likewise, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent rejected the claim lodged against it, referring to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, arguing that the Claimant had not fulfilled the conditions laid out in said article in order to be entitled to receive training compensation. In particular, the Chamber noted that the Respondent held that the Claimant had not offered a contract to the player via registered mail. 8. Therefore, the Chamber focussed its attention on the following questions: - Is the Claimant, in principle, entitled to claim training compensation from the Respondent? - In particular, did the Claimant offer a contract to the player in a way which meets the prerequisites of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations? - If so, and if training compensation is due, which is the relevant amount to be paid? 9. At the outset of its deliberations, the Chamber recalled that, according to art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is, inter alia, due when a professional is transferred between clubs of two different associations before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. Likewise, the Chamber underlined that art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations contained special provisions regarding players moving from one Association to another Association inside the territory of the European Union (EU) and/or the European Economic Area (EEA). 10. In this respect, the Chamber noted that it was not disputed by either party that the case at hand involved a professional player being transferred between clubs of two different associations before his 23rd birthday and that therefore, in principle, a payment of training compensation would be due. However, the Chamber also acknowledged that it was undisputed between the parties that art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations was applicable to the present dispute, stipulating additional prerequisites for the entitlement to such compensation. 11. The Chamber subsequently recalled the content of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, according to which no training compensation is payable if the former club does not offer the player a contract, unless the former club can justify that it is entitled to such compensation. In particular, the Chamber noted that, according to the wording of said provision, the former club must offer the player a contract in writing via registered post at least 60 days before the expiry of his current contract and that such an offer shall be at least of an equivalent value to the current contract. 12. The Chamber then took note that the Claimant argued that it offered a contract extension to the player via the player’s agent via email, which would allegedly have been of greater value that the current contract of the player, nine months before the expiration of the player’s latest employment contract. 13. Likewise, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent mainly based its rejection of the claim upon art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. In particular, the Chamber noted that the Respondent argued that the Claimant had not fulfilled the conditions laid out in said article in order to be entitled to receive training compensation. The Chamber took due note of the argumentation of the Respondent, according to which the conditions, as stipulated in said provision of the Regulations, were to be met accurately, and that the Claimant had not offered a contract to the player via registered mail. 14. The Chamber went on to take due note of the Claimant’s statement in response to the above argumentation. The Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant stated that it had offered a contract to the player well in advance of the 60-days deadline, as provided for in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, and that the value of such contract would have exceeded the value of the player’s former contract. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Claimant, in this context, referred to three former decisions of the Dispute Resolution Chamber which state in respect to the formal obligations of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, that it can be sufficient “if the club which had trained the player has made an offer of contract to the player” (DRC 12 January 2006, no. XXXXX) or “if the club wanted to continue its cooperation with the player” (DRC 16 April 2009, no. XXXXX) or “if the club has shown a real desire to keep the player” (DRC 2 November 2007). Equally, the Chamber noted that the Claimant held that the nonfulfilment of these formal prerequisites would not automatically entail the loss of entitlement for training compensation. 15. In this respect, the Chamber considered it crucial to examine whether the Claimant had offered a contract to the player in accordance with the prerequisites of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. In other words, the Chamber deemed it to be the core issue of the case at hand to examine whether the Claimant is entitled to training compensation in the light of the conditions laid out in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 16. Bearing in mind the aforementioned, the Chamber carefully studied the documentation on file, in particular the email-correspondence between the Claimant and the player’s agent, submitted by the Claimant. The Chamber was eager to recall that the validity of these emails was not disputed by the Respondent. 17. From the content of said emails, the Chamber noted that the Claimant was in negotiations with the player via the player’s agent between 9 October 2010 and 15 December 2010. During the course of these negotiations, the Claimant made several contract offers to the player, with a final offer dated 27 October 2010, stipulating that, in case the Claimant should play in Ligue 2 during these seasons, the player’s monthly salary during the season of 2011/2012 should amount to EUR 7,000, which would have increased in the course of the subsequent seasons up to an amount of EUR 9,000 and, should the Claimant play in Ligue 1 during these seasons, the player’s monthly salary should amount to EUR 12,000, increasing up to an amount of EUR 14,000 monthly during the two subsequent seasons. Taking into account that the player’s previous contract with the Claimant provided for a monthly salary of EUR 5,000 increasing up to an amount of EUR 7,000, including the payment of a signing bonus for a total amount of EUR 30,000, the Chamber deemed that the value of the contract offers made to the player exceeded the remuneration based on the player’s previous contract. 18. Likewise, the Chamber remarked that the first email of the Claimant containing an offer of a contract, sent to the player, was dated 27 October 2010. In other words, such offer was made more than 60 days before the expiry of the player’s former contract (which was valid until the season 2010/2011, i.e. 30 June 2011). 19. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that three of the conditions, as stipulated in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations (cf. above point 15.), i.e. that there had to be an offer of a contract, that such a contract offer had to be made at least 60 days before the expiry of the previous contract and that the respective offer had to be at least of an equivalent value as the current contract of the player, were fulfilled. 20. In connection with the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the main argument of the Respondent, that the Claimant’s contract offer to the player was not made via registered post as stipulated in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 21. In this context, the Chamber deemed it to be undisputed between the parties that this formal prerequisite, per se, was not fulfilled, since the aforementioned contract offers were transmitted by means of email correspondence. The Chamber noted that the parties disagreed over the legal consequences thereof. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant argued that it was, notwithstanding the above, entitled to training compensation, while the Respondent held that the non-fulfilment of the aforementioned formal prerequisite led to the Claimant not being entitled to such compensation. 22. Bearing in mind the above, the Chamber went on to establish the legal consequences of the fact that there was a contract offer which was made more than 60 days before the expiry of the player’s current contract and which was of greater value than the current contract, but which did not meet the formal prerequisites of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, since it was not made via registered mail. 23. In this respect, the Chamber carefully examined both the wording and the ratio legis of the aforementioned formal prerequisite, as well as the argumentation submitted by both parties. In this regard, the Chamber considered that a strict adherence to the wording of said article may, at first glance, indicate that a club shall not be entitled to training compensation in case it does not strictly fulfil the stipulated formal requirements. However, the Chamber was of the opinion that it is rather the ratio legis of the formal prerequisite which provides for a comprehensive answer to the question at hand. 24. In this respect, the Chamber considered that the requirement that a contract offer shall be made “in writing via registered post” was established with the aim of facilitating the proof of a club to demonstrate that it had, indeed, made a contract offer to a player and that it was, therefore, entitled to training compensation. E contrario, the Chamber concluded that a club, which does not meet said prerequisite, is not automatically prevented from claiming training compensation. The Chamber equally based this appreciation on the first sentence of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations which provides for the possibility that a club, even if it does not offer a contract to a player, is generally granted the possibility to “justify that it is entitled to [training compensation]”. 25. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the fact that the Claimant did not offer a contract in writing and via registered mail did not per se exclude the Claimant from claiming training compensation. The Chamber was, however, eager to highlight that the Claimant, therefore, had to justify that it was entitled to such compensation. Equally, the Chamber recalled that, according to the principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, any party claiming a right from an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. 26. On account of the above, the Chamber went on to examine whether the Claimant had provided sufficient proof as regards the latter’s justification to claim training compensation. The Chamber considered that such justification can, in general, be manifested by a club by displaying a bona fide interest in keeping the player in question in its team and by showing a proactive attitude vis-à-vis the respective player, so as to clearly manifest that the club intends to count on the player for the future. 27. To establish whether the Claimant had demonstrated such an interest and attitude, the Chamber carefully studied the documentation on file. First of all, it turned its attention on the extensive email-exchange on file. In general, the Chamber was of the opinion that the statements made therein by the Claimant and the apparent representative of the player (i.e. the player’s agent), constituted typical contract negotiations of a club and a player, with the former being interested in concluding a new employment contract and the latter seeking to achieve the most favourable financial conditions possible. In particular, the Chamber noted that the Claimant, between 9 October 2010 and 15 December 2010, transmitted numerous contract offers and contract proposals to the player’s agent, each time with augmented salaries and possible bonus payments for the player. In particular, the Chamber noted that the Claimant in an email to the player’s agent on 9 November 2010, offered a bonus payment of EUR 20,000 to the player, should he participate in at least 20 league matches in the country F Ligue 1, payable on 30 September of the following season. The Chamber also took note that the player’s agent, by means of an email dated 17 January 2012, acknowledged that he had taken note of the club’s offers, stating that him and the player “have agreed on a certain number of points and stipulations”, and that “there are still some details to be dealt with in order to find an agreement”. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to an email exchange between the Claimant and the player’s agent, dated 12 and 13 December 2010, in which the Claimant and the player’s agent agreed upon meeting in the player agent’s office in country F to continue the contractual negotiations. 28. On account of the above, the Chamber was convinced that the Claimant had in fact displayed a bona fide and genuine interest in keeping the player, by making, in the course of evident contractual negotiations, several offers with constantly increasing financial conditions. The Chamber considered that the proof submitted by the Claimant was convincing and sufficient in the light of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and bearing in mind the Jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (e.g. DRC 30 November 2007, no. XXXXX; DRC 18 June 2009, no. XXXXX; DRC 10 August 2011, no. XXXXXX) and of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (e.g. CAS 2006/X/XXXX). 29. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Claimant could justify its entitlement to training compensation, in accordance with the first sentence of art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent, based on the international transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent. 30. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber went on to calculate the amount of training compensation due. 31. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber referred to art. 5 par. 1 and par. 2 as well as art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulate, inter alia, that, as a general rule, to calculate the training compensation due to a player’s former club, it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself. 32. In addition, the Chamber duly noted that, according to the documentation on file, which was never disputed by the Respondent, it could be established that the season in country F runs from 1 July until 30 June of the following year, the player had been registered with the Respondent on 4 August 2011, that the Respondent and the Claimant belonged to the category I and that the player, born in January 1991, was registered with the Claimant as from 3 July 2006 until 30 June 2011, (i.e. during a period of 60 months during the seasons of the player’s 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th birthday). 33. As a result, taking into consideration all the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 450,000 to the Claimant for the training and education of the player. 34. In view of the above, the Chamber decided to accept the Claimant’s claim and to award him an amount of training compensation of EUR 450,000. 35. Lastly, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Chamber, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25’000 are levied. The relevant provision further states that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings (cf. art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules). 36. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been accepted, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 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. On that basis, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 450,000, based on the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 39. Considering that the case at hand and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been accepted as well as the complexity of the case, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 20,000. 40. In this respect, the Chamber took into account that the Claimant had paid the advance of costs in the amount of currency of country H 5,000 in accordance with art. 17 of the Procedural Rules. 41. In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the amount of currency of country H 20,000 has to be paid by the Respondent to cover the costs of the present proceedings. Thereof, the amount of currency of country H 15,000 has to be paid by the Respondent to FIFA and the amount of currency of country H 5,000 directly to the Claimant. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club N, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club R, has to pay to the Claimant, Club N, the amount of EUR 450,000, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision. 3. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and decision. 4. The final amount of costs of the proceedings amounting to currency of country H 20,000 is to be paid by the Respondent, Club R, as follows: 5.1. The amount of currency of country H 15,000 has to be paid within 30 days of notification of the present decision to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. XX-XXXXX: 5.2. The amount of currency of country H 5,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant, Club N. 6. The Claimant, Club N, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club R, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are 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